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
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
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
tl; dr but I will say that I am hearing a lot of people using the terms "bio-fem" and "bio-male" now
Social or not let's face it biologically men and women are wired differently
what about the third sex
the undefined
happens more often as you belive
I mentioned intersex people in the take.
sorry, overread this, picture on top just shows woman and man
This mytake is a social construct
Yes indeed.
You're a social construct
Eeh. Less so but kinda sorta.
I'm a social construct
Still kinda sorta ya
I have reached a new level of woke
Lmao enjoy it
as in gender roles? I feel they are a combination of social constructs, along with biology and evolution, culture as well, but ya I resent a lot of them
I don't really have a problem with it being a social construct. I'm attracted to a lot of things that are social constructs, like women wearing makeup, having shaved legs, etc.
Oh and of course women having long hair instead of short.
Your liberal college professor isn't God. Hormones, DNA and biological make women and men behave differently. No amount of theoretical bullshit is going to change any rational persons mind.
Bahavioral differences or biological basises don't make sex or gender not social constructs. Or do you think that the visible spectrum of light divided itself into six convenient categories for us?
I think testosterone and estrogen impact behaviors in both men and women. It's been that way for all humanity and will continue to be that way. However you will always find exceptions to the rule (two women made it into Army special forces... with the same grueling standards as men) but overall there is a REASON why men/women act differently. It's biology plain and simple. No amount of theory or downvotes will ever change my mind on that.
I went to a very liberal college by the way. I look back on those times as a liberal never never land that doesn't reflect anything in the real world. At 19 you haven't been around long enough to get a taste of full reality.
Is there a biological reason for women liking pink and wearing dresses too? Because that's part of gender as well.
well don't tell me that women are "forced" by men to wear makeup and put on dresses. In my experience it's really OTHER women pressure women to act that way.
You're going off topic, and making the argument about something I never mentioned. Again, is liking pink and wearing dresses biological or social? If biological, why so? If social, does that not prove gender is socially defined?
Pink dresses represent feminity in our culture (well at least it used to) and many if not most women have a biological impulse to FEEL feminine.
But the color pink has no biological connection to being female. Yet, it is part of the female gender in our culture, because our society constructs femininity as being associated with the color pink. That's one of the ways gender is socially constructed.
actually pink does reflect on feminity on a very intimate way (do I need to elaborate?).
Honestly, do you really want a gender fluid society? I mean, like seriously? I have a feeling that the man (or woman) of your dreams isn't some effeminent overly sensitive emotional guy or if it was a woman it wasn't some butch trying to dress like a man.
Being a "nice" guy myself I try not to judge. But this Kaitlyn Jenner propaganda is going way WAY too far. The vast majority of people don't agree with it and for good reason.
It does not. It has no biological basis. You realize it used to be that pink was masculine and blue feminine?
And where did I encourage a gender fluid society? Something being socially constructed doesn't mean that it's fluid. Just because the color blue is a social construct doesn't mean it can suddenly turn into the color green. I'm just asking that people recognize that gender is not objective.
You say that you don't encourage a "gender fluid society" but then you say that you are "asking that people recognize that gender is not objective."?
ok
Subjective doesn't mean fluid? Do you really lack this much understanding of the English language?
what are you trying to prove? What is your final objective? In my experience people who say that there should be "awareness" of people who have alternative lifestyles are really giving a precursor to political correctness.
I'm sorry but a feminine man (who is straight) most likely not do very well with the ladies romantically speaking. To a lesser extent this also holds true for masculine women. This "plurality" of gender behavior is doing nothing but confusing young people and their gender roles... ultimately creating depression, frustration and grief when it comes the dating world and self respect/identity in general.
I'm trying to explain what is meant by "social construct" in the way I and most academic sources use the term. Many people, such as evidently yourself, do not understand the term, and assume that by "gender is a social construct" people mean that gender doesn't exist, is changeable, or is unimportant.
And I simply don't think that's true, and even so it's not really relevant to my take. Not enforcing arbitrary roles on people does not seem to me like the kind of thing that would cause such issues, and I think it interesting that you seem to think people must be so strictly regulated to be happy.
So Is the 3rd one just meant to be a guy that throws like a girl?
Nice take. I liked to see things from a different perspective
Social Construct? lol
You mentioned a village.
Where is it?
Salinas, in the Dominican Republic. Here's an article www.nationalgeographic.com.au/.../...nto-boys.aspx
Nonsense. Forget your meds today?
Not my fault if you can't understand it buddy.
I am still reading. Intersting to say the least.
Discrimination at best.
I agree with you. Nice take.
Rape is a social construct also
Lol, you savage.
No shit Sherlock. What's your point?
The point is this mytake is stupid.
Well, you didn't do a terribly good job making that point. But what can I expect from someone incapable of understanding such complex issues?
It's not a complex issue, it's all relative and subjective. However societies set up parameters that dictate what we do. This doesn't mean there's hundreds of "Genders". This isn't an excuse to reject male/female.
