Gender is a Social Construct Pt.2- Who Defines it and How?

Believe it or not, how gender is and should be defined is actually an issue I’m a bit conflicted on. Though I firmly agree that gender is more than the binary many people believe in, the issue of exactly how it is defined and who has the right to define it is one I’m still working through.

Gender is a Social Construct Pt.2- Who defines it and how?


Gender is Socially Constructed

This is an issue I’ve addressed in a previous take, but essentially what it boils down to is that all our categories are social constructs. The reason why a tree and a bush are in different categories is because we as a society decided they were. That’s not to say that the differences between things are entirely a product of our perception, just that where exactly the boundaries between one color and another lie are arbitrary. Take color for an example- technically color is a spectrum of infinite individual colors, and yet we as a society have created specific categories that we divide this spectrum into. Red and orange have objectively different wave lengths, but the fact that we consider them different categories is entirely arbitrary. We could as easily have 4 primary categories of color, or 15, as we could our standard 6 or 7 (depending if you count indigo as distinct from blue or purple). Thus, all categories, including gender, have some degree of arbitraryness about them.

Gender is particularly distinct in this respect in that it is an abstract category rather than a physical one (at least the definition of gender I’m using is). While gender has often been conflated with sex, the typical definition in modern academia is that gender is the societal expectations and roles built around sex, and is thus distinct and to some degree independent of our conceptualization of sex.


Who Creates Meaning

Now, this is where things get tricky. In our use of language (which is very much tied up with our formations of conceptual categories) meaning is determined by common consensus. The reason “cat” means a small furry feline is because we agree it does, and were we to mutually agree to use the word “cat” to mean the ocean, that would then be a legitimate meaning of the word cat. This sort of language shift can be seen with all sorts of words, for instance the relatively recent alteration of the meaning of “literally”, which is now often used as emphasis for a figurative phrase. Essentially, meaning (and grammar in general) is determined through common consensus to a large degree.

This system of common consensus for the construction of meaning creates issues for the conceptualization of gender then, as there are vast differences in how people believe gender should be “correctly” defined. Some stand by the idea that it should exclusively refer to biological sex characteristics, though this definition I take issue with because I do believe there should be a term to refer to the societal roles constructed around sex, and since gender is currently widely used to mean that I think it’s reasonable for that to be an acceptable definition. That said, I also don’t think it’s necessarily wrong when people use “gender” as synonymous with “sex”, only that that should not be the only definition of the word. But even if we take gender to be a descriptor of societal role rather than biological makeup, there are issues with how it can be defined, and what constitutes a “correct” gender.


One major hangup is whether there are strict gender categories which are the same between different societies in the first place. Obviously many societies, particularly historically, have vastly different gender roles. So, if two societies have vastly different ideas about what women should be like, can the feminine gender in those two societies even be considered to be the same gender? Are native American women and ancient roman women the same gender? Is the distinction between gender categories based on what sex the category is constructed around or what particular entailments the category holds?

Next, do undefined or unpopular genders exist? The question here is a similar one to whether new words or new usages for words are correct or not. How widely accepted must a potential gender be for it to be considered “real”? If a society as a whole believes in and is constructed around the idea of only two genders, does that society only have two genders? How do new genders arise, and when are they legitimate? Can a gender from a different society be considered a real gender in a society that doesn’t have a framework for that particular gender?

Finally, who gets to categorize people as a specific gender? Should gender be based on how we perceive others or how they perceive themselves? If I, in my head, have a framework for five different “types” of people, do I have five different personal genders that other people fall into? Or does my definition of gender have to match up to the societal one (in the same way that if I have different words and definitions for words, those aren’t really legitimate. If you say “I like cats” and I understand it as “I like oceans”, I’m the one who is incorrect.) Or, is gender based on how people sort themselves, perhaps based on an existing societal framework or on a framework they are creating?


