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
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
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
41Opinion
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.
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.
what i think is that you can be male or female and you can be trans but i do not believe that non binary is a thing. in other words there are 2 genders and if you're born a guy and wanna be a girl then you're a girl but non binary is not real in my opinion
I mean, our society by and large has two categories for gender, so it makes sense why you would think that. I'm just asking you to consider that gender is a thing which doesn't have to be so binary, in much the same way that there can be more political alignments than just liberal and conservative.
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".
Those are sexes, and the category of intersex is nowhere near uniform (not that the others are either though).
Those are genders. Gender and sex mean the same thing
So evidently you didn't read the take at all. Go do that before you comment again, it might keep you from looking quite so foolish
no. you are quite foolish, the only thing that these made up genders are going to do is create new minorities that get special privileges because they think they are different
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?
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.
Unless you're transexual all you have to do is look in-between your legs determine your gender.
There is a reason why 99.99% of individuals who are born with a penis identifies as men , and 99.99% of individuals who are born with a vagina identifies as women.
Guess what , society and social construct didn't dictate that.
Guess what? You clearly didn't read the take and thus shouldn't bs commenting
I read it and you make no sense. Only like.0001% of people are confused about gender. Everyone else are just normal people carrying about their everyday lives.
Okay so if you didn't understand what I wrote, what makes you think you have the right to comment on it?
Everyone have the right to comment here... its public post ! and they dont have to agree with you.
just like you have the right to express your idea the way you want.
@cipher42 You do understand how this site works right? Everyone is free to give opinions.
You're misinterpreting my use of "right". Its not that he has no legal right to comment, merely that intellectually speaking people who dont understand something should not be commenting on it in my opinion.
@cipher42 you have problems young lady !!!
@cipher42 I don't see this Take as intellectual. Neither was Pt1
It is not a social construct, it is a genetical construct.
Good try anyway.
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.
*looks down at penis*
My god! You are a social construct! How could I have been so blind! I must be a girl then!
Fam, you'd look a whole lot less like an idiot if you read the take before trying to provide snide commentary.
Hahahah, you can certainly try to debate me lady fam
I mean, a debate is gonna be useless if you don't know my position in the first place, which it's evident you don't. You're using sex as the definition for gender, I'm not. We can't have a debate if you don't even understand the meaning of the term the debate is centered around.
Sex and gender is the same thing let's not bullshit the terms
Debating pseudoscience is a waste of time I agree. But I'm down regardless
Definition of gender based on the dictionary: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)."
So no, sex and gender are not exactly the same thing. They may have at one point been, but no longer. The thing is, words can change meaning, and can adopt new meanings, and provided those new meanings are widely enough recognized they can be viewed as "correct". In this case, "gender" is being used more and more as a term to refer to the societal expectations and roles surrounding masculinity and femininity, so that is what the term means. (Or really, it's one meaning of the term, since words can have more than one correct meaning)
no no no, gender roles are "societal expectations and roles surrounding masculinity and femininity, so that is what the term means" the state of being male female is also sex, referring biologically. Just because words change do not mean they are correct. This is why empirical science does not recognize gender identity
Not according to the dictionary.
"Just because words change do not mean they are correct"
Actually it does, ask any linguist. The commonly recognized usage of a word is the correct usage, thus why words are able to change meaning in the first place. The only "correct" grammar is the grammar that we recognize as correct, there's nothing inherent about certain words or grammatical systems that makes them more or less right than others.
ah ok wait, I just realized I fucked up, if you mean as in masculine and feminine characteristics then sure. One could describe a man to be feminine. True. However, this does not ignore the biological basis that he is still male. The problem with the gender and sex terms is that they conflict. To say I feel feminine, therefore I am a woman, even though biologically you are male, is a contradiction. You can't be a woman but have man parts (unless there is a genetic mistake). I just realized I said gender roles are roles lol my bad
well I have to disagree with that one.
