Gender is not a social construct

Recommended Videos

Rosiv

New member
Oct 17, 2012
370
0
0
I don't know if gender is a social construct or not,i mean the definition of social construct is kind of hard to pin down. Something that is defined by people / history i guess would be a type of definition, such as money or names. I mean, how do you even go about proving that gender is a social construct?
Maybe their is some biological component we don't know about yet, and then i guess the question is, which do we have more evidence for, a biological reason or a social reason. Heck I don't know why it even matters, making gender a social construct does not make trans people any less of their desired genders, nor does it anyone. Maybe it's just an attempt by some trans-people to make their status seem intrinsic, and therefore, incontestable by the public.
Either way, even if there was proof for gender being biological, i still think people wouldn't accept trans-people as who they really were, simply out of tradition. I mean, we don't have any evidence what homosexuality is concretely, yet they are still marginalized.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Darken12 said:
The David Reimer case is held as a support of gender constructs as a biological thing, but it suffers from a very, very glaring fact: a child raised as female without hormonal replacement therapy will never develop female secondary sexual characteristics, and even a child raised as male but with no testicles will also never develop male secondary sexual characteristics (which is the entire point of castrati). Without developing secondary sexual characteristics in a society that is rigidly divided into binary gender constructs, depression is almost a foregone conclusion. David Reimer wasn't depressed because he somehow knew he was originally male, he was depressed because his body didn't comply with the rigid standards of neither masculinity nor femininity, and had no sexual hormones to speak of, and therefore he was instantly Othered by society. This is very, very common with intersex patients.

Gender constructs are arbitrary, but they are built upon biological factors (on purpose, to lend legitimacy to the whole idea), and as such they are extremely hard to change or destroy. Sex is what is biological. Gender is all the things we pile on top of sexual characteristics, and all the harmful social baggage we associate to the sexes.
The David Reimer wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer#In_popular_culture

Reimer did receive hormone injections, he received estrogen, and he did develop secondary sexual characteristics (when he decided he wanted to be male, he got a double mastectomy).

That being said, he had an extraordinarily screwed up childhood, but I'd certainly never presume to tell someone why they're depressed. That's for them to decide.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
The David Reimer wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer#In_popular_culture

Reimer did receive hormone injections, he received estrogen, and he did develop secondary sexual characteristics (when he decided he wanted to be male, he got a double mastectomy).

That being said, he had an extraordinarily screwed up childhood, but I'd certainly never presume to tell someone why they're depressed. That's for them to decide.
A few oestrogen shots are not full hormone replacement therapy, but I will admit I should have added a "probably" or a "possibly" before my categorical assertion of why he was depressed.
 

Jenvas1306

New member
May 1, 2012
446
0
0
That case of David Reimer just makes me sad. Its bad enough if nature does that to you, but being artificially made a transsexual? thats just horrible.
Btw, while gender isnt set by chromosomes, it seems gets 'wired' at some point of a brains development. Usually that wiring is aimed to fit the biological sex, but it obviously applies in many different variations.
For sex we have male and female and then some exceptions to that, but for gender we got all sorts and mixes of male and female traits and our society would to better if all of them were allowed and not opressed by reinforcing certain gender tendencies into the absurd.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Darken12 said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
The David Reimer wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer#In_popular_culture

Reimer did receive hormone injections, he received estrogen, and he did develop secondary sexual characteristics (when he decided he wanted to be male, he got a double mastectomy).

That being said, he had an extraordinarily screwed up childhood, but I'd certainly never presume to tell someone why they're depressed. That's for them to decide.
A few oestrogen shots are not full hormone replacement therapy, but I will admit I should have added a "probably" or a "possibly" before my categorical assertion of why he was depressed.
You have detailed medical files on the amount of hormone injections he received? Whatever it was, it was enough that he needed a double masectomy at age 13.

Also, BBC did a documentary on the case some years ago (after David killed himself), in interviews, he said that he never felt like a girl, even when he was very young and secondary sexual characteristics wouldn't even be a factor. He also said that, despite his parent's best efforts, he hated dresses, wanted to play with "boy's toys", and felt relieved when they finally told him he'd actually been born male because he thought he'd been going crazy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_trans.shtml
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
You have detailed medical files on the amount of hormone injections he received? Whatever it was, it was enough that he needed a double masectomy at age 13.
No, obviously, but there also isn't enough evidence to suggest full hormone replacement therapy. Also, breasts are a terrible measure of a woman's endocrine status, considering that they are highly sensitive to even low levels of oestrogens, to the point where breast cancer patients often are recommended to take anti-oestrogens to prevent unwanted hormonal stimulation on any remaining tumorous cells.