Yes, it is all relative and subjective. That's the point. There's as many genders as we have categories for, that's the whole thing with gender. Creating a new gender is like creating a new genre of play, or music, because gender is effectively a set of genres for people.
But these constructs are based on something. Male and Female are based on something, there is evidence to this. Most of these "genders" are essentially in the head.
Them being based on something makes them no less socially constructed. Colors are based on wavelengths of light, yet how many categories for color we have is a matter of social construction.
But no one is denying the fact these colors exist. There's no evidence that humans can change from being male to female or vice versa.
I'm not denying the fact that anything exists either, nor am I arguing that humans can change either gender or sex. If you think that's my argument, you clearly haven't read it properly.
You're saying gender is a social construct, which means we constructed it ourselves. How is being male or female constructed?
You mean as far as sex goes? The requisite traits a person must have to be considered male or female or intersex as far as sex goes are socially determined. For instance, the decision of whether just chromosomes are enough to determine sex or whether external genetalia or hormones or other traits factor in as well, and how much each trait counts for.
It's based on a few things. Your genitals, your hormonal makeup, your physical makeup etc. You can inject testosterone all day, you won't become male. Men cannot become pregnant under any circumstances, women can't produce sperm under any circumstance either. The best you can hope for is change certain gender characteristics but that's all you're really accomplishing.
Again, something being socially constructed doesn't mean it can be changed, and doesn't mean its category is entirely meaningless. The point is only that the category itself is socially defined, and is more a representation of the objective world than the objective world itself, like a painting of a fire versus an actual fire. We as a society determine what "male" or "female" or "intersex" mean, and what traits are required to be considered part of one of those categories. The categories reflect biological truths, yes, but the categories themselves are not so objective as one might think.
Lots of things are defined, you're just talking semantics at this point. There are two sexes, everything else is just nonsense people makeup.
There are two primary sexes, yes, though there are also people who are not either of those primary sexes. We construct the categories of male and female based on the typical traits exhibited by people. However, those categories are still constructed, as we as people decide which traits matter when deciding sex and which do not.
Please explain how one's physical sex is socially constructed. Even if we entertained your thought that we "invented" the terms male and female, there is science to back up that there are differences in the sexes. This doesn't somehow make these other "sexes" (whatever that means) somehow valid.
Some people define sex based on external genetalia, yes? But some define it based on chromosomes. And yet others define it based on a mix of these things, or on traits like hormones as well. We pick and choose which specific traits to consider when constructing a category, and how much priority certain traits get. That's not about objective reality, that's about how we choose to interpret that reality.
Everything is perception, but there are object realities. The point is you're not making any case for the "Gender is a social construct" You're argument is there is nothing truly objectively true.
That's what social constructionism is, is the issue. Something being a social construct just means that the category is shaped and given meaning by humans, not that the thing itself doesn't have an objective existence outside of human society. To what extent gender is a social construct is not my argument here- I'm not giving evidence about gender being wholly composed of social norms and having no biological basis whatsoever. I'm just explaining what is meant when gender or other concepts are called social constructs.
Why don't you just claim everything is a social construct?
I do. It's in the title of the take.
Fair point, but the emphasis on sex is strange.
Tbh I mostly emphasized sex and gender because those are the categories that tend to be most focused upon in the social constructionism debate, as well as the categories that would get the most attention.
What is the point of mentioning it, if all we can do is perceive? Does this somehow justify anything?
Understanding the way people understand and categorize the world is a pretty important field of study in sociology and psychology actually. As for practical applications for us, it explains how and why "new genders" might be created.
But then how do we justify what's correct and not correct according to you? I understand why people mention it, but I still can't get behind it from being correct.
I mean correct how? I don't quite see how social constructionism makes correctness impossible.
This just seems like a sociology theory that has little use in the real world.
I disagree. I think understanding social constructionism is very useful when trying to understand how society functions. Knowing how people categorize and label things seems like a pretty important field of knowledge to me.
You could simplify it to how people categorize things. But societies have truths, and I think this theory is just trying to justify certain things that are baseless, like multiple genders. That's my opinion
The theory is just used to explain how the labels we put on things aren't the same as the things themselves. As far as gender goes, I am using that theory to make the point that gender is what we define it to be, because in my opinion that is the case. If we create more categories, there are more categories. Gender is a category, so if we make more gender categories, there are more genders. That's how I see it anyways.
Your theory doesn't explain what the reality actually is. It really doesn't matter what it TRULY is, but how we interpret it. The problem is that these other genders really have no BASIS. What makes them so different? Why are the considered a gender? I want answers not theory.
It doesn't need to explain reality itself, that's not its job.
The male and female genders have as much basis as any other genders. They are considered genders because we consider them genders. That's how categorization works. A tree is a tree because we say it's a tree. We create the definitions for things. Like changing the definition of planet to exclude Pluto, and creating a new category called "Dwarf planet" which we defined such that Pluto was included in that category.
What defines a gender? Tell me what qualifies a gender.
Recognition, mostly. Society having a category for it. Just like what qualifies a distinct color.
