Poll of the Day > How many genders are there?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnQbgShb6r8

Blaire White, a transwomen, will teach you if you're unsure.

Damn someone got pretty salty, they should call you Bill Crye.
---

Blighboy posted...

Damn someone got pretty salty, they should call you Bill Crye.

Not at all, Bligh. Just bored.

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.
---

Dmitri, an f2m, is also very attractive
---

how many shades of blue are there? I'm not sure, but there's more than "light blue" and "dark blue"
---

Unfernal_Server posted...

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.

Give it a watch. I've listened to your side, now listen to mine, eh?

MrMelodramatic posted...

how many shades of blue are there? I'm not sure, but there's more than "light blue" and "dark blue"

C'mon Melo, work with me here. Two totally different things.

I don't want to watch the video, can someone tl;dw it for me?
---

e
---

There are 50+ genders and if you disagree you are literally worse than Hitler. END OF ARGUMENT.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

I don't want to watch the video, can someone tl;dw it for me?

Just waaaaaaatch.

joemodda posted...

There are 50+ genders and if you disagree you are literally worse than Hitler. END OF ARGUMENT.

Pretty much.

IAmNowGone posted...

Just waaaaaaatch.

I made it through until about 7 seconds in when the camera zoomed in all dramatically on her face and then it cut again.

I can't stand today's youtube video formulas.
---

IAmNowGone posted...

C'mon Melo, work with me here. Two totally different things.

I watched her video for about a minute, but if her whole argument is based on gender not being a social construct, then her whole argument is based on something incorrect.
---

Just a preface, I don't care much about or feel inclined to defend the gender-word-vomit teens on tumblr or reactionary conservatives usually bring up. I'm not going to argue if genderfluid has a basis in biology, or if someone's usage of ze pronouns has a basis in STEMlord reality. These topics I believe are a distraction from the actual topic at hand, how much of gender is a social construct?

From my perspective, the answer is nearly all of it. I think she does an okay job in the video of explaining how things like clothing, grooming and general presentation are socially constructed expectations. Society expects biological males to dress and act a certain way, but these expectations are almost entirely disconnected from biology. These expectations and performances are reproduced, and occasionally renewed through culture and child rearing.The difference between sex and gender can be seen in the rejection or subversion of these roles and expectations.

Are there two genders? This question generally isn't defined well enough to even answer. In most societies there are two expectations or gender rolls. One masculine, expected of biological males, and one feminine, expected of biological females. I don't think the fact that most societies have two gender rolls supported by culture and tradition actually means "there are two genders", it just means that in a given location there are two gender (rolls) that are commonly recognized.

When we start to talk about someone's personal presentation and performance, we're talking about their gender in relation to these loosely defined archetypes. Someone's presentation might mostly fit in with what their society thinks a man acts and looks like, but they might have quirks that fly completely in the face of those expectations. From this performance perspective I think that it's common that an individual's presentation will fall somewhere near one archetype or another, but their actual performance is going to be a unique thing when you compare it to someone else's. I think these ideas aren't really radical, but there's anti-intellectual strain in society that get's really pissed when you start talking about things like this.

In short, yeah, in most societies you have two gender rolls. These are socially constructed though, so arguing about how real or valid they -- or alternatives to them -- are is a weird game.
---

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

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

They're not really. There's a near 100% correlation between biological sex and gender expression

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. Sure, in our society most people are able to tell if you're biologically male or not, and thus have the first impression of you as the associated gender roll, but I think that is different than someone actually performing the role.
---

i identify as an attack copter
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

I don't want to watch the video, can someone tl;dw it for me?

She's the "trans best friend" transphobic people love because she hates other trans people, and they can then put her on a pedestal as "proof" that they don't hate trans people. Not worth watching her videos.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

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.

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. Claiming that there are only two genders is to basically decide that one culture has the more correct idea of what is feminine and masculine while the rest do not. Not to mention cultures do exist where there are people who identify as both female and male or neither male or female. This isn't exactly a 21st century idea.
---

^i agree, and these differences between what it means to be man or woman in one society versus another undermines the authority of any one society to declare an absolute link between sex and gender.
---

Maybe people feel like they have 9 genders at once because obesity, a diet of greasy pizza and ice cream, sitting behind an lcd screen until 6 am, and socially isolating yourself from real friendships isn't good for mental health, on top of whatever trauma people started with

I have no clue what it's like to be gender dysphoric I'll admit.. but I have been taken advantage of by group ideologies before and I know what the placebo effect is. I've literally seen a woman orgasm in church worked up over Jesus. Fool me once.

