Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ask to an AI Persona
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
68Opinion
so i guess men and women have so different physical makeups because of society? xD it´s not a question of chicken or egg here. the genetical differences were there first. society just reacted to those differences creating "roles" that used those differences to maximize our potential as a species. those roles have nothing to do with some kind of supremacy struggle. it´s pure logic and has differnt advantages and disadvantages for each gender.
Did you not read the take? Sex is a social construct in much the same way color is, as I noted in the take.
And how does girls liking pink and purple and boys liking blue "maximize our potential as a species"? How about dresses versus pants?
boys wore dresses for a long time just like girls it was just a convinience thing also red was once a color primarily for men and not at all female. also men used to wear high heels during a certain period of time. it´s all just fashion and stupid trends, not "gender roles". it´s only dumb people who assume girls can´t play with lego and have to wear pink and boys can´t play with dolls and have to wear blue.
i mean it´s still derived from said physical makeup. girls give birth. guys don´t therefore girls should be more educated towards dealing with children while men are supposed to use their superior body strength to earn money to provide... all the gender bullshit is just derived from that. fashion and "colors" are different. that´s just determined by the period of time you life in not so much by gender.
yeah i read your take and i see you struggle with the distinction between the words sex and gender. sex is not a sucial construct and it´s not complicated. yes there are genetical uncertainties in some newborns and doctors occasionally will suggest hormone therapy to make the baby develop into a certain sex so they won´t grow up being the freak with uncertain genitalia but it´s still not a "social concept" as you try to define it as.
gender is also not complex XD i don´t really understand why everything is "complex" according to you. there are traits that can be seen as masculine and those that are seen as feminine. some can be both and people usually have a certain sets of character traits which aligns them somewhere on a spectrum between feminine and masculine. i don´t understand modern lgbt movements try to give every single point on that spectrum some stupid name xD
Those "fashion and stupid trends" are in fact gender roles. They are behavioral patterns society ascribes to specific genders, which is what gender roles are. And those gender roles are part of gender, as the categories of gender in our society are based on our societal gender roles.
And sex is a social construct in the same way colors are, or trees are, as I noted.
If it's a spectrum, why shouldn't every point be given a name? Again, the example of colors, where we have six or seven primary categories, but we have hundreds of individual names for particular colors as well.
dude you´re just mixing everything you want into gender roles. as you so cleverly put: "They are behavioral patterns society ascribes to specific genders" couldn´t have said it better but they are not gender roles xD they are what i put in quotation marks, not gender roles. there´s a distinction. colors and certain fashion is just ascribed or associated with certain genders (which has changed during the history so historically you could say there is no distinct association of fashion or color to certain genders).
i don´t know why every point is given a name XD it´s just a stupid modern fad to have a name for each and every sexual orientation and gender preference. i messed up that sentence. i wanted to say that this is what we currently just do, not that it makes sense.
a penis or a vagina is not a social construct. it´s a genital of biological origin determined by genes just like the certain different qualities.
as i explainined before those features help society determine the "roles" for each of those genders. that´s how gender roles originate.
you can´t just slap gender roles on everything. you mix stuff up and confuse even yourself. you should visit a gender studies lecture to get your stuff sorted out.
sex is the set of genitals we are born with. it has nothing to do with gender roles or society AT ALL
gender and the respective roles is the only part in which society plays a role. gender is not equal to sex. and the way you discribed it in your take you mix and mash meanings alltogether and kind of lose the distinction between them in the process.
it is invalid to say that words are a social construct thereby everything we use words for is by default a social construct xD
My argument is that since gender as a category is socially constructed, traits that become gendered in certain societies become part of the gender they are associated with. Like words, which change meaning based on their usage, like how "literally" can now be used figuratively because people used it that way enough for it to be a common (and thus correct) usage. My definition for gender, by the way, is based off the currently common academic usage. If you don't like that usage, that's all fine and well, but it doesn't change what we currently use the term "gender" to mean.
I think perhaps your issue is that you want these things to be more objective than they really are.
As for your "modern fads", that's not the case either. Many previous societies througout history recognized non-binary identities and various sexual orientations.
TL;DR. But that's OK, I get the gist of it.
My penis is a social construct. That is, it is not inherently a male sex organ; we as humans just understand it that way.
And testosterone, that's social construct too, right?
The shit people come up with to justify things in their own minds... also a social construct, right?
Ya those things are social constructs, just in the sense of the reason they are defined as what they are is socially constructed. And yes, different philosophies are social constructs, in a more strict sense, as they are wholly created by people.
OK, so I guess your point is that everything is a social construct so you, as an insane person, can argue you are the normal one and the rest of us are crazy.
Let's use the color example. Would you argue that colors are objective? That there is an objective scientific line between blue and indigo that makes them different colors, and that there is an objective reason why a similar line is not put between dark blue and light blue?
You don't need to regurgitate all of that again. I understand the analogy and all the stuff you've written here. I just disagree with the conclusion you are trying to draw from it.
One could use the same arguments to try to make the case that insanity is not an abnormality and we should embrace it. Sorry, but humanity will never embrace schizophrenia regardless of all the bullshit arguments academic types try to push on us in an attempt to make themselves feel better about themselves.
