Can we please diffreniate between sex & gender

[Christina24]

I see people putting biological sex as gender in their profile.

Sex= xx,xy ,Female,Male

Gender:Feminine , Masculine

For example I'm female XX and I like dresses & makeup so I present in a feminine way.

If we phrased ourselves this way it would make things easier for statistics.

So my proposal is that aven add a box for biological sex.

[MoraDollie]

Even with chromosomes you run into muddy waters because of the intersex condition. Administrative forms don't really realize that children who are born intersex are often left wondering "What the hell do I put for that box" because they were born in the gray area of male and female. You also have the issue of "social vs science" terms. "female and male" tends to "belong" to the science community (sex hormones, things like this) while "girl and boy" tends to be associated with socialite views of what we view as "feminine" and "masculine".

[Emery.]

Yep, but intersex people are about 1/2/3 in 1000. So the binary division of sexes works in ~99.8% cases, which is really great accuracy. (I don't get why there is no possibility of "Other" sex in some forms and law etc., though, it exists!)

You have stepped into a very touchy area, Christina. People disagree a lot on what is gender and what is biological sex, on what is cultural and what is inborn.

[Scottthespy]

Since the boxes gor gender and all that on aven alow you to type, rather than just select from a list, you technically have that option, to put "gender: _____ Sex:_____ " in as you see fit.

[FoxEars]

I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to take statistical information from people's little bioblurbs either. Better to leave data collection to surveys and the like. Some people aren't comfortable with sharing that information so they'd just leave the box blank anyway, which would throw off data-collection.

That said, binary-gendered people in particular often do refer to their biological sexes through gender prefixes, e.g. cis- or trans-, if you're really interested in knowing.

But really, I don't think people's biological sexes are at all relevant to their AVEN profiles. If they choose to share them, that's fine, but if not ... who cares?

^ FoxEars ^

[GreenMind]

Until the introduction of the gender concept, people made no distinction between sex and gender. This helped discerning the social and linguistic category from the biological one. While I find this distinction useful, I cannot help noticing that in the matters of gender, a person individially determines the gender (conforming or non-conforming with social norms of male and female), thus making it a personal choice against the social dichotomy. However, when it comes to questions of sex "affiliations", it more belongs to the curiosity of others who need to identify the individual. Biological sex still remains a social/external measure of ones identity.

[R_1]

Feminine/Masculine presentation literally does not exist in some areas except for clothings. Here, where I go to, and where I'm at, there isn't any way a female or a male must present except for clothings, but even so, they don't care. Males generally dress with full pants and shirt here while women are free to wear a skirt and mini t-shirt, but that's about the rules here.

[MoraDollie]

Gender is concepts of masculinity and femininity and how you apply them to yourself (or lackthereof with feminine and masculine). Sex is the genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones that're present in your body when you're born.

[dash]

I've never had a genetic karotype done and I don't think the majority of AVEN users have either, nor is having had one done a necessity for using this site.

Genotype =/= phenotype =/= gender identity =/= gender expression.

If people want to disclose their karotype (or any details about their biological sex, e.g. what they were assigned at birth, whether they've transitioned and how, etc.), that's up to them, and AVEN isn't (to my knowledge) stopping them.

[Frigid Pink]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

[dash]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

[Christina24]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

Well if the definition of woman requires you to be female than technically you wouldn't be no matter how feminine you presented. If you are male , you generally will have generally be treated better than females. So for a male to call himself a woman makes females upset because of they have not had to deal with the oppression that females experience. Personally I don't use cis even though I am a female who does not experience disphoria. Generally girl is used to refer to a female , and boy for males. Yes people do have expectations but we don't have to follow them. I wonder of we didn't set up gender roles , then would people feel the need to get hormones & surgery. When it comes to pronouns I think we should make a singular pronoun that can be used for both anyone.

[Frigid Pink]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

What's a "woman," anyway? What's a "man"? And what's a "real woman"? What's "gender"? I don't even understand or relate to the concepts. People are people. We're all human. If it didn't matter what genitals people were born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "gender" or "gender roles" in the first place. If it didn't matter what color skin we're born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "race." If everyone was treated equally (no discrimination or oppression) regardless of the genitals or the color of skin they're born with, then I think the world would be a better place. It seems as though the social constructs and concepts of "gender" and "race" are more harmful than they are helpful.