Ihateregistering1 said:
Also, BBC did a documentary on the case some years ago (after David killed himself), in interviews, he said that he never felt like a girl, even when he was very young and secondary sexual characteristics wouldn't even be a factor. He also said that, despite his parent's best efforts, he hated dresses, wanted to play with "boy's toys", and felt relieved when they finally told him he'd actually been born male because he thought he'd been going crazy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_trans.shtml
I don't trust the neutrality, veracity or implications of that documentary, sorry. I'm sure that if I had access to the same sources, I could construct a documentary biased in the opposite direction.
 

Relish in Chaos

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,660
0
0
Headdrivehardscrew said:
Relish in Chaos said:
Also, I have a question. If a third gender and/or sex exists in some societies, what is it? I always considered "intersex" as something that just happened to fall in between male and female (as shown in the diagram above), rather than a new sex altogether. I mean, if that was the case, we'd have to consider "androgyny" another gender in and of itself.

Then again...we consider bisexual a seperate sexuality, and you could argue that, similarly (or not) to "intersex", it just happens to fall in between heterosexual and bisexual. But, as has been reinforced many times by experts, gender and sexuality are distinctly different concepts. And androgyny, in particular, is specifically a combination of masculinity and femininity, rather than gender neutrality (or, lack thereof, of gender = agender) - hence "andro" (male) + "gyne/gyno" (female) = "androgyne/androgyny".
There's this political spiel going on that pretty much rapes language and ruins people's brains with all sorts of politically correct drek that isn't quite scientific or anywhere near properly worked out or otherwise useful for anything other than to promote a certain way of thinking. At best, it empowers individuals that would otherwise fall through the grid, give up and die; at worst, it enables horrible cuntmuffins into acting as spokespeople for folks that would actually prefer to think and speak and act for themselves.

I am not sure where you're going (or coming from) with your 'third sex/gender' (AAAH MY LANGUAGE!!! IT HURTS ME BRAIN!) question, but, if sincere, I'll gladly add my tuppence.

In a number of cultures all around the world, the 'third sex' label is being slapped mostly on men acting like women and choosing to live as women. Most of the time it's really just effeminate men that, for whatever - personal, psychological or whatever - reason, choose to live their lives as women. Then there is this particular school of superficial thought that either outright rejects anything outside societal/cultural norms and just throws pretty much anything in the '3rd sex' drawer. It mostly contains effeminate males, but 'gay' and 'transwhatever' also get thrown in there, as the host culture does plain not care about scientific or politically exploitable facts, and it also does not care about the individuals in question. Public stances on this subject are usually openly hostile, but in the cover of the night, every freak gets a lot of attention, be that of a sexual or violent nature. It's pretty random, really. In India, you got the hijra, which might contain individuals with 'differently' appearing genitalia (i. e. intersexed conditions), or they might start out as perfectly healthy boys that then get their junk cut off in an 'initiation rite'. Last time I checked hijras tend not to live much of the good live, living off prostitution (pardon me, 'sex work') or superstitions to pay their bills. "Give me de monies or I'll show you my mutilated junk, bringing years of bad luck to you and all your loved ones!" sort of something along those lines, methinks.

We've been fiddling with plants and drosophila fruitcake flies for a while now, but that doesn't serve us much when addressing the very same fascinating subject with mammals (which includes us). X0 humans and mammals are usually females with ovaries, uterus and oviducts all in place, but generally no (or very little) eggs to make dem babies. XO drosophila will turn out as sterile males, which is a shitty and useless life, I hear. Still, we're engineering the crap out of them little buggers. It's of little to no use to us, since there are no sex hormones in insects. Yeah, I know. Bummer, that.

In our enlightened and evolved cultures, somewhat aesthetically pleasing individuals like Andrej Pejic can earn good money while looking all pretty made up, but, alas, it also allows them to spread stupidity and nonsense. I don't mind if he gets laid or what makes him happy, I think he's a fascinating creature. His views on communism, however, are ignorant at best and BOOMSHAKALAKA 'splosive at worst. Technically speaking, he's quite probably the most successful transvestite of our times. Most transvestites, though, are sexual deviants, some of them just desperate in getting it on and being happy, others are scary beasts. I don't care much what the LGBT crowd thinks on these issues, as long as it's not posing as scientific and as long as they don't mess with the DSM or the ICD, I am a happy camp camper.