Where I Stand


As I’ve already stated, I do use the term gender to refer to the societal roles created for people, usually based on physical sex. That being the case, I recognize gender as something that can’t exactly be nailed down much better than many other abstract categories for humans, such as what political party or political alignment they fall into. And while I do struggle with how gender is and should be defined, I believe generally that it is easiest to allow people to categorize themselves, as I view telling someone else what gender they are similar to telling someone else what political alignment they belong to. Basically, though someone can be incorrect about their own political alignment, they usually aren’t, and generally they know better than anyone else what role they fall into. As for the emergence of new genders, I again compare it to language. Sometimes new words are useful, and allow us to more accurately categorize and thus explain the world. New words are not “fake” or “nonsense” merely because they did not previously exist, but they do need to be endowed with commonly understandable meaning before they can really be recognized as a “real” word. This of course creates the paradoxical issue that the only way for words to become “real” is for them to be used, which to me essentially means that if people want to construct or legitimize a new gender, they must use it. Thus, while “nonsense” genders are a possibility, they are not illegitimate since all genders must be nonsense before they are real. I realize that’s a bit convoluted, but it’s exactly the same thing we do with words, so maybe it’s just an inevitable aspect of the construction of new categories and new meanings to things.

Another option I think is viable is simply to create different words for different formations of gender. Similar to how gender is now being used as a term distinct from sex, perhaps the category of gender itself needs to be divided further to encapsulate the different ways gender might be conceptualized, creating distinct terms for gender as defined by society, defined by the individual possessing the gender, and defined by those applying gendered categories to others.

For now at least, my stance is simply to let people figure out where they lie themselves, and that just because a category is new doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate. However, I am also partly of the mind that people for whom a certain gender is not legitimized are not necessarily incorrect, just as people who speak a particular dialect that would be considered ungrammatical are not actually necessarily wrong in their speech either, though those people would be incorrect in stating that others who speak a different dialect (or have different genders) are wrong.


3|1
1240

Join the discussion

What Guys Said 40

  • Thus is a political process which has the goal of recognizing several new minorities so that they can get some preferred treatment under the law. It is the PC thought police/liberal news and entertainment complex at work.

    3|6
    1|0
    • Honestly I'd say its more PC to expect social institutions to remain completely the same judt because that's the way its been. What you're doing is pretty close to insisting that there can onky be two political alignments and that anyone trying to form new ones is being PC or whatever.

    • Show All
    • I'm not over sensitive. I merely didn't think the distinction between criticizing my choice of argument and criticizing me for using the argument was one worth making. I explained this already, so why are you still insisting that my interpretation is other than what I say it is? Are you really so caught up in your own worldview that you have to believe its other people who are misinterpreting what you say, rather than merely you reading far too much into a simple choice of phrasing?

    • "Are you really so caught up in your own worldview that you have to believe its other people who are misinterpreting what you say, rather than merely you reading far too much into a simple choice of phrasing?"

      Who is the most logical person to know what I - me - OlderAndWiser - what I meant? IO will stop this before I DO start calling you names.

  • Gender is not a social construct, it is biological in nature. Claiming that its a social construct because we gave it a name does not in any way make it less real. We call dogs dogs, does that mean that before we gave them a name they didn't exist? of course not, they exist independent of us, so does gender. In fact we gave it a name because it exists, not because it doesn't. We saw clear patterns of differences between men and women and then assigned a name to those differences. Every bit of data shows empirically that men and women are different both physiologically, biochemically, genetically (in fact the difference between male and female DNA is the difference between human and chimpanzee DNA), neurologically and by extension behaviorally. We have found it consistently and reliably. We do know that gender is biological.

    3|2
    1|0
    • Okay so you obviously didn't read more than the title. Try again once you've actually read, thanks

    • Show All
    • 6d

      I like the wikipedia one. "A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event."

    • 6d

      But its also very worth noting that basic definitions are not an effective way to explain concepts. They're good for a basic understanding or quick explanation of a concept, but not for any kind of detailed understanding. There's a reason the Wikipedia page is more than just that short definition, and that's that what a "social construct" really is and why it matters goes much further than those few sentences.

  • See I once thought this but several things made me change my mind.