So if I recognize as a dog, I'm a dog?
Not by any recognized definition of dog, no. If society were to change the concept/word "dog" to mean all mammals, then yes, but since our current definition of dog excludes humans, no.
Aha, so who gets to recognize the definitions?
Or a better question, who decides that humans can't be dogs?
See now that's a good question, and the answer is the same people who create new words. Nobody really, but everybody sorta. Language is basically consensus based- certain combinations of sounds are words because society as a whole considers them words, and people as a whole understand them as words. I'm sure there's actually way more in depth studies on this shit, but that's a question for a professional linguist, sociologist, or possibly psychologist, not me.
So in short it's society who decides correct?
Yeah basically you could put it that way. What correct really means though is as issue too, because it doesn't (or at least shouldn't in my opinion) mean that people shouldn't use new words/concepts if society hasn't decided they're correct, just that if one is trying to communicate with other people, one should use terms society recognizes according to the social definition and not some other purely personal one.
Then there's an issue on which society you ask. If you asked Saudi citizens they would totally reject anything not male or female. But if you went to India there's a third gender. This is why biological definitions are best because they have the most basis.
Again, "sex" is what we use to refer to biological traits. We need a way to refer to the social categories we base of sex as well, which is why we have the term "gender".
Most societies only identify two genders. They are based on the sexes. I can't identify as an Asian because I'm not Asian. This argument is a way to try and distort biology. I don't care what people identify as, but to say there's more than one gender is silly.
Again, the genders being based on the sexes doesn't make gender and sex inseparable. "Asian" is an ethnic/geographical category, which you by definition do not belong to. Gender however is a social category, and while you would presumably be incorrect if you identified as female (since I assume you're not one by the fact that you have so far identified as male), the definition of gender is such that a person's sex is not the determining factor for their gender. The determining factor is their personality essentially, which is not something they can change, but is something where we have to trust their personal view of themselves as accurate because there's no better option. Like how people can't change whether they're an introvert or an extrovert, but we determine who is who by how they identify themselves.
Then gender is something irrelevant and needs to be tossed out the window. Especially if it's so maleable
How are social roles irrelevant? Are other social descriptors irrelevant and unnecessary too, like liberal, or leader, or shy?
That's the point! Descriptors are supposed to describe something. it's describing their biology. That's what male and female are.
Male and female in terms of sex perhaps. Male and female in terms of gender however describes their category in society, not biology.
But these categories didn't happen on accident. They are based on something. That's the sex of the individual. This phenomenon of more than 2 genders is recent.
It's not recent. Plenty of societies throughout history had the concept of genders other than male or female. Even the ancient Egyptians I believe.
But what is it based on? Religion? At least the modern male/female has basis. That's my point.
Personality, interests, just generally what societal role a person falls into best.
Then we just get back into that society debate. This is just going in circles
Sure I guess. I mean really I think the issue is that you think the term is too vague, and that is fair, but like people seem to be able to use and understand it just fine, so from my perspective I don't see much wrong with it. Like the purpose of language is to allow us to communicate. If people understand a word/concept, then it's fulfilling its purpose.
But we can say things that aren't true. Many scientific theories that were once thought to be true turned out incorrect. For things like this, I want a basis. I respect your opinion but I can't get behind this. I still think Trans people deserve equal rights however.
You mean for gender or for this whole theory? Either way though, not my field of expertise. For gender, ask a psychologist, maybe a sociologist. For the whole social construct thing, it's called social construct theory and it should be relatively easy to find since it's a well known sociological concept. Thing is though, both sociology and psychology are the kind of sciences where conclusive evidence is far more hard to come by than in more simple fields like physics or chemistry, so you really can't expect the same exact type of evidence from them.
I minored in Psychology, I wouldn't say it's a more difficult science. In fact it can't be a true science because you can't really test the mind in a measurable way reliably.
I think you misread what I said. I didn't say psychology itself is more difficult, just that conclusive evidence is harder to come by in psychology because it's so much more complex, by which I just mean that it has far more variable factors to work with.
It is difficult to study, but we haven't truly discovered a good way to understand it. It's a lot of speculation. But still important
Lol guys with a female arm
pc nonsense. gender is pretty much biological.
Maybe to the extent that people's brains and thus behaviors are influenced by biology, but don't even try to tell me that girls liking pink and wearing skirts and floral patterns has a biological origin.
they're not. but to say there are no biologically-based gender norms is bull.
Thus why I never said that. Gender does have biological basises, but that makes it no less a social construct, and that doesn't change the fact that gender is still a descriptor of how different kinds of people are categorized in society.
i'm a progressive, but to a limit. saysing gender doesn't exist is petty PC bull, invented by SJWs who were bullied as kids for being different, and haven't got over it yet.
If you think something being a social construct means it doesn't exist, you didn't read what I wrote. So go read, and try to avoid strawman arguments in the future.
haha... i answered your question, dummy bitch. just be grateful enough for that at least.
Very informative take
Very interesting take...