Then there's God's special places on Earth, like Iran. Iran claims to have no gays, which is, of course, ludicrous. Based on way backwards (ever so slightly modified) Sharia law, males can (and will) get hanged from cranes or bridges, which is quite an evolution since I believe to remember it used to be just behadings, stabbings, stonings or having walls toppled on top of them. The non-existant gay men are supposedly allowed to 'become women', but I have severe issues taking anything uttered from behind or within a beard of war at face value or for granted. Since I have no first person experience on that one, and no matter what source for information you manage to open up, there's a lot of looney beard talk in just about no time at all. Funky all the way.

Then there's the actual intersex condition, which, from what I can gather, is generally not much fun at all. Think of an organism being indecisive on a cellular level, with some cells opting for the male route while others merrily remain female. Oh, yes, just in case you don't know this one already: Basically, we all start out being female, with the XY bunch of us mutating into hairy male manbeasts. That's very basic, but it tends to stick with people and their funny brains.

And that's just the very basic set of XX and XY, excluding the variety of things that can go wrong at that stage already. There's a number of things that can go wrong from the very beginning. And, yes, mutations in this bit are 'wrong', as they tend to come with a wide range of issues, infertility being the least harsh, all before judgement from outside is even considered. Go figure.

Then there's the phenomenon of little girls suddenly popping out balls and mutating into men at the onset of puberty. Yeah, that's not a surprise that goes well for most of the people involved. Less civilized societies can always resort to magic and miracles for weird ass stuff like that, and they seem to be coping nicely. Our more... complicated societies tend to mess with things and people and their heads until all our heads explode and everything turns to shit.

Then there's 'fake' girls which are absolutely XY, but they suffer from being 'immune' to their own man juice. So, that would be a proper 'man trapped in a woman's body' right there. But since we lug around those big brains of ours, a lot of how these things play out depends solely on a) loving people with brains around, b) professionals with hearts around and c)actually bothering with and taking care to raise the kid and provide for, not just selling its ass for the freak value - here's looking at you, India, China and plenty more countries, regions and places crawling with the pest that is the human race.

Most dogs we (want to) perceive as 'gay' are just following very primal urges. They don't think about it, as in 'at all'. There's no bigger plan. Just stick it into something or rub it against something until the urge goes away for a little while. I love dogs, but we, our societies and our brains don't quite work the same way. There are minor similarities we can exploit for better interaction and usefulness to each other, but a gay wolf would either just get expelled, shunned, ignored, killed or die happily after a fulfilled life with no directly genetically related offspring. For pretty much any organism, that is a real bummer and a problem. For us big-brainers, we can always live decent lives and try to adapt and adopt some other little human, in the hopes of raising it in the image of whatever happens to float around in our brain. Whatever floats our boat.

Hey. Stop wanking. I'm trying to contribute here.
Hmm. That was a really interesting read. Some of that stuff I already knew, but the rest was quite new to me.

evilthecat said:
Numerous problems with this.

Firstly, saying "gender isn't a social construct" is a contradiction in terms. If you want to invent new terminology, then fine, but don't expect anyone else to agree.
I always thought gender was described by professionals as the mental analogue of sex, but the jury was still out on it because of potential societal influences and whatnot. But I guess I was wrong.

Relish in Chaos said:
Anyway, I think this "experiment" essentially proves..
It proves nothing.

Dr. Money sexually abused Reimer because of his bizarre idea that being a girl meant his patient had to want to be passively receptive to boys. Also, Reimer was completely aware that he wasn't a normal girl, because at one point he had to urinate through a surgically constructed hole in his abdomen, and also because Money kept telling him, kept turning this slightly revolting brand of femininity into this overwhelming pressure which Reimer (quite naturally given what was being done to him) openly resented..

David Reimer said:
Doctor said "it's gonna be tough, you're gonna be picked on, you're gonna be very alone, you're not going to find anybody (unless you have vaginal surgery and live as a female)" And I thought to myself, you know I wasn't very old at the time, but it dawned on me that these people gotta be pretty shallow if that's the only thing they think I've got going for me ... If that's all they think of me, that they justify my worth by what I have between my legs, then I gotta be a complete loser.
Words to live by, if any were spoken..

I know people get obsessed over that case, but really.. I think most are just seeing what they want to see. It's nice to be told things you think you already know about yourself, even when it's a blatant lie.

We do have numerous examples of people who actually do grow up with "male brains" in female bodies, in the form of women with total androgen insensitivity syndrome, almost all of whom continue to identify socially as heterosexual women after their condition is revealed. It's very, very obvious that whatever differences do exist between male and female brains don't correspond to an understanding of gender identity. That is produced by socialization.