    1. The use of the word gender, even in academic circles, often represents a huge Freudian slip. They'll use the word gender in place of sex, and while this may seem relatively innocent, it shows that subconsciously they themselves make little if any distinction. Furthermore, modern academia is a hollow husk of its former self. It's a for profit corporate sham and is in many cases peddles some really outlandish nonsense.
    2. "Gender roles" while perhaps influenced by individual societies to some extent, are almost universal even between societies that have never had any interaction with one another.
    3. There are chemical compounds which predispose men and women to certain kinds of behaviors. While some people might have excess of these compounds, or deficiencies, these people are the exception, not the rule. These behavioral differences have been scientifically validated.

    At the end of the day, the only genders/sexes I acknowledge are man, woman, and hermaphrodites (who compose 0.018% of the population).

    1|4
    1|0
    • 1. Again, while one meaning for the word gender is synonymous to sex, thats not the meaning often used in academia, and its not the definition I'm using. I think its useful to have a word for the societal expectations and roles constructed around gender, and I think gender is a perfectly fine word for those.
      2. Not really. Gender roles between cultures have some similarities, especially nowadays with our more globalized culture, but there's absolutely still major differences, even more so with historical societies.
      3. While I'm not gonna deny that hormones have some effect on behavior, I'm of the mind that societal teachings and general personality differences have far more of one. In any case, hormones do not a gender make, particularly as the behavioral differences are relatively minimal

    • Show All
    • It's not guesswork to say that men were hunters and women were gatherers and that men generally traveled over longer distances. Finally, pink is objectively softer than blue. It's literally red mixed with white.

    • Jesus christ. Again, it's not the factual underpinnings of your arguments I'm taking issue with, it's the conclusions you're drawing. Men may have moved more, but your assumption that that greater movement is behind men's liking cars more is complete guesswork, of the exact variety which you just condemned the social sciences for using.

      And pink is absolutely not "objectively" softer. It's not objectively anything, not anything concerning it's implications as far as feelings go anyways. Again, you do the exact thing you condemned me for doing earlier- basing arguments off of vague and unscientific feelings rather than objective fact. And once again, the difference between modern color-gender correlations and historical ones shows the difference in gender roles between cultures, thus showing that many gender roles are not biologically or objectively based.

  • In short, bullshit.

    Gender was created by nature and evolution. Anyone who thinks it's a "social construct" is delusional. They are simply denying reality.

    0|2
    1|0
    • You clearly have no grasp of what the terms "gender" or "social construct" even mean. Go do some research and come back when you can understand what I'm talking about.

    • Show All
    • I didn't use social construct. I said there are something norms created by society.

      It is my opinion: med. monash. edu. au/gendermed/sexandgender. html

    • One definition of gender is synonymous to sex, but that's not the one I'm using. Gender as I'm using it is to do with societal expectations/roles surrounding masculinity and femininity, while sex is the actual biological traits that make someone male or female or intersex.

      Additionally, nowhere did I say or even imply that something being a social construct invalidates it. Everything is a social construct in some way or another, as even physical objects have meanings that we as a society attach to them.

      Essentially, you seem to be misunderstanding my argument on account of misunderstanding the terms I'm using.

  • By this logic, human is a construct as well. Since we created the term. But we had to differentiate ourselves from other animals or there would be much confusion when describing how someone looks. Same goes for gender. If we start to play with gender and grey the area of definites, we may start to be more of a collective I suppose, but then we start to loose our own identities in a sense. That being said, identity is only objective and specific to one's self. At some point we have to have definites to be able to comfortably converse without creating a sense of confusion. Put it to you this way, a police officer wants to catch a criminal and needs eye witness testimony to be able to catch the criminal better. If you ask someone about their gender and we take this new gender fluidity concept into account, how are you really suppose to give an accurate description? You can only really go by what the person is wearing. But then, after that, what do you say?
    "Oh well the person in question had physical characteristics to what I would consider a female, however, I can't say with complete certainty as to if I am correct in this observation, since, the gender is an undefined term." Like there will be confusion.