"The only "correct" grammar is the grammar that we recognize as correct, there's nothing inherent about certain words or grammatical systems that makes them more or less right than others"
This means you can make any word mean anything, even though they were not initially created to mean that. If I were to use a racial slur and say it means something else, you logically would not agree
The issue is that in our society, "man" and "woman" denote gender more than they do sex. After all, what's really more important, what chromosomes someone has or what their interests/behavior is like?
And yes, you can make any word mean anything, provided you can get enough other people on board with your usage. Its the getting everybody else on board part thats the issue, and thats the reason you would still be incorrect if you just randomly chose to alter the meaning of a word.
What do you mean what is more important? Their chromosomes and their behaviors are what they are.
Exactly, if the KKK decided to change the N bomb to mean something else, would it still be true? Even if there are a lot of KKK members who agree with it?
I mean personally at least I think it makes more sense to sort people based on behavior, not biology. Like, might as well determine gender based on hair color, y'know? (Yes I know the social expectations about hair color are different than those about sex, but still)
And yes, if society collectively decided that the N word meant something totally different, it would. The issue is that its not really that simple in practice, as meaning changes dont typically happen intentionally.
Hair color? How would one say which hair color is female or male? That's too subjective. Biological labeling sex makes more sense, because it explains how the world functions. The purpose of the male and female functions, mostly in regards to sexual reproduction. It would be counter intuitive to label it otherwise.
Even if it doesn't happen intentionally, I would argue based on principle, it is truly correct? I am aware language changes but that doesn't necessarily mean science changes with it (in regards to determining males and females).
I just mean that its an arbitrary biological factor. Why do sexual/biological traits matter more than social role?
And I never claimed science shoukd change with language. (Though if you want a good example of science restructuring its societally constructed categories, look at the meaning change of "planet" to exclude Pluto). Id even be fine with different terms for "male" and "female" being created to further distinguish gender and sex, its just that that kind of language and meaning change is hard to force.
But that is the thing, even without the language to explain it, there has always only been 2 sexes. Male and female. Sexual reproduction distinguishes them, because one has a penis which creates sperm, the other has a vagina which has ovaries the the sperm fertilizes. There is no in between. Even without the language, it would still be there, hence how we have survived and continued on as a species even before recorded history. This is why saying you are something else when biologically you are not makes no sense.
The whole social roles, which I am assuming you mean by men have to be assertive and women have to be submissive blah blah blah. Why are social roles more important than empirical evidence?
Among humans male and female are the primary sexes, but intersex people do still exist, and if we're talking about the natural world as a whole there's definitely a lot more going on. But either way, none of this is about changing or denying biological truths. The thing about the male/female gender framework is that it is based off of sex, but it is still distinct from it. Thus, people can have a gender not congruent with their sex (or any sex). Currently, gender (often conflated with sex) is our primary way to categorize people. I just think thats silly considering that social categorization should be based off of social behavior, not biological makeup. Basically, I'm in favor of entirely separating gender from sex and sorting people based on that instead, or just not sorting them at all. Sex would still exist as a category, but with less social connotations (as those social connotations are kinda effectively what gender is made up of)
Give me an example of an intersex creature.
It's not so much intersex as sexes that aren't male or female. Like, all snails are hermaphrodites I believe. Bees also have some weird shit going on with sex, but I'm not 100% clear on that (something like male drones, female workers or something, and the "female" queen, where the two types of "females" are so distinct as to be considered different sexes I think). there's also animals that have two sexes but more "genders", with bigger males and smaller males with different behavior patterns or stuff along those lines.
Yea I have never heard of that so I just looked into it. So far this seems like a new thing that isn't concrete yet. Controversy, gotta love it. Anyway I'm gonna look into this more and continue the conversation if you want to.
Snails still reproduce with each other despite being hermaphrodites, and others are asxeual
Yup, I'm fine with all that. If you want more easy examples of weird sexes/genders here's a webcomics that goes over some of them: http://humoncomics.com/archive/animal-lives
Ok so help me understand then. You definitely blind sided me with this, ego may be a little hurt... but how exactly does hermaphrodites fit into intersex?