And yes, you are a radical feminist, even if you don't see yourself as one. You've written enough here at GAG over the last several years to make that abundantly clear. Most radical feminists do not view themselves as radical, even though they are.
Humanity would accept schizophrenia if most humans had it. It's just that because of our subjective values, something being uncommon makes it strange and less acceptable to us. Insanity is only an abnormality as long as it's abnormal.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that having no values whatsoever is the way to go, or that we should just stop trying to understand the world because our understanding of it is so arbitrary. I'm just asking that people recognize that it is arbitrary, and that even science is not nearly so objective as we'd like to think.
Subject, yes. Arbitrary? Nope.
You are pushing a political agenda that most people have no interest in, and that's why you are getting so much push back.
"Humanity would accept schizophrenia if most humans had it."
By that argument, society would accept any illness if most humans had it. So what?
*Subjective, yes...
Why not arbitrary? Choosing rarity as the important feature over, say, interestingness or harmfulness is an arbitrary decision, is it not?
The definition of arbitrary is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."
There is nothing random or whimsical about how the two sexes have always been defined. It is in fact a system based on reason.
Look, I understand why someone with a particular disease would want that disease to be accepted by others as normal, and NOT considered a disease at all. I get that. It makes you feel more normal, more validated. But it's still a disease, and even if most people developed the disease it is still a disease, a disorder and definitely undesirable.
And yes, "disease" is a social construct. Doesn't make a shed of difference in any of this.
Eeh. There's a reason perhaps, but a reason for the reason? What I mean by arbitrary is that there's no real reason for valuing something like rarity over something like usefulness or interestingness as far as I can tell. Like at some point, it just comes down to us deciding it is so and thus it being so.
And I'm not making an argument as to the normalicy of a certain disease or disorder, only about the relevancy of that normalicy. And I don't actually believe that a disorder that everyone has would still be a disorder. Maybe I'm missing something here, but as far as I am aware disorders are just distinct abnormalities in the way a being typically functions, and when a disorder is advantageous it is selected for and can become the norm in that species through evolution, and is no longer a disorder but rather a trait of that species.
"Maybe I'm missing something here..."
Yup
Well would you like to explain what exactly? What differentiates a disorder from a trait outside of how common it is? How are disorders different from other mutations that are capable of becoming traits of a species if selected for enough?
No, not really. You strike me as someone who has made up her mind and just wants to argue. You have always struck me that way. I've engaged in this nonsensical conversation as much as I care to.
Cheers
So you can't explain and thus make up excuses. Cool, thanks for making that clear.
Sure I can explain; I'm just not interested in engaging you anymore because it's pointless. Don't let it ruin your day.
Sounds like a pretty shoddy excuse to me. You seemed perfectly happy to talk about this up until now, and after all you made the decision to comment on my take in the first place. If you weren't interested in a discussion, why comment? Probably because you thought you had a good point, but now that you can't come up with a counterargument you're trying to get out of the discussion by making excuses about how it's all my fault, rather than your own inability to provide a logical basis for your opinions.
You have repeated the same dumb argument here over and over again to everyone and you and I have essentially been talking in circles. Why would I want to continue that with you?
I've not repeated the same argument at all. Perhaps your reading skills are simply so lacking that you can't tell the difference between one line of reasoning and another? You've still failed to justify how disorders are different from traits other than their rarity. If I'm really so stupid, one would think that wouldn't be so difficult a question to answer. And yet here you are, giving excuse after excuse when a simple explanation would apparently suffice to end this discussion.
Buh bye
Bye then! Enjoy your blissful ignorance
Race is a social construct and has in fact changed over time. Spanish and Latino/a's were once considered white. Most people won't touch on the subject because people want to keep they're racial identities to feel special or some type of pride. Kind of like how everyone wants to say they are part native American or indigenous. Personally I think social construct is a cop out. It's amazing a theory has influenced changes in law in such a short period of time.
www.scientificamerican.com/.../
Do you even know how rare it is for individuals to be born with gender abnormalities? Key-word here being ABNORMALITIES. That's something that is NOT normal.
Also, like I told you once before. Sex and gender are the same thing. They can be interchanged with one another. I don't get why you're arguing with what animals and insects are when we're talking about HUMAN BEINGS.
The way sex and gender are used as terms in the scientific community in particular, they have distinct meanings. Thus, they are distinct.
And it doesn't matter whether something is "abnormal"- deciding that uncommon things don't "count" as far as category creation and definition is concerned is exactly the kind of arbitrary distinction that makes categories (and in this case sex and gender) socially constructed at all.
Nowhere did I say abnormal automatically disqualifies something. It does in fact mean that it isn't not normal, which makes your argument mute. The same thing applies to people that are born with other abnormalities or birth defects. They're not normal people.
What does it matter if they're not "normal"? How is that at all relevant to their legitimacy as separate categories or status as social constructs?
Well, in a lot of cases birth defects go hand and hand with disabilities. A lot of people who are disabled, can not prefer the same tasks as someone who is not disabled. Someone who has a mental disability does not function properly. That matters a lot in day-to-day life.
