A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:15 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:04 amIf you can only talk about sexes in these terms then you have no place discussing genders whatsoever. The conversation is meaningless to you because you cannot participate at the relelvant conceptual level.
It depends on what you mean by "gender" and "the relevant conceptual level". I've been talking about sex in purely biological terms, but I didn't say that there is no meaningful, non-synonymous concept of gender defined in non-biological (psychological or sociological) terms. For example, what Ann Oakley writes makes sense to me. However, I insist on the importance and indispensability of the biological concept of sex in the gender vs. sex debate.
One thing is clear: There are nonsensical conceptions of gender such as the one defining it as "the sex of the soul".
"The concept of gender, then, has ultimately served to pry a wedge between body and identity. Whereas sex once simply referred to a bodily given, a fact of nature, here the power of the body to constitute identity is diminished. “Woman” no longer refers simply to one’s sex, but rather to one’s gender, which has become an amorphous cultural construction that has a tenuous relationship to bodily sex. Once this distance between bodily sex and identity was enabled via gender, it did not take long—merely a few decades—for gender to shift meanings once again, becoming entirely disconnected from sex, which has paved the way for an even more fragmented and unstable understanding of personhood. Because gender is no longer anchored in maleness or femaleness, it is endlessly malleable; it is a concept that can be continually altered and redeployed, and we are witnessing in real time the wild proliferation of its meaning.

The various pop narratives about gender often speak as if gender is something real, even as the concept itself resists the slightest hint of realism. Some examples: Gender is a spectrum; Gender is fluid; Gender is innate; Gender is in the brain; Gender is a construct. While the emphatic rhetoric suggests that the truth of gender is at last being unveiled, it is increasingly difficult to settle on a definition of gender at all, because there are multiple and often contradictory definitions on offer.

Let us take a brief and non-exhaustive tour:

1. There is the decidedly “un-woke” definition that sees gender as a simple synonym for biological sex. This is the view of the uninitiated man-on-the-street, who checks the “M” box on a form without dwelling on the question.

2. Then there is the second-wave feminist definition that defines gender as the social and cultural accoutrements of each sex. Once cutting-edge, this definition is becoming outmoded, although still prevalent among feminists of a certain age, and the APA.

3. A further iteration is the now-classic one offered by Judith Butler, godmother of contemporary gender theory. Butler argues, at least in her earlier works, that gender is an unconscious and socially-compelled performance, a series of acts and behaviors that create the illusion of an essential identity of “man” and “woman.” In this view, gender is entirely a social construct, a complex fiction that we inherit and then repeatedly re-enact.

4. And one can find yet another definition in the standard transgender narrative—gender as the sex of the soul, the innate manhood or womanhood that may or may not “align” with the sex of the body. In this understanding, gender is decidedly not a mere construct, but is rather a pre-social reality—the inner truth against which the body must be measured.

5. Even more recently we have the cute and overly-complicated understanding of gender popularized by the “gender unicorn” and “genderbread person” memes (the latter of which has already undergone four separate revisions). In this model, personal identity is collated from a menu of attributes, each of which runs along a spectrum. Gender identity, à la the transgender definition above, is located in the mind; gender expression, a trickle-down version of Butlerian performativity, refers to one’s external appearance and acts; sex, which is “assigned” rather than recognized at birth, is confined between the legs. Rounding out the list is “attraction,” which is further parsed into two subcategories: physical and emotional.

This is the terrain of “gender” in our time: impossible to map, bewildering to navigate. Gender has come to mean whatever we want it to mean, and thus it means many things at once. And yet this unstable, incoherent concept has supplanted bodily sex as the ground of manhood and womanhood—leading to an increasingly fragmented and disincarnate understanding of human identity. To invoke Chesterton once more, we don’t know what we are doing, because we don’t know what we are undoing.

There is a profound irony here. Through the vehicle of feminist theory, the concept of gender displaced manhood and womanhood from bodily sex. And now, unmoored from the body altogether, gender is defined by the very cultural stereotypes that feminism sought to undo. In other words, when a girl recognizes that she does not fit the stereotypes of girlhood, she is invited to question her sex rather than the stereotype."