I'm glad that the controversy around David Reimer reduced the use of sex reassignment on intersexed children and those with genital injuries, but really.. people read way too much into the case. Money's methods were monstrous in retrospect, but at a time when medical professionals generally still believed therapy could cure homosexuality they probably made a degree of sense.[/quote]

Food for thought indeed. Although, I?m not sure whether or not you misunderstood my point. I?m not denying that David Reimer was indeed a male from birth. But despite the fact that he was raised as a girl and told that he was a girl, he still had a male brain and previously had 100% natural male genitalia that was subsequently butchered in a botched circumcision and reinvented as a vagina in ill-advised SRS.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Relish in Chaos said:
**snip Genderbread Man**
**saves Genderbread person .jpg to harddrive**

You know, I came to this thread all ready to be offended and instead read a wonderful and thoughtful OP. Good stuff! I should have known as soon as I saw who posted it. ^^

Relish in Chaos said:
EDIT: If you want to know what I am, I'm a cisgendered, gynosexual (as in, I'm attracted to femininity, regardless of their underlying genitalia) male. I guess I'm fairly masculine in my behaviour and thought processes (for one, most of my friends are male), but I don't really take any effort in asserting any kind of identity. I'm one of those people that could, but don't have the motivation to do so (e.g. picking a different hairstyle, experimenting with crossdressing).
Neat! Good to know.

I like the use of gynosexual particularly - that you are attracted to femininity regardless of the person's physical sex. That is a really useful term that states the exact flavor of bisexual that you happen to be. I'm usually not for splitting hairs in these things, but such a term actually tells the person something. If you just said bisexual, a very masculine man might hit on you and be surprised by your refusal. With gynosexual, it is clear that you're looking for someone feminine, but having a penis isn't an issue for you.

You know, I've never been much a fan of the term "pan-sexual," but I could totally see it being used in this context. Like so:

A: "Hi. I'm Rose. I'm bisexual."
B: "Me too! What kind of bisexual are you?"
A: "I'm pan-sexual leaning gyno-romantic. You?"
B: "I'm gynosexual."
A: "Cool! We are attracted to at least one subset of the same sort of people!"

Hm. My latin is failing me. What term would one use for being attracted to masculinity? Androsexual is being attracted to androgyny, I believe. So... yeah, latin fail, I have no idea.

Edit: minor modification to the fake dialogue for accuracy

Edit 2: Androsexual is being attracted to masculinity. **smacks self on head** I give myself a C- in latin.
 

norashepard

New member
Mar 4, 2013
310
0
0
Go OP, being well informed and tasteful in discussion of such a topic! Top marks.

And basically I want to say is to the people who find it acceptable to label gender as a social construct: doing so invalidates the identity of anyone who doesn't conform to that gender (for example, a butch lesbian, by that idea, would be a man). It also makes impossible the idea that anyone could be transgender at all, because if there is no actual gender, there is nothing to transition between, and certainly no reason to!

Speaking as a transwoman, there definitely are reasons to transition for some people, and gender, while maybe not real in the way modern science defines it, is a thing that does exist. It is completely separate from gender roles and while it can relate to biological sex, the two aren't actually solidly connected. It can be hard for many people who don't experience a disconnect to recognize this, and thus bigots are created.
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Hm. My latin is failing me. What term would one use for being attracted to masculinity? Androsexual is being attracted to androgyny, I believe. So... yeah, latin fail, I have no idea.
I don't do latin, but it would make much more sense for Androsexual to refer to liking masculinity, just by looking at the words that comprise androgyny.

Andro-gyny Gyny, as in gynecologist. So what androgyny translates to is 'Male-female'.

The logical term for being attracted to androgyny would be androgynosexual, I suppose. Bit clunky but it works.
Of course, logic might not work here, 'cos whoever made up the term might have just sucked at latin. But oh well.

This probably didn't help much, did it?
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
Relish in Chaos said:
Food for thought indeed. Although, I?m not sure whether or not you misunderstood my point. I?m not denying that David Reimer was indeed a male from birth. But despite the fact that he was raised as a girl and told that he was a girl, he still had a male brain and previously had 100% natural male genitalia that was subsequently butchered in a botched circumcision and reinvented as a vagina in ill-advised SRS.
Yeah, I know.. I just don't know how you get from that to the thread's title, "Gender is not a social construct".

The real lesson I think we can all learn from Reimer is not that some innate neurological tendency will always win out, because it doesn't, and claiming it will doesn't really help trans people. It might help the shrinking minority who remain convinced that some physical abnormality has made them transexual, but we have no evidence of such a thing existing. It's not a popular medical theory any more, and any evidence which ever existed for that hypothesis is rapidly drying up.