In this case, my point is you can not use someone who has a gender abnormality to try to defend your ideologies when most of the population is normal.
In some cases, but not all. Even then, why is something being a disability relevant? And I can use abnormalities to prove my point, as the status of "abnormalities" as "abnormalities" rather than distinct but uncommon separate categories is part of the whole issue I'm describing.
Those are rare cases where-in these people are born this way. Trying to debate that gender is a social construct is bull. If you raise a male and a female without hardly introducing boundaries, once they get to a certain age and hormones and puberty kicks in, they start acting like males and females. Growing up my brother played with barbies, does he still do that? No. Does he like the color pink and prancing around? No. Gender is biological.
Again, everything is a social construct. Trees are a social construct. The color red is a social construct. Gender is more so, as gender is essentially defined as being the social roles and behaviors that constitute femininity and masculinity. Liking the color pink is not biological, playing with dolls is not either, though admittedly might be more so than color preference. But as I've noted, regardless of biological basis, it remains a social construct.
social construct. noun. a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice.
A tree is not a social construct. Nor is color. Color is something proceed through the eyes by the brain. It has nothing to do with social construct. That's why you have color blind people because their brain can not process color. I guess being color blind is also a social construct.
Biology and psychology also are not a social construct. They are studies that have been going on for years. Liking girly colors as a female falls into the category that can be backed by both studies.
So you didn't read my take then? Please, refrain from commenting further before you've actually read and understood my argument.
I read what I needed to read.
And my brain cells suffered from doing so.
You clearly didn't, since you still don't understand my argument and thus are incapable of actually providing a counterargument.
I've provided plenty, ya just won't accept them because they make sense where-as yours don't.
You have not. You have provided a fallacious strawman argument, which is not a legitimate argument. For your argument to be solid, you have to be arguing against my actual argument, not against an argument you think is the one I am giving but which is actually not my argument at all.
My arguments were in accordance to what you were trying to rely. If they were not, then obviously that was on your behalf because I'm not the only one saying this.
It was not in accordance with my argument, as is very clear if you read the take. I am not to blame for your poor reading skills.
Baby is born, Congrats it's a "THING". Sorry mom but we can't say for sure if your child is going to grow up Homosexual Or some twisted Phucked up Meme that these SJW and feminists come out with. Cant' call it a "he" because it has a dick. Can't call it a "She" because it's got a cunt. Keep calling a thing until it can figure out if it wants to be strait or some screwed up byproduct of my scrotum. Till then we can give it a name that would be appropriate for it's nature. If it wants to have sex with other women then we can call him Ted, if it's a woman who loves men then we can call her Jenny.
Objective reality doesn't care about your views. There's XX, XY and very rarely a mutation of XXY or some combination of the sort, creating hemaphrodites. Who are still biologically male.
Yes, those things exist objectively. Read the take, I never argued otherwise. However, the fact that we decided to use chromosomes as a defining feature for sex above other traits is the socially constructed part of this.
Actually it isn't. Male and female brains are different and they behave differently. Gender roles are actually typical male and female behavior.
agree 100% go science
I don't think that's so much a cause of gender as a product of it, to some degree anyways. Brains change based on how people are raised after all. But even if there were a objective physical trait associated with genders, the word gender is still commonly used to refer to the set of behaviors/interests a person has, and thus that is what gender is, even if it has other definitions besides.
In other news
Trannies have mental issues and water is wet.
@xBreezy if you define being different from you as having issues, then yes. But unless you're a narcissist I don't see why you would.
its sad how ignorant people are on this site when it comes to science and whats ironic is that guy has the audacity to say ''go science'' gender studies isn't, and will never be a real science. It deals with weak empirical evidence that doesn't even test 0.000001% of the general population yet you have the audacity to tell others ''men and women have different brains'' based on a flimsy study that took place in the 90s which claimed key characteristics which by the way, has been debunked ages ago as there were other studies that have failed to find the differences. These studies have showed that each individuals brain was unique and the only similarities happen within family trees so a females brother actually has more in common with her in terms of brain structure compared to than you. Both the males and females in these studies both genders have shown characteristics of the the supposed male and female brain and there wasn't one person...
who had a 100% male or female brain as they like to call it. These same studies you boast about is also the same studies that tried to tell us that is why men are better at math and reasoning. do you want to accept that? we are not in the 20th century anymore.
@FreedomByChoice Gender science is laughable as a pure science when compared to physics or mathematics but biological difference in male and female thought behavior doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out either it's quite obvious. Your argument sounds more feeling based on trying to make everyone equal rather than fact.
The go science comment was an agreement that biological differences in behavior cause a difference in societal gender roles
@ThatGuy329 gender studies is not a real science PERIOD. Almost everything in terms of behavior is almost entirely up to environment and the theories that claim this are one of the most strongest pillars in all of biology, not just human males and females. The mytake is saying that there isn't a distinction between genders besides the way our environment shapes this and this is actually true. You can see this in places like spain, rome etc.. Where the women have been aggressive and taken the roles of men. Humans have order for a reason. us being male and female did not cause this, our environment allowed for what you see to be possible.