(Abigail Favale: "The Eclipse of Sex by the Rise of Gender." 2019. Church Life Journal: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articl ... of-gender/)
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:20 pm One thing is clear: There are nonsensical conceptions of gender such as the one defining it as "the sex of the soul".
"… 3. A further iteration is the now-classic one offered by Judith Butler, godmother of contemporary gender theory. Butler argues, at least in her earlier works, that gender is an unconscious and socially-compelled performance, a series of acts and behaviors that create the illusion of an essential identity of “man” and “woman.” In this view, gender is entirely a social construct, a complex fiction that we inherit and then repeatedly re-enact. …"

(Abigail Favale: "The Eclipse of Sex by the Rise of Gender." 2019. Church Life Journal: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articl ... of-gender/)
"If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all. It would make no sense, then, to define gender as the cultural interpretation of sex, if sex itself is a gendered category."
(pp. 9-10)

"If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes, then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way. Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders. Assuming for the moment the stability of binary sex, it does not follow that the construction of “men” will accrue exclusively to the bodies of males or that “women” will interpret only female bodies. Further, even if the sexes appear to be unproblematically binary in their morphology and constitution (which will become a question), there is no reason to assume that genders ought also to remain as two. The presumption of a binary gender system implicitly retains the belief in a mimetic relation of gender to sex whereby gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it. When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one."
(p. 10)

(Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1999.)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6520
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:20 pm
Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:15 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:04 amIf you can only talk about sexes in these terms then you have no place discussing genders whatsoever. The conversation is meaningless to you because you cannot participate at the relelvant conceptual level.
It depends on what you mean by "gender" and "the relevant conceptual level". I've been talking about sex in purely biological terms, but I didn't say that there is no meaningful, non-synonymous concept of gender defined in non-biological (psychological or sociological) terms. For example, what Ann Oakley writes makes sense to me. However, I insist on the importance and indispensability of the biological concept of sex in the gender vs. sex debate.
One thing is clear: There are nonsensical conceptions of gender such as the one defining it as "the sex of the soul".
Incorrect. That is nonsensical in the rigid terms you have set for sex which only discusses gametes and has no bearing on any discussion other than gametes. But your talk of gametes is irrelevant to any discussion about gender so nobody cares.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8631
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Professional Underdog Pound

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Gary Childress »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:13 pm
Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:20 pm
Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:15 am

It depends on what you mean by "gender" and "the relevant conceptual level". I've been talking about sex in purely biological terms, but I didn't say that there is no meaningful, non-synonymous concept of gender defined in non-biological (psychological or sociological) terms. For example, what Ann Oakley writes makes sense to me. However, I insist on the importance and indispensability of the biological concept of sex in the gender vs. sex debate.
One thing is clear: There are nonsensical conceptions of gender such as the one defining it as "the sex of the soul".
nobody cares.
I care. So your statement is not 100% accurate.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Trajk Logik »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:04 am
Consul wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 8:18 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:04 pmWhen the knowledge domain in question relates to the entire variety of biological life, then anything so specific as stamens or antlers is natuarally to be excluded. When we are narrowing our scope to flowering plants then I imagine stamens are back on the menu.
The fact is that if you are dealing in the matter of discrepancies between biological sex and socially constructed gender you have already narrowed this enquiry down to humanity and I see no particualr need to keep one end of hte conversation broad enough to describe a tree?
The gametic definition of biological sex applies both to animals (including humans) and to plants.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:04 pmBut you can just narrow the cluster definition to whatever bits work across the whole scope of biology if you like. This feast is moveable. In such a case we simply move the bald shins to the cluster that is predictive of gender and then wait to see if the likelihood drops.
Given that there are numerous species-relative combinations of gonadic, genetic (chromosomal), hormonal, and phenotypic characteristics, biologists would have to define and employ an equally large number of different property-cluster concepts of sex, which would be highly impractical. It's good for them to have and to be able to use a universal concept of sex.
If you can only talk about sexes in these terms then you have no place discussing genders whatsoever. The conversation is meaningless to you because you cannot participate at the relelvant conceptual level.
Which is just another way of saying that the conversation is useless in living or improving one's life. I cannot participate in a conversation that assumes gods, unicorns or leprechauns exist either, nor do I see how believing in such things improves my life in any way. Knowing the difference between humans and plants and males and females improves my ability in finding compatible mates with which I can pass my genes on to the next generation, continuing the existence of the human species.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Trajk Logik »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:13 pm
Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:20 pm
Consul wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:15 am