    So, yeah, the person has a right to feel the way they should feel and believe in whatever gender they feel suites them. But there is a reason we have defined gender constructs in society, since individuality from a large abstract vision that society shows and a mass of people are, isn't as important until one needs to know and understand that individual more intimately. Until that time, it is far better to categorize to lessen the burden and confusion on living socially.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yes, everything is a social construct in a sense. I understand where you're coming from on the identities being useful for categorization thing, and issues like that are what this whole take is about. As I mentioned, one possible way to determine gender is based on what others percieve rather what the person's identity is, but that could raise conflicts as well.

    • 7d

      I suppose change always creates conflict...

  • I think I understand what you are saying about things having real objective properties that we can perceive, while the way we categorize them are social constructs. That being said, I personally don't see much value in overthinking things down to that level.
    I agree that most, if not everything in our language is a social construct... but so what?
    I don't see how that changes anything.

    In regards to gender, most people identify with the gender that is associated with their sex and most of the minority who doesn't identify with the gender that matches their sex will still identify as one of the two commonly accepted categories (male/female). So from what I can tell there really aren't enough people who identify as "other genders" for there to be much value for society as a whole to start validating all these other gender categories. These other genders also dont seem to be descriptive enough for them to be that valuable as a category.

    Also, the whole idea of gender being conflated to gender roles doesn't really make sense to me either because I thought people who identified as a different did so because they felt out of place in their physical body not because of gender roles.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Basically, I think that understanding how we construct concepts and categories is very useful in generally regonizing why and how our societal systems function. For instance, it lets us better understand why and how changes to our system of understanding can happen, for instance why Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet and why such a thing is even possible. Its important to recognize that our categories are not objective, as it lets us question them and ensure that the way we are choosing to define different concepts and categories is as productive as possible in allowing us to model the real world.
      Also, I do see where you're coming from on the issue of non binary genders not being well enough codified in our society to be worthy of recognition. Thats actually one of my primary hangups with all of this.

    • Personally, I think we might as well recognize non binary genders because A. I think our current system of gender is rather restrictive, so I definitely sympathize with others who are trying to remodel it or work outside of it and B. I do think the creation of new categories is valid. Just as someone claiming a political alignment outside of those we recognize (conservative vs liberal for instance) would be seen as correct in that, I see forming new gender categories as much the same.

      As for gender being tied to one's body, that's not really the case. The discourse of "born in the wrong body" was considered legitimate for a long time, but modern understandings are moving beyond that. Essentially, the link between ones body and ones gender is seen as being due to societal teachings gendering specific body types specific ways. So being transgender is more about not fitting the role expected of one based on one's body, rather than not fitting the actual body itself.

  • I sexually Identify as a waffle Iron. Wanna say something about it?
    Then consider yourself sued, because I am TRIGGERED.

    pussies.

    1|6
    2|0
    • Lmao so basically you don't actually understand what I wrote beyond the title and so you're just gonna throw out a tired ass old joke based on a misunderstanding of how "gender" is conceptualized.

    • Show All
    • The issue isn't where I'm going, it's you making arguments you later deny making.

    • what issue

  • For thousands of years human were living according to the nature that specify the way they are born.
    Its not only a society rules or morality rather than its how nature works. so I don't get the idea that we should implement a new imaginary genders to fit ourselves in the world. instead we should help these people who clearly have mental issues.
    This is exactly the problem these days !!!
    We always expect that everything we do is right and there is noway I'm wrong even if its obvious !!!
    Its not courageous or cool to be confused about your own gender.

    Science and human nature disagree with you darling !

    0|1
    0|0
    • So I take it you didn't read further than the title?

    • Show All
    • The irony is no one agree with you !!!
      Maybe you should accept nature.

    • The irony is that the vast majority of people in my area do agree with me, and that nature has jack shit to do with socially constructed categories

  • It depends on what you define the word to be, but here it looks like gender and sex don't mean the same thing. This Take reminds me of a person's sexuality actually, possibly being more fluid with the higher diversity of anybody you find attractive.

    A woman's femininity can definitely be considered one without much reference to sexual health.. but man I just love Takes like these.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Unless you're transexual all you have to do is look in-between your legs determine your gender.