@FreedomByChoice While I do agree with you that environment is mostly to blame AND gender studies is mostly BS i'm more talking about biological not sociological differences between men and women. Girls ask Guys is a great example of our different thought patterns, many women ask men if they look fat because they think they do and most men say no, and men ask if X dick picks for example turns them on because female genitalia picks turn them on while in reality they don't. I prefer hard science myself over something like sociology which has a lot of interpretation on feelings.
@ThatGuy329 Those examples of behavioral differences you mention are easily explainable by social differences. Just because you think biology is a more reliable science doesn't mean a biological explanation for a behavior is more credible than a sociological one. If you want an example of trying to change reality based on social constructs, that's a pretty fantastic one.
While I also agree with you that sociology can give credible answers through the scientific process they also contain more human interpretation which leads it more open to imperfect categories and in the end less reliable due to human influence than let's say chemistry or math. While society can cause influences over sexual behavior like pink being a girly color often used on thongs and sex toys for women, other things that desired in a mate for example a healthy body to birth live children and survive the process so said mate can feed and help care for the child after are deeply ingrained in us and are not social constructs but biological.
Calling Sociology less reliable than another science itself is not a social construct but a reality based on how much of human influence is contained within its findings.
All science to one degree or another suffer from human error and influence don't get me wrong but not all are equal in the matter.
here is a funny cartoon but generally accurate https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png
@ThatGuy329 Sure, sociology is more complex and less objective than biology. But still that doesn't mean that biology explains more behaviors than sociology, only that biology's explanations are often clearer and easier to prove.
And yes, some gendered traits have biological reasons behind them. But gender as a whole remains socially constructed, as many aspects of gender vary based on culture, even if some aspects remain the same.
And my point about sociology is not that its reliability is socially constructed, but that your apparent belief that sociological explanations are less probable than biological ones (aka X behavior is more likely to have a biological cause than a sociological one because biology is more reliable) is simply not an accurate representation of reality.
@FreedomByChoice why men are better at math and reasoning. do you want to accept that?😂😂😂😂
Oh you poor snowflake.
Men are better at maths and reasoning. They are also better at hunting, fighting, building, and driving.
The truth hurts some people apparently
@lord_chilled As society currently stands, but there's not terribly much evidence as far as I've found that differences in reasoning and mathematical abilities are actually sex based instead of due to social conditioning. In fact, from what I've found, the difference in abilities is relatively small, and for math at least has been decreasing over the years, implying that at least some amount of the difference is just down to society, and that as gender equality has progressed socially it has progressed in terms of the apparent intelligence of the genders as well.
The hunting and fighting thing I'm not really gonna argue because men do tend to be physically stronger, but the driving thing is measurably untrue. Again, may be down to societal differences and not natural ones, but as it stands women are significantly better drivers overall.
I have a cock and set of balls that no girl I've ever seen has, so gender is more than just a "construct." It's a fact. All the trans people in the world can't put a bun in the oven or give birth.
Did you read the take? Because from this comment it seems you did not.
Yeah, I read that bunch of hand-waving until I'd had enough. Trying to classify people based on rare genetic and social disorders is like trying to base a study of thought patterns by surveying prison inmates.
We do classify people based on those things. We have categories for the actual disorders of those sorts that exist. In any case, as far as sex goes I'm just saying that the categories we have are imperfect and somewhat arbitrary, which is the case for most everything actually. As for gender, as I noted gender is way less objective than even sex, and as such having additional categories to describe it is entirely legitimate, just like having additional political parties/alignments.
No, disorders aren't considered at all in taxonomy. An organism that shows odd characteristics is not taken as the holotype of a previously undiscovered species. People born intersex are dysmorphic, not polymorphic. Sex and gender are biological. The tiny percentage of people who don't conform are the exceptions that prove the rule.
But what constitutes a disorder and the fact that it isn't considered in taxonomy is arbitrarily socially defined. Like it has a good reason behind it, but that's just based on our arbitrary values. For instance, if one bird in a species had a mutation making its feathers a different color than the rest it would just be a disordered individual or that species. But if that disorder became common among that species it would be recognized as a characteristic of the species rather than a disorder.
Sterility is *always* a disorder. Viability is a necessary trait of the fitness of an individual.
Untrue. Female worker bees for instance are all infertile. You're considering natural selection from an exclusively individual perspective, while realistically you should be considering how it acts on communities as a whole as well.
Yes, and some plants are clonal. That's a ridiculous comparison. Obviously invertebrates are different from mammals, especially those that reproduce via parthenogenesis. Human are vertebrates, mammals. You're basically regurgitating the contents of your gender studies textbook here, which is admirable in its devotion, I suppose, but it has no bearing on reality. Do you really want to continue to make a fool of yourself here? Just admit that your argument has been eviscerated and learn from your mistake.
It's not a ridiculous comparison, it's one that refutes your point perfectly. You didn't specify your statement applied only to mammals or vertebrates, thus to say retroactively that it did is a "moving the goalposts" fallacy. But regardless, the point is that things are only considered "defects" if they're rare and harmful enough, and what constitutes rare and harmful enough is pretty much defined arbitrarily by us.