[dash]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

What's a "woman," anyway? What's a "man"? And what's a "real woman"? What's "gender"? I don't even understand or relate to the concepts. People are people. We're all human. If it didn't matter what genitals people were born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "gender" or "gender roles" in the first place. If it didn't matter what color skin we're born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "race." If everyone was treated equally (no discrimination or oppression) regardless of the genitals or the color of skin they're born with, then I think the world would be a better place. It seems as though the social constructs and concepts of "gender" and "race" are more harmful than they are helpful.

It's really not your place or anyone else's to tell people what being a "man" or a "woman" (or having a race) means to them, and that they shouldn't hold these identities, because doing so is oppressive of and harmful to others.

I said it above, and I'm going to say it again: You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them. Likewise, you are free not to identify with a racial group if you so wish, but you don't get to tell other people that they shouldn't hold such identities themselves.

[Frigid Pink]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

What's a "woman," anyway? What's a "man"? And what's a "real woman"? What's "gender"? I don't even understand or relate to the concepts. People are people. We're all human. If it didn't matter what genitals people were born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "gender" or "gender roles" in the first place. If it didn't matter what color skin we're born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "race." If everyone was treated equally (no discrimination or oppression) regardless of the genitals or the color of skin they're born with, then I think the world would be a better place. It seems as though the social constructs and concepts of "gender" and "race" are more harmful than they are helpful.

It's really not your place or anyone else's to tell people what being a "man" or a "woman" (or having a race) means to them, and that they shouldn't hold these identities, because doing so is oppressive of and harmful to others.

I said it above, and I'm going to say it again: You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them. Likewise, you are free not to identify with a racial group if you so wish, but you don't get to tell other people that they shouldn't hold such identities themselves.

I agree that it's oppressive and harmful for society to create constructs that tell people who they are or how they're supposed to be.

I'll ask it again, and anyone can answer for themselves (if they feel comfortable):

What does it mean to be a "man" or a "woman"? What does "gender" mean?

Are you saying that it means something different to everyone?

If so, then what does it mean to you?

[dash]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

What's a "woman," anyway? What's a "man"? And what's a "real woman"? What's "gender"? I don't even understand or relate to the concepts. People are people. We're all human. If it didn't matter what genitals people were born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "gender" or "gender roles" in the first place. If it didn't matter what color skin we're born with, then we probably wouldn't have socially constructed "race." If everyone was treated equally (no discrimination or oppression) regardless of the genitals or the color of skin they're born with, then I think the world would be a better place. It seems as though the social constructs and concepts of "gender" and "race" are more harmful than they are helpful.

It's really not your place or anyone else's to tell people what being a "man" or a "woman" (or having a race) means to them, and that they shouldn't hold these identities, because doing so is oppressive of and harmful to others.

I said it above, and I'm going to say it again: You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them. Likewise, you are free not to identify with a racial group if you so wish, but you don't get to tell other people that they shouldn't hold such identities themselves.

I agree that it's oppressive and harmful for society to create constructs that tell people who they are or how they're supposed to be.

I'll ask it again, and anyone can answer for themselves (if they feel comfortable):

What does it mean to be a "man" or a "woman"? What does "gender" mean?

Are you saying that it means something different to everyone?

If so, then what does it mean to you?

Gender does not mean just socially constructed norms of who people are or who they are supposed to be. Gender also refers to the innate sense that most people are born with that they are boys, girls, some combination of boy and girl, or something else. While society dictates to a large degree how boys, girls, and everyone else should act and dress, most people are born with an immutable gender. Studies of boys who were involuntarily raised as girls (such as one boy who was raised as girl as part of a social experiment, after a circumscicion gone wrong) have shown tragic results. While there are some people who don't have an internal gender, or who have only a weak internal gender, and while there some people who identify outside of the binary (raises hand), most people are born with a strong internal sense of having a binary gender, and for most people this correspods to the sex they were assigned at birth.

So, to the extent society creates constructs and forces people into those constructs against their will, yes, this is harmful and oppressive. Shaming boys for crying/showing emotions, and shaming girls for wanting to pursue careers in male-domainated subjects, are two examples of oppression based on gender constructs.