The message of Reimer's case, I think, should be the need to treat intersexed and genitally injured children with acceptance, allowing them to form their own understandings of who they are and how they fit into our gendered society. The fact that we recognize gender as a social construct allows us to do that, we know that we don't need to act like Dr. Money and ram our bizarre definitions of what it means to be male and female down the throats of our children. We don't need to beat our children with the stick of potential "failure" if they don't conform to gender stereotypes. We know it's not "unhealthy" to be ambiguous, provided you have the care, acceptance and autonomy which every child needs in order to grow into a healthy and happy human being.

The slow excision from our society of this terrible fear of gender not being "complete" or "intact" doesn't hurt trans people, it helps them immeasurably, because there are still these people out there who believe that there is no difference between sex and gender, that social identity is simply a cause/effect result of physical embodiment, and that does hurt trans people, because someone who thinks like that can often never see a trans person as a "complete" member of the gender they have transitioned into.

If gender is not a social construct, if it is just "nature" expressing itself, then how can change, how can it fail to encompass who someone is? The answer is that it can't, any more than I can grow an extra arm if I want to. The recognition of gender as a social construct is the only reason we can even have these discussions.

norashepard said:
And basically I want to say is to the people who find it acceptable to label gender as a social construct: doing so invalidates the identity of anyone who doesn't conform to that gender (for example, a butch lesbian, by that idea, would be a man).
I don't know how, but I feel you've got this completely the wrong way around.

If gender is not a social construct but a straightforward fact, then it would be physically impossible for a butch lesbian to exist as anything other than an abnormal pathology. After all, the "natural" trajectory of gender would be towards normative, cisgendered heterosexuality, and anyone who failed to conform to that schema would be by definition a failure. They would be going against nature, they would be a freak.

While some people have strong feelings on this, the line between butch and transman is not a physical marker, it's a socially constructed boundary. There's no physical difference or special birthmark or abnormal brain structure which marks out Butches from Transmen beyond the way they style themselves, it's all purely identity, and identity is a social construct.

I can only assume that you imagine that when someone says "social construct" they mean "not real" or "illusionary", when in fact that's kind of the opposite of what it means. Do you feel like not filling in your tax forms? After all, taxes are a social construct. There isn't some natural law of taxation encoded in the human genome, it doesn't mean they don't have real consequences. Your experience of the world is a social one, it's founded on interaction and social concepts which are very real, not in the sense that you can touch them but in that they manifest in lived experience, they they have real consequences for you and the people around you.

Gender, in fact, is one of the most important aspects of human life, you and I were gendered the second we were born, if not before that, it's affected almost every social interaction in our lives. Of course there are valid reasons to transition, that's not remotely incompatible with gender being a social construct.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
someonehairy-ish said:
I don't do latin, but it would make much more sense for Androsexual to refer to liking masculinity, just by looking at the words that comprise androgyny.
This probably didn't help much, did it?
Actually it did!

I thought androsexual was the correct term for preferring the masculine, but I got confused by androgyny. Which, once you pointed out that the end of androgyny is gyno, I was like "Oh! Duh!" I feel rather silly.

I don't speak Latin, obviously. ^^;;

Okay, so we have androsexual for masculine and gynosexual for feminine. And pan-sexual for D, all of the above. Still don't have a good word for androgynosexual other than that bit of Latin-salad. Accurate, though. Can't fault it there.
 

Dead_Man

New member
Nov 18, 2009
271
0
0
ALL I KNOW IS I LIKE GIRLS AND I'M NOT ARGUING THIS POINT WHEN I COULD BE PLAYING ANARCHY REIGNS!
 

Rosiv

New member
Oct 17, 2012
370
0
0
evilthecat said:
Relish in Chaos said:
Food for thought indeed. Although, I?m not sure whether or not you misunderstood my point. I?m not denying that David Reimer was indeed a male from birth. But despite the fact that he was raised as a girl and told that he was a girl, he still had a male brain and previously had 100% natural male genitalia that was subsequently butchered in a botched circumcision and reinvented as a vagina in ill-advised SRS.
Yeah, I know.. I just don't know how you get from that to the thread's title, "Gender is not a social construct".

The real lesson I think we can all learn from Reimer is not that some innate neurological tendency will always win out, because it doesn't, and claiming it will doesn't really help trans people. It might help the shrinking minority who remain convinced that some physical abnormality has made them transexual, but we have no evidence of such a thing existing. It's not a popular medical theory any more, and any evidence which ever existed for that hypothesis is rapidly drying up.