And sorry to disappoint, but this is all based on linguistics, sociology, and some cognitive science resources actually.
You're not very bright if you believe that comparing organisms that reproduce asexually to mammals is a legitimate comparison. What's next, are we going to debate gender identity among blue-green algae?
And no, linguistics and sociology have nothing to do with biology. Defects are quite easy to discern, and aren't arbitrary at all. There's an entire field of medicine devoted to human defects: pathophysiology. You should give those boys a call tomorrow morning and let them know that you've invalidated the past 500 years of their work with one GAG post. They're going to be upset, but it's best you let them know now.
It wasn't a comparison. It was a rebuttal of your claim that infertility is "always" a disorder. You didn't specify that it was always a disorder in mammals specifically after all.
What we are talking about here is the concept of social constructs. That's a theory in sociology, though it is also relevant in linguistics and psychology. Social constructs created around biological concepts is merely the specific aspect of this you are choosing to focus on.
And what makes something a defect then? How do you define it? And if really doesn't matter how many fields of science there are studying a concept, that concept remains socially constructed. And jesus christ dude, read the take. I explained plenty clearly that something being a social construct doesn't mean it's made up or unimportant or that the physical object or trait the concept is constructed around doesn't exist.
All you've explained is that you're just another solipsistic wannabe posting self-important drivel on the internet. Biological fact is not subject to your opinion. Meristic characteristics do not await your approval. Defects are defects because they are abnormal, meaning "not the norm." Get it? If 0.01% of humans are sterile hermaphrodites, they're *not* the norm, i. e. not like the vast majority. They are, by definition, *abnormal.* Get it? Normal are the other 99.99% who have functioning gonads. It's not a difficult concept, but then you are a sociology major, so I'm pretty sure there are a lot of concepts in academia that may seem difficult to you.
If you think I ever said that biological fact can be changed, you need to reread my argument.
So why isn't having red hair a defect? Or having green eyes? Those things certainly aren't the norm, but I'd hardly say we consider them defects.
In one sense they are defects, given that that the gene-linked set of traits associated with them makes one maladapted to solar radiation exposure. But more importantly, those traits are certainly abnormal, because they aren't the norm. You're here trying to argue, in a sense, that green eyes and red hair are normal. They are not, nor is hermaphroditism.
But would you really argue that they're actually recognized as defects by the scientific community? Because I kinda doubt it, and if you really think that's the case I'd like to see you cite me a source on that one.
How am I trying to argue that they're normal? Explain what things that I have said lead you to believe that.
Yes, they are seen as defects, which is also why they're so rare in the human population. Those with darker complexions are better adapted to environmental conditions on Earth. That's why 90% of the world population is swarthy. Any further questions?
Again, Imma need a source for that. And actually the trait of pale skin that goes along with having red hair has advantages for areas on Earth that get less sunlight, as pale skin helps produce more vitamin D. Additionally, would you agree that a defect is the same as a disorder, since we have been using the two terms interchangeably in this argument?
Okay, so you haven't provided citations for any of your many dubious conjectures, yet you want me to provide a citation for an article of fact? Right.
Go learn about the MC1R gene and you'll have your answer. But I'm sure you'll find a way to call that a "social construct" as well.
What dubious conjectures do you want sources for exactly? I haven't provided since you haven't asked. I am now asking, but you don't seem to be providing.
I already have. Gene variations are not the same as defects. But once again, am I correct in assuming that a defect is the same as a disorder since we have up until now been using those terms interchangeably?
Well, seeing as how your entire take is just your opinion, it appears that you're going to have a hard time providing any citations for any of it. The burden of proof here is on you, and you haven't proven anything. The fact that 95% of commenters has disagreed with you should be evidence enough.
I did present it as my opinion. And dear, you're going off topic rather badly. What's wrong, can't actually find anything to back up your argument?
LOL good luck to you!
So no, despite all your posturing, your argument is in fact so flimsy that you run away at the first demand for actual evidence. Alright, bye then.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you people. Your born with a dick or a pussy. Male or Female. It's not some fabricated thing. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you not have jobs? Bills? Responsibilities? You must not because you try to fight for some cause that's considered ridiculous to 99% of the population. What is with people these days...
Something you missed was the fact that scans have shown that the brains of transgendered people are different from what's normal for people of their genetic sex.
You're not convincing anyone that one person having a dick and vag is normal. I can see this means a lot to you, but it's just not going to happen. I feel bad for you personally, bud, but you're not helping yourself by publicly self-flagellating like this. It's cringe-worthy to read.
Well since that wasn't what I was trying to accomplish, that's fine. Try to actually read the take next time so you don't make such a fool of yourself with this kind of strawman argument.
You need some serious counseling or you're going to end up a victim of your own demons. This is hard to watch, dude.
You aren't watching it at all though. You haven't even read what I've written, or otherwise you're too dense to understand it.
Too much to read. Sex is a biological concept. Gender is a social one. Sex is based on biology. Gender is not the same as Biology. Done.
