Damn someone got pretty salty, they should call you Bill Crye.
not going to watch the vid because it seems reactionary, but there's not even a point in having the argument if the two sides can't agree on the difference between sex & gender.
how many shades of blue are there? I'm not sure, but there's more than "light blue" and "dark blue"
I don't want to watch the video, can someone tl;dw it for me?
There are 50+ genders and if you disagree you are literally worse than Hitler. END OF ARGUMENT.
Just waaaaaaatch.
C'mon Melo, work with me here. Two totally different things.
These are socially constructed though, so arguing about how real or valid they -- or alternatives to them -- are is a weird game.
They're not really. There's a near 100% correlation between biological sex and gender expression
I don't want to watch the video, can someone tl;dw it for me?
Unfernal_Server posted...
These are socially constructed though, so arguing about how real or valid they -- or alternatives to them -- are is a weird game.
They're not really. There's a near 100% correlation between biological sex and gender expression, and there's major cross cultural overlap between the form those expressions take. Now, I'm not talking about obvious social constructs like Pink for Girls - but when you have the dichotomy of Disposable Agent and Valuable Object playing out across time and space and when our own physical sexual dimorphism tends to make certain roles patently more efficient to distribute across lines of biological sex (thus creating defacto gender roles), it becomes hard to argue that gender is a social construct.
I think at best there's a two-way relationship between biology and social construction: it could well be that the reason we're such a dimorphic species had to do with choices made by our ancestors that were largely arbitrary, and that there was a chance of us going the way of the Hyena with having much bigger much stronger females compared to males. I think we'd both agree that we'd have very different social constructs if that had happened, but that only points to how strongly biology informs those constructs.
There's only one gender. The human gender bro
Of course, just to play Devil's Advocate (my favourite game): If you define gender as a "combination of idiosyncratic social traits", then you can indeed have a spectrum... a TESTABLE one at that.
Lokarin posted...
Of course, just to play Devil's Advocate (my favourite game): If you define gender as a "combination of idiosyncratic social traits", then you can indeed have a spectrum... a TESTABLE one at that.
Yeah, I suppose. But the prevailing traits can also be used in test form to earn a score as being one or another based on the selections. If you do a quiz about cultural questions, you don't invent a new culture by picking different traits from a few, you relate to the one chosen most frequently.
TheCyborgNinja posted...
Lokarin posted...
Of course, just to play Devil's Advocate (my favourite game): If you define gender as a "combination of idiosyncratic social traits", then you can indeed have a spectrum... a TESTABLE one at that.
Yeah, I suppose. But the prevailing traits can also be used in test form to earn a score as being one or another based on the selections. If you do a quiz about cultural questions, you don't invent a new culture by picking different traits from a few, you relate to the one chosen most frequently.
If multiple scores can results in the same result, you've just established a smaller spectrum though.
Damn someone got pretty salty, they should call you Bill Crye.
Uh, I mean being white is also a social construction... I'm praying that isn't a controversial statement...
Unfernal_Server posted...
Uh, I mean being white is also a social construction... I'm praying that isn't a controversial statement...
There are genetic traits making them unique, not some preferences, so that's not accurate. It's like saying a pit bull and a chihuahua are the same thing because they're dogs and far enough back shared a common ancestor.
TheCyborgNinja posted...
Unfernal_Server posted...
Uh, I mean being white is also a social construction... I'm praying that isn't a controversial statement...
There are genetic traits making them unique, not some preferences, so that's not accurate. It's like saying a pit bull and a chihuahua are the same thing because they're dogs and far enough back shared a common ancestor.
If there are unique traits it's an arbitrary grouping. In reality if you look white you're considered white in society. It doesn't have a basis in science.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you sure you're not saying there's near 100% correlation between biological sex and gender prescription?
I'd argue that there's not anywhere close that number of correlation between biological sex and the occupation of the archetypal male role.
Just because there tends to be two genders for each sex cross culturally doesn't mean there are only two genders because each culture has its own definition of what is socially male or female.
I swear most of the resistance to discussions about gender, biology and social constructs come from dudes who saw a teenager on reddit say they use moon pronouns or something and have never been able to get over it. There's a reason people bring up examples like that, or someone who says they have nine genders: it's a distraction from actually addressing gender rolls and androgyny and how they fit into our society.
I get where you're coming from, believe me, especially with the framework you laid out about there being three valid categories (male, female and neutral). I don't necessarily share that view 100%, but I lean towards the same idea that it could all be said to be virtual or arbitrary ( for me this comes from the social construction of gender ).
only 2.
get over it
Unfernal_Server posted...
I'd argue that there's not anywhere close that number of correlation between biological sex and the occupation of the archetypal male role.
Can you elaborate on why you'd argue that? Like I said, in the face of biological realities I feel that's not a tennable position to take. You have to give me a non-biological explanation for the prevalence of Disposable Agent and Valuable Object social constructs, why this construct has persisted throughout time across all cultures, including cultures that have had no contact with each other, and explain how our biology coincidentally makes this the path of least resistance along which any human society could arrange itself, while still holding that it's overwhelmingly a social construct and not simply a matter of biological expediency.
I'm open to the idea.
But like I said, I feel that's difficult to argue.
Dmitri, an f2m, is also very attractive