It depends on what you mean by "gender" and "the relevant conceptual level". I've been talking about sex in purely biological terms, but I didn't say that there is no meaningful, non-synonymous concept of gender defined in non-biological (psychological or sociological) terms. For example, what Ann Oakley writes makes sense to me. However, I insist on the importance and indispensability of the biological concept of sex in the gender vs. sex debate.
One thing is clear: There are nonsensical conceptions of gender such as the one defining it as "the sex of the soul".
Incorrect. That is nonsensical in the rigid terms you have set for sex which only discusses gametes and has no bearing on any discussion other than gametes. But your talk of gametes is irrelevant to any discussion about gender so nobody cares.
Talk of penises, vaginas, gonads, testosterone and estrogen certainly are relevant to any discussion of gender because "gender-affirming care" involves changing those things.
Skepdick
Posts: 14589
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:31 pm Which is just another way of saying that the conversation is useless in living or improving one's life. I cannot participate in a conversation that assumes gods, unicorns or leprechauns exist either, nor do I see how believing in such things improves my life in any way. Knowing the difference between humans and plants and males and females improves my ability in finding compatible mates with which I can pass my genes on to the next generation, continuing the existence of the human species.
Well, you are already participating in a conversation which assumes that life-improvement exists.

Now imagine the sort of life improvements possible to aspects of life other than reproduction by adding a distinction here and removing a distinction there.

If all you want to do is procreate and prevent the human race from going extinct- all you need is 2 minutes a mate!
The more you inseminate the higher your odds of success!
Skepdick
Posts: 14589
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

Trajk Logik wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:35 pm Talk of penises, vaginas, gonads, testosterone and estrogen certainly are relevant to any discussion of gender because "gender-affirming care" involves changing those things.
It involves changing those things alright. But you are missing the "Why?"

There's an end goal here that has nothing to do with any of those things - they are just means to an end.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:13 pm …But your talk of gametes is irrelevant to any discussion about gender so nobody cares.
Sex is relevant to discussions about gender; and if sex is defined in terms of gametes (different gamete sizes), then talking about gametes is relevant as well.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:57 am What does that even mean 'Gender is a social construct'?? Please explain.
What is social construction? See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/soci ... #WhaSocCon
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6520
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Consul wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:34 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:13 pm …But your talk of gametes is irrelevant to any discussion about gender so nobody cares.
Sex is relevant to discussions about gender; and if sex is defined in terms of gametes (different gamete sizes), then talking about gametes is relevant as well.
Gametes are explanatory of sexes, explanatory at a biological level anyway, they are not definitive and cannot be because otherwise untilt he discovery of the gamete by biologists we would have had no use for the words male and female. So that in itself is a perfectly good reason to shut this nonsense down right here and now.

But the actual reason to do so is that, either by design or through clumsiness, you are sneaking an essentialist definition into the conversation and you haven't made any argument for why essentialism is required. So I deny that move by simply offering a non essentialist definition that happens to allow for the real meaning of the terms male and female including things like motherhood and fatherhood and so on which you are excluding for absolutely no defensible reason.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:42 pm Misgendering, it seems, has become an instance not merely of making a mistake, but an incident with a victim.
The Woke regard "misgendering" as a crime.

Read e.g. this story: First UK street preacher reported as terrorist for 'misgendering' wins appeal: 'Orwellian and really alarming'
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:59 pmGender and biological sex are so obvious NOT the same thing: check out any definition.
Gender is different from sex—unless it's not: "gender = either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex." (One of the meanings of "gender" in the American Heritage Dictionary)

Given that one common meaning of "gender" is "sex", gender and sex are NOT "so obvious NOT the same thing."
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:59 pmAnd NEITHER gender nor biological sex are simply binary.
In anisogametic species (like homo sapiens), sex is simply binary in the sense that there are exactly two types of gametes involved in sexual reproduction: ova & spermia.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:52 pm The 'gender self ID' bill was unanimously passed here, making it easy to change the 'sex' part on your birth certificate.
So much for the accuracy of future demographic statistics!
If transgenders are allowed to have their birth certificates changed, the falsification of official documents becomes legal.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2023 3:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Consul »

Trajk Logik wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:05 pm …Also keep in mind that intersex cannot reproduce and are also very rare.
Not all intersexuals are infertile/sterile!

"I’m Intersex: Can I Have a Baby?"
Post Reply