The message of Reimer's case, I think, should be the need to treat intersexed and genitally injured children with acceptance, allowing them to form their own understandings of who they are and how they fit into our gendered society. The fact that we recognize gender as a social construct allows us to do that, we know that we don't need to act like Dr. Money and ram our bizarre definitions of what it means to be male and female down the throats of our children. We don't need to beat our children with the stick of potential "failure" if they don't conform to gender stereotypes. We know it's not "unhealthy" to be ambiguous, provided you have the care, acceptance and autonomy which every child needs in order to grow into a healthy and happy human being.

The slow excision from our society of this terrible fear of gender not being "complete" or "intact" doesn't hurt trans people, it helps them immeasurably, because there are still these people out there who believe that there is no difference between sex and gender, that social identity is simply a cause/effect result of physical embodiment, and that does hurt trans people, because someone who thinks like that can never see a trans person as a complete member of the gender they have transitioned into.

norashepard said:
And basically I want to say is to the people who find it acceptable to label gender as a social construct: doing so invalidates the identity of anyone who doesn't conform to that gender (for example, a butch lesbian, by that idea, would be a man).
I don't know how, but I feel you've got this completely the wrong way around.

If gender is not a social construct but a straightforward fact, then it would be physically impossible for a butch lesbian to exist as anything other than an abnormal pathology. After all, the "natural" trajectory of gender would be towards normative, cisgendered heterosexuality, and anyone who failed to conform to that schema would be by definition a failure. They would be going against nature, they would be a freak.

While some people would want to murder me for saying this, the line between the two is not a physical marker, it's a socially constructed boundary. There's no physical difference or special birthmark or abnormal brain structure which marks out Butches from Transmen beyond the way they style themselves, it's all purely identity, and identity is a social construct.

I can only assume that you imagine that when someone says "social construct" they mean "not real" or "illusionary", when in fact that's kind of the opposite of what it means. Do you feel like not filling in your tax forms? After all, taxes are a social construct. There isn't some natural law of taxation encoded in the human genome, it doesn't mean they don't have real consequences. Your experience of the world is a social one, it's founded on interaction and social concepts which are very real, not in the sense that you can touch them but they has real consequences. Gender, in fact, is one of the most important aspects of human life, you and I were gendered the second we were born, if not before that, it's affected almost every social interaction in our lives. Of course there are valid reasons to transition, that's not remotely incompatible with gender being a social construct.

I'm not offended by your stance on gender, and that it's "social", but just cause there is not evidence now, does not mean they wont find any later right? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence;that is what i have always gone by anyways. I don't think a minority of trans people think one way or the other. I mean, its still possible trans-people are different that the sex they were born in. I guess all i am saying is we cant really say one way or the other until the research has been done. The only thing that bothers me is that by saying gender is a social construct is that i have seen a lot of people use this point of view to trivialize trans people in that their gender is mutable somehow. But there is a significant portion of trans people do not feel this way at all. I think a lot of trans people feel they were "born" trans in someway, so why not at least give them the benefit of the doubt? Money is a social construct, as are names, and as you said, tax returns, and we can change all these things. So when you say that gender is a social construct, i feel that that gives people the vantage to argue that, if it's social, it can be changed.
But in closing, i guess if people didn't put so much weight in biology, maybe trans people would have it easier, although i think that is a big if.
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Okay, so we have androsexual for masculine and gynosexual for feminine. And pan-sexual for D, all of the above. Still don't have a good word for androgynosexual other than that bit of Latin-salad. Accurate, though. Can't fault it there.
I just noticed that once you get to androgynosexual its only one step further to simplify that down to bisexual, and oh look, full circle.

Idk. I have the feeling that these things are too complicated to have a label for absolutely all of them, seeing as there are basically as many tastes and preferences as there are people. What if you're bisexual, but rather than being androsexual or gynosexual you like you men manly and your women feminine? Or your women manly and your men feminine? I don't even want to consider figuring out the latin for that.
 

norashepard

New member
Mar 4, 2013
310
0
0
evilthecat said:
norashepard said:
And basically I want to say is to the people who find it acceptable to label gender as a social construct: doing so invalidates the identity of anyone who doesn't conform to that gender (for example, a butch lesbian, by that idea, would be a man).
I don't know how, but I feel you've got this completely the wrong way around.

If gender is not a social construct but a straightforward fact, then it would be physically impossible for a butch lesbian to exist as anything other than an abnormal pathology. After all, the "natural" trajectory of gender would be towards normative, cisgendered heterosexuality, and anyone who failed to conform to that schema would be by definition a failure. They would be going against nature, they would be a freak.

While some people have strong feelings on this, the line between butch and transman is not a physical marker, it's a socially constructed boundary. There's no physical difference or special birthmark or abnormal brain structure which marks out Butches from Transmen beyond the way they style themselves, it's all purely identity, and identity is a social construct.