    0|4
    1|0
  • TLDR - but based on the title, likely complete bullshit. Gender is whatcha got in your pants. Period. The rest of all that is fabricated by weirdos wanting to be something they're not.

    0|4
    1|0
    • So you didn't read it yet you think you're qualified to dispute the argument I'm making? Think again buddy. Gender isn't exclusively synonymous with sex, open a dictionary maybe.

    • Show All
    • Ya, I'm just a dumbass. But you're even dumber. LOL
      You just like to argue, we can see that. Let us know how that works out for your romantic life, say five or ten down the road.
      B-bye now. Enjoy your time on GAG.

    • More ad hominems. Again, all those serve to prove is that you have no real argument.

  • It started out simple than some dude decided women should do this or men should do that. You just have to look at the data and the genetics.

    Just look at it subjectively: men to women birth ratio is 105:100. That is, you have 105 boys birth for 100 girls. The question is why?

    You also know that men gain muscle mass faster than women. They also die faster. Why it is so?

    You also know women tend to favor spending time with her family rather than venture out for gains compare to men. Why is it so?

    0|0
    0|0
    • You're talking about sex, not gender. Gender as I'm using the term refers to the societal expectations surrounding masculinity and femininity, not the biological differences between the sexes, even if some societal expectations are based on biological trends.

    • Show All
    • Color is finite and limited by the actual spectrum. You can represent them as light spectrum. They are finite.

      Gender has no formal definition and everyone runs their own stuff.

      That's why everybody stick to sex and use it. Gender is invented later on to confuse things and serve no function.

      Gender as a psychological element is problematic to measure if you want to use that in science. How do you measure feminine and masculine? Is it limited to this 2? Are then mutually exclusive or not? What about people who have neither? Economicus (people who strictly follows economic theories) wouldn't count for neither.

    • Femininity is, as I have noted, things like dresses, jewelry, makeup, and typically feminine interests like shopping or cutesy shit or whatever. Anything you'd associate with women basically. Society decides what's feminine and what's masculine, just the same way as it decides what words mean.

      And yes, the definition of gender is very vague, that's the whole point of the take. However, I would argue that it is still useful, as it describes societal gender roles (like the feminine traits I described above) and expectations, which is something that it's helpful to have terminology for. The issue is really just determining what exactly gender means outside of vague notions of social expectations of gendered behaviors.

  • Gender is a biological fact - how a gender gets treated in a social context is a construct - based on that group's history and perceptions.
    In eastern Europe, men and women are completely equal - we have zero qualms about that either side (men still bring flowers and women still tend to do the cooking - only because these are closer to biological/brain wiring preferences - men are hunters, women are gatherers).
    In western Europe it's much the same, with some 'primarity' awarded to men, largely because aristocracy was primarily transferred via men.
    English speaking countries put women second, Jews put them first, so America has this big issue about it - the media is Jewish, the tradition is Anglo protestant - but you don't want to be equal because you're scared of playing second to communism (where being equal was fact, and for successor societies is really such a non event).

    0|2
    1|0
    • "Gender is a biological fact" Not in the way I'm using the term "gender". I don't deny that there are biological underpinnings for some aspects of gender. However, biological traits are not what I am referring to with the word "gender", I am specifically only talking about the way society interprets those biological traits and adds additional expectations around gender based on existing biological structures.

  • So can a woman be a penis model?
    Is a woman giving birth a social construct?
    Can those victoria's secret products be modeled by a man?
    Can a woman wear a goddamned condom on her dick? That a social construct too?

    The definition of the word 'gender' has been altered thanks to special snowflake SJWs who feel like they're a woman when they wake up and change into men when the skies get dark.
    Unfortunately for you idiots, the definition of the word 'gender' we're concerned with is much different than yours, because your idea of gender is completely flawed.

    1|0
    0|0
    • What's your idea of gender then? Just synoynmous with sex? What then would you call societal expectations regarding masculinity and femininity, like pink being a feminine color where blue is masculine?

    • Show All
    • Well that's your problem, not mine.

    • I mean, my interpretation of your choices may be my issue, but your choices themselves and the reasons behind them are very much yours.