But having a gender is not oppressing anyone.

[R_1]

I'll ask it again, and anyone can answer for themselves (if they feel comfortable):

What does it mean to be a "man" or a "woman"? What does "gender" mean?

Are you saying that it means something different to everyone?

If so, then what does it mean to you?

If it means different things to be a male and females while people haa differnt ideas of gender, then gender is simply nothing more than a meaningless concept. To say otherwise is to deliberately accept your bias without looking at other perspective. How it is coherent or close to coherent?

[Emery.]

If it means different things to be a male and females while people haa differnt ideas of gender, then gender is simply nothing more than a meaningless concept. To say otherwise is to deliberately accept your bias without looking at other perspective. How it is coherent or close to coherent?

I really don't know what it is, but something really bugs me about this approach.

Say, like somebody said that race does not exist and is a meaningless concept. And that nationality is meaningless. Or that our bodies are meaningless.

[dash]

Just because something (race, gender, religion, etc.) can have different meanings for different people doesn't make it "meaningless." That is, putting it mildly, an attitude that is very dismissive of the experiences, identities, and values of other people. X can have no meaning to you, personally (a generic you), e.g. someone can say "I don't have a religion, and it means nothing to me personally," but when something iv centrally important to the identities of millions, even billions of people, you do not get to call it "meaningless." Nor does having a gender, and inquiring about what gender means to others, "deliberately accepting one's bias."

Quite the contrary -- asking what it means for others to feel male or female, and trying to learn more, is exactly the opposite of ignoring one's bias!

I'm going to stick to gender here because that's what this thread and subforum are about, and not get derailed into the (also very complicated) conversation about race. Sticking just to gender, gender is an intrinsic, even innate, part of the identity of most people. It is not learned, it is born into us. Science has borne this out again and again. At least one person ended up committing suicide after terribly unethical experiments on them to "prove" that gender was taught. Plenty of trans people have committed suicide after a lifetime of being forced to live as the wrong gender. To say that gender is "meaningless" is a terrible insult to the memory of these people, who died because they were denied their intrinsic gender.

Some people do not have a gender, and I am usually one such person, but it would be hella elitist for us to say, "gender doesn't mean anything to me, and it seems to mean different things to different people, so gender's a meaningless concept/gender should be 'abolished' because it hurts people." I am not better than anyone else, or any less biased than anyone else, for not having a gender. I respect that gender means a great deal to most people, and I respect what it means for them to have the gender or genders they have.

[R_1]

Just because something (race, gender, religion, etc.) can have different meanings for different people doesn't make it "meaningless." That is, putting it mildly, an attitude that is very dismissive of the experiences, identities, and values of other people. X can have no meaning to you, personally (a generic you), e.g. someone can say "I don't have a religion, and it means nothing to me personally," but when something iv centrally important to the identities of millions, even billions of people, you do not get to call it "meaningless." Nor does having a gender, and inquiring about what gender means to others, "deliberately accepting one's bias."

Here's the thing, the conclusion was derived at the attempt of supporting every single definitions of gender imaginable, and without supporting one or the other and all has equal value. Then, you'd simply end up with a conclusion that gender is meaningless just because there are too many definitions that contradicts or doesn't support the other definitions while there's no way to validate one definition or another. This same logic can also apply to other concepts like god, and one igtheist can literally show evidence that god is meaningless as a concept by showing religions with conflicting ideas of god, and theological positions with conflicting definition of god. If you were to take all the definitions of god at face value, and without support for one or the other, then you'd have to end up with the conclusion that god is meaningless just because there is no coherency within all of those definitions. Disregarding feelings, and disregarding numbers, there's simply no way out of that conclusion. Plain and simple.

And speaking of numbers, those two examples have millions or billions of people and all of which has contradictory meanings to another making these word as without coherency which ultimately leads to the word being impractical and that is why they're meaningless.

If you do have a more logical approach to this, explain without having to resort to stuff like people validates that as a idea or millions/billions of people find that to be correct. The amount of people who believes in a concept does not make a concept more or less valid, and neither it makes it any more or less true. It doesn't mean that it is meaningless to some people, but with incoherent words, they're meaningless in theory as they're impractical and with no real reference to what these words can mean, and that conclusion is just unavoidable.