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.
---

OhhhJa posted...

There's only one gender. The human gender bro

Deep

Genders are all made up anyway. Deviation from "normal" doesn't automatically equal something new. If you're a straight guy who puts on dresses, you didn't invent anything. You're just a straight guy who puts on dresses. People will always identify more with typical male or female standards, that's how all this began. If they don't, they are neutral, I guess.

So there are three groups that I personally consider valid (IE: my opinion, before somebody gets butthurt and tries to impose their will on me because I crushed their dreams of having a four adjective moniker). It's just a bunch of entitled youths born in the '90s or later that must be unique. It's like watching the South Park goth kids call everyone a conformist, but in reverse. Not being a carbon copy of a standard gender definition doesn't mean you don't relate to it. It's more one-size-fits-all, not tailor-made.
---

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.
---

I don't know how androgyny has anything to do with society.

In what real life application would an androgynous male have to specify where he is on the "gender spectrum"? Gays have a thing because they let other gays know they're gay. LGB and Transexual. All useful labels.

The gender spectrum thing just screams "I'm important pay attention to me". Seems about as relevant as people's exact favorite color on a color wheel. Don't forget the alpha channel!

I'm a favorite half-purple { 255, 0, 60, 128 } and I use the pronoun Hpur. How are FGre doing today?

Back then, we had tomboys that were more masculine females.

But they didnt let that make up their entire identity, they were just girls who enjoyed doing more manly things, it didnt mean they were another gender.
---

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.
---

Unfernal_Server posted...

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.

Not if you're in group A or group B. It just means nobody is the same. You can be a white person if your hair is brown, blond, or red. You're not some other, new thing. We aren't robots, natural variation exists, but one little thing doesn't mean you're not part of the group anymore.
---

Uh, I mean being white is also a social construction... I'm praying that isn't a controversial statement...
---

Blighboy posted...

Damn someone got pretty salty, they should call you Bill Crye.

Bill Crye the Salty Guy.
---

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.
---

1
---

---

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.
---

---

Unfernal_Server posted...

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.

That's fair enough, I'll concede you have a good point, but the science still exists if it comes down to whether or not ethnic backgrounds are unique from one another. "Things I like" and "what I am" have been muddied into the same thing now though. People can't tell the difference.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

Lol

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 ).
---

A different gender for each person, because we're all different and special from each other.
---

Unfernal_Server posted...

Can you elaborate on this? Are you sure you're not saying there's near 100% correlation between biological sex and gender prescription?

Sure thing.

To clarify, I'm saying is that almost everyone is "cis-gendered", that is, they conform to their biological sex assigned at birth, and that's fine for them. They never question it, and never feel the need to.

But that says nothing about their behavior in society, their attitudes, their preferences, so I'll get to that.

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.

chaosbowser posted...

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.

So again, it's a coincidence that something like, say, warrior codes, and warrior culture is overwhelmingly male gendered, and our biology just happens to be along for the ride, producing males that are overwhelmingly stronger on average than females.

I'm not talking about who wears pants and who doesn't. I'm talking about who mines the coal, and who looks after the kids. Males and females can both do it, not suggesting otherwise, but there's a clear biological basis to put one in a certain role over another, and it's basically impossible for that not to inform how our society gets arranged. It would thus have a huge impact on our social constructs, much more so than the other way around.

Unfernal_Server posted...

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 tend to agree with this.
---

only 2.

get over it
---

Unfernal_Server posted...

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 ).

Exactly. Society was built upon certain norms, that's not the case now, and it has become confusing.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

only 2.

get over it

thank u

There is only one gender, and it is Gamer.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

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.

I'm not sure I agree that there was an ultimate prevalence of DA and VO in all cultures, but if we take for granted that it was common in the ancient world, I don't think we can say for certain that it gives us an enlightened view of biology. I think it's possible to understand it as one of many possible methods that our species arranged itself in the face of a material world with harsh conditions. I'm just not sure our views here are incompatible.
---

Lokarin posted...

Dmitri, an f2m, is also very attractive

do you mean Derrick, and am I once again the only one who knows what you're talking about?
---