  • gender is not a social construct.. its a physical biology. you have no say at birth if your going to be xx or xy.

    0|2
    0|0
    • The way I am using the term it refers to the social expectations constructed around sex. You're taking issue with my use of a word, which is an entireky different topic from my argument itself.

    • Show All
    • I'm sorry to have wasted my time and yours here. we do not agree and won't.

    • I think we could actually, if you could just accept that I'm just using a word differently than you are used to. But fine, if you're unwilling to accept alternative meanings of words I guess there's no point in this.

  • There are only three genders - male, female, and intersex. It is not a social construct as it is biological in nature and is not based upon how you "feel".

    0|1
    0|0
    • Those are sexes, and the category of intersex is nowhere near uniform (not that the others are either though).

    • Show All
    • Juxtapose said it right
      Unless you're transexual all you have to do is look in-between your legs determine your gender.

    • So you oppose the notion of non-binary genders because you think it could have adverse consequences for society? How exactly does something having a negative impact make it less real?

  • Gender is both biological and a social construct. Biological because the biology behind it can't be ignored, and a social construct since its shaped by a set of believings and rules that are part of what a culture is.

    When is biological and when is not? For me is imposible to detach both, our biological nature and social constructs share a symbiothic bond.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I forgot to ad, there are only two genders: Males and Females. I am not referring only in the biological sense, psychologically there are only two genders that turns out to be masculine or femenine, and for a person to be one or the other it doesn't mean biologically they have to match with what physically they are.

    • Show All
    • I know what you mean but practically there are people who have a female brain function and others who have a male brain function, regardless of their sex, and I truly believe its not exclusively biological because those functions are somehow enhanced by society which has the power to make the best of it or the worst.

    • I do think that the brains of people of different genders function differently. However, that can be chalked up to social teachings as much as just nature, and still doesn't erase the fact that there are social expectations in place surrounding gender which have nothing to do with biology.

  • Literally everything about human beings is a social construct, because we are social creatures, so saying "gender is a social construct" tells you nothing about gender. Language is also a social construct, that doesn't make it cease to exist.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Fam, you clearly didn't read the take, because gender being a social construct is literally only the starting point of this take, not the primary subject matter.

  • For all ages people know that there was always two genders even in the bible it always said there was created man and woman. But then Homosexuals got rights and they started creating new genders... Because most of the time speak about genders only people who are homosexuals, transexuals... etc For me its not an issue because i always knew there was 2 genders not more or less. It my oppinion

    0|1
    0|0
    • Literally entirely historically misinformed. Do some research maybe.

  • Gender is determined at conception, thanks for 5 xp

    0|0
    1|0
  • More from Guys
    20

What Girls Said 12

  • Wow can't believe the amount of people who have an opinion on this take but clearly didn't even bother reading it. I wonder how well these people have done in school...
    Great take. Very informative and excellently written. Tbh I wish everyone would at least *try* to read the whole thing before writing out their comments of not only ignorance concerning the topic you presented and also science/biology in general (lol @ the amount of people who don't understand that intersex is a thing and how multi-faceted it is).

    3|0
    1|4
    • Lmao I know. It's funny because I choose such a provocative title to try and get more people to actually read the take (imagine if I titled it something like "The formation of the meaning of gender in linguistic and sociological understanding" or some shit), but it seems to have the opposite effect. People just really like assuming their way of understanding something is already correct, and that because they understand terms like "gender" or "social construct" as meaning a certain thing, that must be the meaning other people are using when they use those terms. It's fucking stupid, but I guess the idea of separating conceptual categories from the physical objects they're based on is kind of a convoluted one. Either way though, thanks for the compliments, I'm glad a few people at least understood what the fuck I was trying to get across.

    • No problem :- D I’m sorry gag is infested with these people. The uneducated. Also easy xper hunters.

  • This is an argument of semantics.

    Gender is a social construct, biological sex is not. No matter how often you change or alter or reinforce gender as a social construct it does not change the fact you are either male or female.