I can only assume that you imagine that when someone says "social construct" they mean "not real" or "illusionary", when in fact that's kind of the opposite of what it means. Do you feel like not filling in your tax forms? After all, taxes are a social construct. There isn't some natural law of taxation encoded in the human genome, it doesn't mean they don't have real consequences. Your experience of the world is a social one, it's founded on interaction and social concepts which are very real, not in the sense that you can touch them but in that they manifest in lived experience, they they have real consequences for you and the people around you.

Gender, in fact, is one of the most important aspects of human life, you and I were gendered the second we were born, if not before that, it's affected almost every social interaction in our lives. Of course there are valid reasons to transition, that's not remotely incompatible with gender being a social construct.
I agree with some of what you said, and what I was aiming at was more second wave feminism's idea that there is no actual difference between men and women, and that gender is entirely made up and not real, which doesn't really work when people claim they fit better into another gender, because indeed, how can you be the other when there wasn't more than one to begin with?

Gender can both be a social construct and a solid fact, though. The wording is ridiculous, but let me explain. Gender as a social construct is the whole playing with dolls/cars thing. Who is the protector and who is the homemaker. But a person's gender can be anything, even if they don't conform to the gender construct. For example, women can like monster trucks. That breaks gender as a construct, but nobody would argue that they aren't women.

And yes I do have strong feelings about that. Butch lesbians identify as women. They are of the female gender. Transmen are men. They identify with the male gender. You may not agree with their reasoning, or even believe they are any different because they have the same downstairs parts, but respect them as they want to be respected, okay?

To the taxes thing: Say I completely refuse to pay my taxes. I get arrested. Now, I am a transwoman, and someone has attacked me on the street because they think I'm an affront to nature and society has told them it's totally cool to attack freaks. Now, the difference between the two: I was not compelled to not pay my taxes by any force other than either my own greed, laziness, or belief that I can cheat the system. I however had very strong reactions to my own appearance for years (even before I entered the broader social world), and would hurt myself because of it. I did not choose to be that way at all. Nobody told me I could or couldn't or really anything about it at all. I just assumed I was a girl until people started telling me otherwise. That was not socially constructed. There was something innate there. And while it's not that way for all trans people, it is that way for many. And that more or less shows that while there is definitely a social aspect to gender (and a very intense social aspect), there is at least some innate human idea of it, which is constructed in our brains and not by our peers.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
Rosiv said:
I'm not offended by your stance on gender, and that it's "social", but just cause there is not evidence now, does not mean they wont find any later right? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence;that is what i have always gone by anyways.
A fair point. However, it's really not like noone has looked, and that's kind of the issue for me. People are very invested in these kinds of questions around gender and sexuality, it's not like noone has ever gone down and tried to measure neurological sex differences. It's not like noone has ever theorized that gay and trans people had "feminine" brains and then tried to prove it.

I mean sure, plenty of people still come out and claim to have found some physical cause for these behaviors, but it's generally a different thing each time, and it's never been repeatable.

Furthermore, I don't think it's coherent, because these things really don't appear to be fixed at birth. People change at all kinds of points in their lives, people have happy marriages and children and then suddenly realize that they're gay or transgendered, and while some clearly did feel something was different from very early on, not everyone works like that. I don't want to invalidate the experience of people who feel they've always been how they are, but I also don't want those people to be allowed to invalidate the experience of anyone whose life does not match their own.

Rosiv said:
The only thing that bothers me is that by saying gender is a social construct is that i have seen a lot of people use this point of view to trivialize trans people in that their gender is mutable somehow.
I don't see how that works.

Is gender mutable? Yes, of course it is. That's what makes it possible for people to become transgendered, since changing your social behaviour and identification does change how you are gendered. If you can appear to be female through the adoption of "female" behaviours, dress and appearance, then you are socially female. You don't need to have full surgery to be transgendered, it's entirely down to your individual needs.

Is gender identity mutable? Yes, not everyone "feels" male or female in some deep inner part of themselves all their lives. Trans people can have very diverse life-patterns, you don't need to have felt it from day 1 in order to be "real" or "serious".

What you mean, I think, is "a choice" or "treatable", and this is something we encounter in both LGB and T activism and which I think we really need to get over. There is no basis for any aspect of identity being a "choice". We don't need it to be some kind of hardwired physical phenomena in order to rebuke the claim that it's a choice. We don't need to turn homophile and crawl around demanding pity on the basis that we're just miserable slaves to unnatural desires. There's a reason why the main LGBT event is called "pride".