Yes, but still both are socially constructed because we determine how sex is defined (aka by chromosomes, by genetalia, etc)
There is male and female, yes you can consider yourself something else but you can't change if you have a vigina of a penis
Nowhere did I say you can? Consider reading what I said before disagreeing with me please.
Quick question.
Are you a third-wave radical feminist?
No, I'm not a radical. But being a radical feminist or even being a feminist at all has little to do with understanding things as social constructs. That's more of a cognitive science/linguistics thing tbh
@cipher42 Your idea of gender being entirely a social construct is insane.
I come from a egalitarian background, unlike most the inhabitants in my local area, I'm no traditional conservative (hell I'm MUCH more anti-traditionalist than I am anti-feminist) nor am I one of those pea-brained primitive simps who don't know how to think outside the box besides an outdated procreation practice (which they're not even obeying that rule properly), but even I will have to admit, gender overall is NOT a social construct at all, it is pure biology. Now, gender roles ARE indeed social constructs (for the most part), and social expectations and gendered profile are definitely socially constructed. This was done by traditionalist to ensure 'stability' in a society. You hold some truth with our expected lifestyles being constructed by a social force, however it would be wise not to go too far off the deep-end and claim my entire gender is just some micro-ingredient in itself.
I am also not against the intersex notions or orientations being a genetic trait. I sure-as-hell know I'm not asexual by choice, and whether it is a disorder or 'natural' is anyone's guess, either way I personally see it as a blessing since I seem to be able to resist white-knighting very easily compared to most men. I used to think I was some lucky heterosexual (or so Christians and tradcons would lie to me and claim so), but turns out I was truly an ace and my zero desire for sex is pure evidence of it (though I do have a wedgie fetish).
But overall, most people who argue gender construct usually come off as unstable neo-liberals who censor contradictory arguments. Granted you're not censoring others but I can't say the same for other liberals or gender-scientists.
Overall, I would have forgiven such science if only the regressive neo-left did not abuse it to subjugate others, normally 'cis-gendered' caucasian males, but apparently African males like myself are not too far on the misandry and racism hate rosters (especially the former). That's the primary reason I left liberalism and oppose feminism and social justice.
The rebel media outlets are not entirely exaggerating this as I face it in person as well and when I call them out, others presume I'm just some delusional idiot making shit up. Yet, they dare wonder why I am so nihilistic and selfishly isolate myself from others, or very defensive (even physically) with them. I literally can't tolerate stupidity in general, regardless of ideology or political party.
Again, even trees are social constructs in their own way. Gender is a social construct in this way, as it is a category created by humans, thus a social construct. It is also a social construct in the sense I expect you are referring to, in that aspects of the category of gender are entirely due to societal norms rather than due to any objective/non-socially variable basis, like wearing dresses or liking certain colors.
Well I can agree with the color and attires portions sure, but what of the child birth and nursing portions? I obviously can not become pregnant and have children of my own naturally (at least not without sex-change surgery), nor can I breast-feed near a smidget as efficiently as a woman can (and its a very rare anomaly that a man even has milk in his nipples for breast feeding), although on the other hand, I don't have to worry about managing a monthly premenstrual cycle either...
If there is a way of eliminating the need of women to suffer through that on a daily basis, I'd like to know.
I never denied that gender has some biological grounds. But that makes it no less of a social construct. Even sex, which is entirely based on biological traits is socially constructed. Gender is a mix of biological and social traits, and thus is even more so. I explained in the take that something being a social construct doesn't make it any less real or any more changeable, it just means that the meaning and definition applied to that particular category is a function of society.
@Chiper42 Alright, I guess I can see where you are going with this...
Yepp. All social constructionism is about is recognizing that our labels for concepts or objects in the world which we use for understanding the world through are not objective.
What if instead of being a social construct, gender was what shaped society?
Social constructs do shape society as well, just as other societal beliefs whether cultural or religious do.
You're missing the point... gender isn't a social construct. It is something you are born with, if people want to chance it later on that's their business. intersex people I can't say anything about, because I know nothing about them. But if you look at it biologically there are only two genders, because that's what's needed for humanity to survive.
But back to my point I think that gender has shaped society, because since 10.000 BC where humans first formed groups their roles where determent by the strengths and abilities of each gender, because that was the best way for them to survive, and since those roles where effiective, we've just kept them until now.
First off, you're conflating sex with gender I believe. But aside from that, I don't think you understand what I mean by social construct, so perhaps you need to do a quick reread and come back.
I'm done, you clerly don't understand what I mean so... I'm not going to waste my time on this
but you should be more openminded when you write about a topic you, as you yourself say aren't an expert on
I understand perfectly. You think that because sex exists as a clear and objective biological occurrence it isn't socially constructed. The issue with that is that as I said in the take, even such objectively real things like trees and colors are socially constructed in a sense, as all socially constructed means is that they exist as a socially defined category that we ascribe meaning to. Basically, we choose what "sex" means (by doing things like deciding whether sex is defined by genetalia or by chromosomes or otherwise), thus we construct it.
you really are close minded, aren't you :)
I'm not the one refusing to have an adult discussion here.
what discussion?
you presented you points, I presented mine
You can't handled that others don't follow the same thought process as you,
gender is first and foremost biologic and something you are born with
what you choice to do with it from then on out is your problem.
and if you don't like what I have to say, then stop hitting reply
I'm entirely capable of handling it if you think differently than I, but I would rather you understand my position if that's the case, which you don't seem to.