I mean I'm not 100% an expert either, but my main point was that male/female is not the exclusive framework for sex in the biological world. Hermaphrodites for instance are neither, though I wouldn't call them intersex since they're not necessarily in between any other sexes (though I dont actualky know how the term is technically defined). As for intersex people among humans, they typically do have "mixes" of what we'd consider the charscteristics of the two primary sexes, but the specific mix is entirely variable, so intersex isn't so clear a category as male and female usually are (though even male and female aren't wholly cut and dry- a person with XXY chromosomes for instance can still be considered one of the binary sexes for instance)
I mean I kinda get that. But hermaphrodites still have male and female organs, one is over expressed or under expressed. So I can understand if they want to choose. Fuck new information must be processed. Thank you for the debate.
Yeppers. This whole thing really is a lot more complicated than it is presented, so I dont blame you for having to take time to process it. Plus, we haven't even really gotten into the whole social construct issue regarding the construction of sex, which is a whole nother convoluted can of worms. Either way though, I'm glad you were willing to talk about all this and consider it rather than just rejecting it outright- that makes you a lot more mature than plenty of the folks on this site.
Hahaha thanks, maturity is not really my strong suit, but I try to be as open minded as I can, for the principle of truth. Take care!
This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands.
I mean this only took me like ~45 minutes to write, so not rlly.
I sexually Identify as a waffle Iron. Wanna say something about it?
Then consider yourself sued, because I am TRIGGERED.
pussies.
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.
misunderstanding? misunderstand what... if your a person you have a dick or a pussy.
but I'm a waffle iron. so what your gonna argue society created genders and not take me seriously? outrageous.
Sex is distinct from gender the way I'm using those terms, but I guess you wouldn't realize that since you clearly didn't read what I wrote.
uhhhh, not theyre not, those words mean the same thing look in a thesaurus.
You are a PERSON
I am a WAFFLE IRON
I have, you evidently haven't. Gender: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)."
And you're not a waffle iron because that's not what the term "waffle iron" means. If "Waffle iron" were defined as "someone with 3rd grade level reading comprehension and humor" then that'd fit you just fine, but it isn't. Unless perhaps that's what it means in your personal dialect, in which case that's fine too, but it's not a dialect you should be using if trying to communicate with other people.
um duh of course that's not what it means because I am waffle iron with a college education.
COMPLETELY different
So you've given up on any semblance of an actual counterargument then? Guess that college education don't actually make much difference at all, since you still insist on arguing like a third grader.
haha what argument, this was never a debatable issue. you don't even need a third grade education to know that. you wanna peddle this idea like everyone else on my liberal arts college campus then in a few years your gonna get a whole generation full of third grade confused little waffle iron punks.
What isn't a debatable issue? That gender can be defined to mean societal expectations of masculinity and femininity rather than merely sex? Because I suppose it isn't, being as the dictionary itself agrees on that point. So then why are you trying to argue it?
I didn't argue anything. All I said was I'm a waffle iron. your just on some kinda other shit...
"uhhhh, not theyre not, those words mean the same thing look in a thesaurus." Fam, if you're denying saying something you clearly said four posts ago, I think you may have some memory issues you ought to get looked at.
yeah I can't seem to remember where your going with all that either
The issue isn't where I'm going, it's you making arguments you later deny making.
what issue
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.
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.
You clearly have no grasp of reality.
I do actually, a better one than you actually. I can at least recognize that there's a distinction between actual objects themselves and our perception and categorization of them.
People are not biologically programmed to nurture or to wear pink. Men have to be strong, they can't cry blah blah just norms created by society.
@Heimatlosigkeit
This isn't about pink. It's about whether gender is a social construct (which doesn't even have any meaning).