You are not a victim of your sexuality or gender identity, you are a victim people who don't accept your sexuality or gender identity. They are the problem, not you. You don't need to apologise to them for existing, you don't need to engage with their naturalistic fallacies.

It's not just your gender which is a social construct, and yet you didn't choose how you are any more than they did. Still, you can choose to have pride.
 

Relish in Chaos

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,660
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Relish in Chaos said:
**snip Genderbread Man**
**saves Genderbread person .jpg to harddrive**

You know, I came to this thread all ready to be offended and instead read a wonderful and thoughtful OP. Good stuff! I should have known as soon as I saw who posted it. ^^
Well, thank you. :)

Bara_no_Hime said:
Relish in Chaos said:
EDIT: If you want to know what I am, I'm a cisgendered, gynosexual (as in, I'm attracted to femininity, regardless of their underlying genitalia) male. I guess I'm fairly masculine in my behaviour and thought processes (for one, most of my friends are male), but I don't really take any effort in asserting any kind of identity. I'm one of those people that could, but don't have the motivation to do so (e.g. picking a different hairstyle, experimenting with crossdressing).
Neat! Good to know.

I like the use of gynosexual particularly - that you are attracted to femininity regardless of the person's physical sex. That is a really useful term that states the exact flavor of bisexual that you happen to be. I'm usually not for splitting hairs in these things, but such a term actually tells the person something. If you just said bisexual, a very masculine man might hit on you and be surprised by your refusal. With gynosexual, it is clear that you're looking for someone feminine, but having a penis isn't an issue for you.

You know, I've never been much a fan of the term "pan-sexual," but I could totally see it being used in this context. Like so:

A: "Hi. I'm Rose. I'm bisexual."
B: "Me too! What kind of bisexual are you?"
A: "I'm pan-sexual leaning gyno-romantic. You?"
B: "I'm gynosexual."
A: "Cool! We are attracted to at least one subset of the same sort of people!"

Hm. My latin is failing me. What term would one use for being attracted to masculinity? Androsexual is being attracted to androgyny, I believe. So... yeah, latin fail, I have no idea.

Edit: minor modification to the fake dialogue for accuracy
Yeah, I figured out a while ago that "gynosexual" would probably more accurately describe my own sexuality because I've found myself attracted to cross-dressers, pre-op trans women, tomboyish women, and muscular women. I?ve only incidentally been attracted to masculinity, so I guess I?m about 85% attracted to femininity and 15% attracted to masculinity, sexual-wise.

And "androsexual" is being attracted to masculinity, hence the "andro". Being attracted to androgyny would probably be "androgynosexual" or "androgynephilia"...but now I'm just making up terms. But hey, if "D'oh!" can be in the dictionary, why can't that? ;)
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Relish in Chaos said:
And "androsexual" is being attracted to masculinity, hence the "andro". Being attracted to androgyny would probably be "androgynosexual" or "androgynephilia"...but now I'm just making up terms. But hey, if "D'oh!" can be in the dictionary, why can't that? ;)
Yeah, we figured that out (and tried out a couple of those terms) a bit up thread. If you're reading down through it, you'll hit that bit eventually.

I don't actually know latin, per se, just certain latin usages, so I occasionally stick my foot in my mouth (ie, the andro confusion) when I try to parse it. Eh, it happens.

Anyway, I do quite enjoy your comprehensive approach. Particularly considering some rather enlightening discussions I've had recently with one of my asexual friends who is currently in a relationship.
 

Relish in Chaos

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,660
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Relish in Chaos said:
And "androsexual" is being attracted to masculinity, hence the "andro". Being attracted to androgyny would probably be "androgynosexual" or "androgynephilia"...but now I'm just making up terms. But hey, if "D'oh!" can be in the dictionary, why can't that? ;)
Yeah, we figured that out (and tried out a couple of those terms) a bit up thread. If you're reading down through it, you'll hit that bit eventually.

I don't actually know latin, per se, just certain latin usages, so I occasionally stick my foot in my mouth (ie, the andro confusion) when I try to parse it. Eh, it happens.

Anyway, I do quite enjoy your comprehensive approach. Particularly considering some rather enlightening discussions I've had recently with one of my asexual friends who is currently in a relationship.
Yeah, I did read through, but I thought I'd post my insight anyway. I don't know much Latin either to be honest; just things I've picked up from Wikipedia/Wiktionary or other random research.

But yeah, I tend to think about gender a lot, even though I've never had any real gender or sexuality issues myself (not that I have to, though). I just find it to be a fascinating subject, and it helps that I'm currently studying A-Level Sociology.