In any case, the issue here is that you are not using the same definition for either gender or for social construct as I am. Classic ambiguity fallacy. As such, I would ask that you try to understand the definitions I am using, and use those same definitions so that we might have a productive conversation instead of one where you assume you're right just because my terminology does not match your own.
you don't want a discussion you want to be right
if you like to use big words to do go ahead
I'm trying to have a conversation, you are avoiding one, making it seem that your words are rather more applicable to you than to me.
Gender norms are a social construct. l
Gender is not a social construct
Both are. Again, color is a social construct. Nearly all categories we create are socially constructed.
Did you really just write 1500 words trying to convince the world that sexual organs don't exist? You should consider going into politics...
If you think that was my argument, you clearly need to reread those 1500 words.
You wrote: "Gender is a social construct..." Those are your words, honey, not mine.
Yes. And I also explained that something being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So once again, you obviously need a reread.
No, you need a vocabulary lesson, sweetie. Gender is a biological fact, not a "social construct."
No dear, that's you. You clearly don't understand what a social construct is, so go look it up and then come back.
Look, it's okay if you're confused about who you are, sweetie, but that's your confusion, not the rest of the world's. The world outside your gender studies support group has known since the age of 4 that boys have penises, and girls have vaginas.
That's sex, not gender. You obviously didn't actually read any of what I wrote, so there is zero reason I need to take any of your criticism of my argument seriously. After all, a counterargument for an argument that is not my own isn't really something I need to give a shit about.
Oh, don't get hurt just because someone pointed out the silliness of your take, sweetie. That's just part of trying to influence others.
You can't point out its silliness if you haven't read it.
I stopped at "Gender is a social construct..." That's where you lost all credibility, honey.
Lmao how can you expect to understand what a social construct is if you refuse to read anything about them? You've pretty much just admitted that you don't know jack shit on the subject, so why exactly do you think you can possibly understand it better than me?
Anyone who believes that a penis is a "social construct" needs to push away from the keyboard. I think there's a whole lot about people your parents haven't told you, honey. That's okay. We all learn at different paces. See, there are boys and girls, sweetie, and they are different in lots of wonderful ways...
Once again, you have clearly demonstrated and even so much as admitted that you have no idea what a social construct is. So yes, we do all learn at different paces, and evidently your pace is not at all since you refuse to educate yourself.
Apparently a "social construct" is anything you don't like, honey. I'm sure you'd try to convince your parents that failing out of college is a social construct.
by the way, given that you're the one of us who still doesn't know that boys and girls have dimorphic genitals, I'd say you're the one who's lacking in education here, sweetie.
How would you know if you haven't read what I wrote? Again, you're attacking an argument that I'm not making.
Look, this is fun and all, but there's a serious issue here. You're trying to convince the world that 2 plus 2 equals love to make yourself feel better. It's okay if you're a boy trapped in a girl's body. No one needs to know, and frankly none of us cares. But you're going to find a whole lot of misery trying to convince us all that gender confusion is normal. The vast majority aren't going to agree with you, sweetie, and demanding that they do is going to make you a very sad cookie. So forget about seeking approval and just learn to love you.
You can't know what I'm trying to convince the world of, you haven't read what I've written.
Look sweetie, I know you'd love to think yourself smarter than the rest of us, but the fact is that you're essentially just verbally jacking yourself off here. You haven't actually read or understood my argument, so you're just arguing with some fake me whose argument you are pretending to understand and shoot down. So that's great for you that you're having fun winning an argument against your imaginary friend, but you've gotta wake up and realize that that's what you're doing. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a me in your head because that's the only kind of argument you can win.
Oh honey, you're delusional, and every person who's posted here has tried to tell you so in their own way. And you accuse me of tilting at windmills? Wake up, dear. I don't have to win any arguments, because there isn't any argument to be made. You can't argue with reality, sweetie. Please seek help for yourself.
I'm not the one arguing with someone who doesn't exist. And if there is no argument to be made, why are you making one? You're correct in that no one can argue with reality, but that's not what either of us are doing. I am arguing with you, and you are arguing with your imaginary friend.
Oh, I'm not arguing with you, honey, I'm mocking you in an attempt to help you out of your own delusion. That's what humans do. We mock our friends and family members when they've lost touch so that they might regain their bearings. It's a painful experience, I know, but human learn through pain.
So now you're even pretending you can change reality, huh? Sweetheart, it really doesn't matter how many excuses you make, this is still an argument. I know it's hard for you to understand that reality doesn't bend to your whim, but you're gonna have to face up to that. Now look, are you going to actually address the take or are you just going to keep blathering on about how I'm so wrong and you're so right when you don't even know what I believe in the first place? Because if you just want to argue with an imaginary friend, you can do that without my help, and I can stop wasting my time. So I'll warn you now, if you keep trying to argue at an imaginary me on my take, I'm gonna have to block you. But if you'd like to have an actual adult conversation about my beliefs, I'd me more than happy to entertain you.