    1|2
    0|0
    • Biological sex kinda is too, though less so. Sex categories are still socially constructed categories, they're merely more based on biological trends than gender is. We as a society decide how to define the sexes, and how abberations from the archetypal sexual models we have created affect what category people fall into (whether someone with XY chromosomes but no or deformed male genetalia is still considered male, what category people with hormone issues fall into, etc.)

    • Show All
    • The way we interpret those factors is called gender. Gender roles etc are not biological sex.

      My whole point is that gender is really irrelevant in modern society. It’s biological sex that is relevant. Gender is not required to say that a female, not a male, are capable of carrying an egg, having the egg fertilized inside her, carrying the baby and delivering it full term, breastfeeding. Along with 143 other differences linked to xx/xy chromosomes that are also not social constructs.

      Gender is an outdated construct that need only be ignored in today’s society.

    • Not really. What I mean by sex being socially constructed is that we as a society have chosen the factors that define sex. We have decided that based on biological patterns, female= XX chromosomes, estrogen, breasts, a uterus, and a vagina (and probably a few more factors) and male= XY, testosterone, and a penis/other male genetalia. The thing is, not all individuals fall into these categories so cleanly, and that it's possible for someone to be male or female even if one or more of these factors doesn't line up, but if the variance is too great we classify them as intersex. It's not nature that decides the line between male female and intersex, it's humans. We may be basing our system off of biological data, but it's still a system we constructed.

  • There's a tribe in Africa that doesn't distinguish blue from green To them, blue and green the same color. To us, they are two different colors.
    Giving a name for something is important for people to learn and recognize that something is different from something else. I've never had a problem understanding that. Although someone did make me ponder on my own openness when they told me about people who felt they were in the wrong race or wrong species (they feel they are supposed to be an animal).

    0|1
    0|0
  • This was an interesting read. Gender had to have been categorized by us, and it seems gender roles for those genders are very strongly enforced by a lot of people, which is pretty strange considering we created the categories and roles the genders "must" stick to in the first place.

    1|0
    1|0
  • This is really interesting! Thank you Cipher!

    2|0
    0|5
    • Haha thanks. Glad someone at least might've understood wtf I was talking about. Everyone else is still hung up on the issue of social constructs, which was honestly the least important part of this take.

    • Show All
    • @cipher42 yeah the linguist I and sociological issues are way more interesting. Like were all past the point of saying there's only 2 genders. We ALL know that. Even the conservatives know it.

      So why not explore ways to give people a way to define themselves? Everyone will still know who they are and that they're human.

      I wonder why people are so against it. Is it just an unwillingness to change or is it patriarchy trying to dictate people's roles and being out of one of those roles is "bad" or what?

    • For real. Like, half the people responding are just saying "you can't define gender that way!" when literally even the dictionary provides that definition. It's like those fuckwits trying to argue that evolution is "just a theory" when their whole argument is based off an incorrect interpretation of the word "theory".

      Tbh I think half of it really is just people being unwilling to accept that their system for understanding the world is an arbitrary creation of society. Like, just look how hard it is to get people to deal with the fact that words can have multiple meanings, and can pick up new meanings. If they can't do that, they sure as fuck ain't gonna be able to reckon with the idea that our entire method of structuring society is based on arbitrary categories.

  • I honestly feel like people should define with whatever they feel comfortable with. I just don't like it when they expect you to know what to call them before them actually telling you about their pronouns and make you feel bad if you made a mistake.

    0|2
    0|0
  • People define their selves... but it does matter

    0|0
    0|0
  • Very long to read😇😇

    1|2
    2|0
  • It is not a social construct, it is a genetical construct.

    Good try anyway.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Sex is biological, gender is social, based on the definition I'm using. Look in the dictionary. Additionally, even objectively real natural objects can be considered social constructs- this is the reason Pluto is no longer a planet- because planets are a social construct.

  • Your thoughts match Existentialist Feminism.

    As Simone says "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" + man.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Only like 0.000000001% of people in the entire world think about these things. The rest of us don't really care.

    Some of your replies were really rude.

    1|3
    0|0
  • Interesting

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...