Because you said gender was created by nature. I disagree with you at this point. I mean gender roles.
I think you mean sex which "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
@Heimatlosigkeit
Gender and sex mean the same thing. Gender is just a more "polite" version of sex.
MY problem is the entire use of the term "social construct". It is completely meaningless. When I hear someone use those words, I immediately write them off. They are nothing but manipulative words with no meaning.
The OP herself talks about categories and labels. Then goes on to put things into the category of "social construct", as if placing it in that category invalidates it. It's a non-argument. You can't validate, nor invalidate something, by calling it a social construct.
If you want to argue about pink, then present an argument about pink. But saying pink is a social construct, therefore bad, is no argument at all.
There is way too much manipulation of language that passes for arguments these days. Manipulating language is never a valid argument. You can manipulate language to give any meaning you want.
Make an argument where the IDEA holds true, independent of the language.
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.
Nice but a total wall of text which made me skip through half of it.
There are boys and girls and those who are sick af but try to be normal by saying gender is social construct and some other "nebuloze"
Your chromosomes define you, there's no more "Political" way to see it, we cannot challenge the basics of biology.
No one is challenging biology. However, gender as I am using the term is not biological, and I see no reason why chromosomes should be a more importsnt defining factor than social roles and behaviors.
By "social roles and behaviors" you mean feelings, and how society sees and accept things, there's no point on discussing with you; you can't change a liberals mind, even saying that biology is GOD DAMN biology.
Biology is biology. However, biology doesn't determine gender based on the definition of gender I am using (a definition which the dictionary supports by the way). And I really dont see why chromosomes should be so important, so can you perhaps explain why you think they should be rather than just throwing ad hominems around?
Can I please explain why chromosomes are important? THEY'RE THE VERY DEFINITION OF BIOLOGY, bases of how we were created (if you believe in the endosymbiotic theory) they define if we're BOYS OR GIRLS, there's no more explanation, no liberal-open minded person who wants to challenge everything can change that.
And why should biology matter as far as social categorization goes? Why not just sort ourselves by hair color or skin tone in that case? Also, you realize this argument is completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about in the take? Like, you're arguing whether sex or gender should matter more (I believe) not what the actual definition for gender should be.
The actual definition of gender is, in every aspect, biological. It's more relevant because society as we know it it's a man's work, while sex IS NOT. I hope you can understand that SIMPLE fact. There IS a biological (outside) difference in skin colors, the skin tissue it's merely DIFFERENT. Substantially the same with hair color. If you can't understand, I recommend you go back to school.
No, its not. Look it up in a dictionary. One use of the word is synonymous to sex, but thats not the only correct usage, and its not the meaning I'm using.
Honey, I can try and explain things the way they are to you, It seems that you're so desperate to have a meaning, that you'll follow this feminist non-sense no matter what. Have a good one.
You're the one refusing to accept that a word means what even the dictionary says it means. Ain't me deluding myself into believing nonsense.
oh no the tumblrinas have migrated to G@G forums to spread their poison
As far as I know you’re either born a male or female or in some rare cases a hermaphrodite , but later on some may take on another gender that isn’t what they were born as or associated with that sex
Fuck that there's more rings up there than the Olympic games -_- fuck all the extra shit...
This is really interesting! Thank you Cipher!
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.
High five!
@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.
Your thoughts match Existentialist Feminism.
As Simone says "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" + man.
My thoughts *
The notion that there are other genders than male and female is a social construct.
Yea duh. But if by "social construct" you mean "not real", then you're misunderstanding what the term means.
The term social construct is a social construct thus it invalidates itself.
Social constructs are not invalid. Again, you clearly don't understand what the term means.
I do and it's a social construct.
You don't, obviously, but go ahead and keep trolling I guess, just maybe do it someplace else.
Social construct
If she says this constant enough you decided to look it up- She's easy.
Girl: But it reality, there's no such thing as being "easy", that's a social construct.
You: Oh yeah. She'll put out