Again, it's okay if you feel like a girl trapped in a boy's body, sweetie. No one cares. Just don't expect the world to agree with you that what you experience is normal. Just try to be happy being you.
Okay, so no, you're going to keep throwing insults at your imaginary friend because you aren't capable of having an adult conversation. Well goodbye then, I have no interest in people who just want to have a debate with a fake version of me because they don't want to go to the effort of understanding my actual position. Go have your strawman arguments without me, you clearly don't need me for it.
OMG I didn't even see that until now! That explains everything! lol
there are arguments and discusions
Arguments are often a waste of time
Discusions are helpfull and make you smarter even when not finding a commun agreed point
Ew boy... what a lot of made up bullshit. This seems to be all the rage these days.
Gender is not a social construct at all. Gender has been around long long long time before they were societies. And we can see gender in animals that don't have societies.
Your assuming that gender and sex are interchangeable whereas the author draws a distinction between the two.
@greenman26 No, I am not.
Look at the behavior of male animals and females animals of the same species. Typically, different sex animals adopt different behaviors or roles within their family or extended social group. Why? Because it's natural for them to do so. It's evolved emergent behavior.
Do you think this happened?
"Hey, Simba, let's make it within our pride that the lionesses kill the prey will we sit around and brush our manes."
"Sounds like a great idea, Leo! What do you think, Elsa?"
"I am sick and tired of you male lions establishing these gender role social constructs for our pride!"
Yeah, that happens a lot in the natural world...
The bottom line is that gender roles are established by evolution. That's it.
If you are referring to exclusively to instinctual behavior that only results from biological predispositions, then yes you are conflating the two. If a behavior in an animal is predetermined by their biology, then that wouldn't really count as a gender role in the same sense we use for humans. Gender roles require social norms and hence social groups (something like a society). If you are referring to the behaviors that emerge in groups of animals that can be influenced and changed, then animals have something like gender roles which are social constructs established by group norms (very similar to the way they emerge in human social groups). There's no reason that a society as defined as a group of people is a necessary condition for social constructs, only a capacity for an animal to conceive of abstract categories which apes and other animals display.
@abc3643: Basically what greenman said. There is more to gender than biological behavioral patterns can explain. For instance, girls liking pink or wearing dresses cannot be explained as a biological impulse, but only as a societal norm.
Perhaps... perhaps not. There was no convention where everybody got together and decided that...
People don't have to agree on something for it to be a social construct. Cultural and religious conventions don't tend to be collectively decided upon, but still they don't tend to have biological basis.
But they do have a physical basis. For instance, study myth origins and the origins of religious rules. Here's an example in both Judaism and Islam eating pork is forbidden. Why is that? The reason back then is that people who eat pork had a larger chance of dying. The reason for those deaths was unknown and for whatever reason that they came up with it was decided in these religions that people should not eat pork. We now know that the reason the people died was from trichinosis AKA lockjaw which can happen if the pork is infected and not cooked well enough. So Thou shalt not eat pork is a social construct but it is based on a real world situation that was not understood at the time. The vast majority of our rules in our society exist for similar reasons. That without those rules bad things will happen to people.
Having rational reasons behind them is not the same as having a biological basis. Even so, not all the rules have a rational basis at all.
How will bad things happen to boys who like pink, or who wear dresses? Some of our social conventions are there for good reason, yes, but plenty are not.
Nope. the genders are completely different and complementary to one another. This is a silly conversation that is only taking place because of the society (social construct) We live in.
Lmao someone didn't read the take very well
I read your take, I decided it was ridiculous.
Well written though, to be fair.
Well you didn't read it very well if you think the genders being different makes them not socially constructed. Trees are different from rocks, but those categories are socially constructed too.
This is all just rhetorical wordplay. If I say I saw a boy today I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about. Everything looks different under a microscope. Anything can be redefined into what becomes an impractical absurdity.
No, it's an explanation of what social constructionism is. You may not find it practically applicable to you, but that doesn't really matter that much since the world doesn't actually revolve around you.
he read it and doesn't agree. the end.
@COCOCHANEL lol u ain't part of this, what are you doing here. And the way he phrased his argument, it was a counterargument to an argument I never made, thus why I'd assume he didn't read. There's a big difference between disagreeing because you disagree and disagreeing because you don't get the argument.
freedom to disagree !
@COCOCHANEL Lol you're free to disagree, you're doing so right now aren't you? But the fact that you're free to disagree doesn't mean that I have to respect your opinion. I'm free to disagree with the fact that the earth is a sphere, but I'd still be a fucking idiot if I did.
yes i'm enjoying it !
@COCOCHANEL Enjoying what? Disagreeing because you can? Well it's nice you're enjoying it, but you certainly aren't very good at it. Good disagreement requires more than "you're wrong cause I say so nya nya"
@COCOCHANEL Yes, that's all there is to it. This simple word "gender" was something that has become cumbersome and complicated by silly feminist quibbling. I don't submit to their personal brand of stupidity.