One last thing, although this idea can be used as a justification against transgender individuals, none of this conclusion dictates how one should treat another. Some people who acts appropriately toward transgender individuals actually believes that gender is meaningless, but they never will admit that to them unless they're asked, and a lot of them understand their issues. That's something to be pointed out.

Edit : Another thing is that the science of gender does point to being a prenatal factor, just to let you know, not every gender-individuals are actually born that way. That completely ignores brain changes and the possibility of brain changes altering one's viewpoint of oneself which includes self-conceptualized gender and sexuality. Science has never ruled that out at all.

[Guest]

I don't see the issue with people saying that gender is socially constructed because...well, it is.

But that doesn't mean that it's not real to some people. It means that in society, we have different expectations of different genders and people feel closer to one of the socially constructed genders (sometimes both, sometimes neither) than the other. I feel closer to female but maybe in another place I'd be a third gender. Hell I know there's one area where I'd be a sworn virgin because that fits me better than their expectations of being a woman and that's considered a third gender.

[dash]

Just because something (race, gender, religion, etc.) can have different meanings for different people doesn't make it "meaningless." That is, putting it mildly, an attitude that is very dismissive of the experiences, identities, and values of other people. X can have no meaning to you, personally (a generic you), e.g. someone can say "I don't have a religion, and it means nothing to me personally," but when something iv centrally important to the identities of millions, even billions of people, you do not get to call it "meaningless." Nor does having a gender, and inquiring about what gender means to others, "deliberately accepting one's bias."

Here's the thing, the conclusion was derived at the attempt of supporting every single definitions of gender imaginable, and without supporting one or the other and all has equal value. Then, you'd simply end up with a conclusion that gender is meaningless just because there are too many definitions that contradicts or doesn't support the other definitions while there's no way to validate one definition or another. This same logic can also apply to other concepts like god, and one igtheist can literally show evidence that god is meaningless as a concept by showing religions with conflicting ideas of god, and theological positions with conflicting definition of god. If you were to take all the definitions of god at face value, and without support for one or the other, then you'd have to end up with the conclusion that god is meaningless just because there is no coherency within all of those definitions. Disregarding feelings, and disregarding numbers, there's simply no way out of that conclusion. Plain and simple.

And speaking of numbers, those two examples have millions or billions of people and all of which has contradictory meanings to another making these word as without coherency which ultimately leads to the word being impractical and that is why they're meaningless.

If you do have a more logical approach to this, explain without having to resort to stuff like people validates that as a idea or millions/billions of people find that to be correct. The amount of people who believes in a concept does not make a concept more or less valid, and neither it makes it any more or less true. It doesn't mean that it is meaningless to some people, but with incoherent words, they're meaningless in theory as they're impractical and with no real reference to what these words can mean, and that conclusion is just unavoidable.

One last thing, although this idea can be used as a justification against transgender individuals, none of this conclusion dictates how one should treat another. Some people who acts appropriately toward transgender individuals actually believes that gender is meaningless, but they never will admit that to them unless they're asked, and a lot of them understand their issues. That's something to be pointed out.

Edit : Another thing is that the science of gender does point to being a prenatal factor, just to let you know, not every gender-individuals are actually born that way. That completely ignores brain changes and the possibility of brain changes altering one's viewpoint of oneself which includes self-conceptualized gender and sexuality. Science has never ruled that out at all.

If you do not understand how calling gender, or religion or race "meaningless" is both elitist and offensive, then I'm done with you. And you are very sadly wrong about the brain science behind gender. I did NOT say that everyone has a gender identity, that people's gender identities cannot change over time in a small minority of cases (hey, I'm one), or that "the brain changes with experience." Overwhelmingly, however, gender is set prenatally for most people, and does not change for most people. Forcing people to live as a gender they are not leads to depression, substance abuse, risky behavior, and in some cases, suicide. If gender was just a social construct, and people's gender identities were determined by how they were raised, there wouldn't be trans people, and if anyone was born trans, they would be raised cis and become cis. This is not what happens.

Again, if you do not or will not accept that gender matters so much that it is a literal mater of life and death for people, and that different people understanding gender differently doesn't make gender "meaningless," then I am done with this conversation with you. I am appalled. If you that not accept "X is vitally important and central to who I am in this world, in my family, and in my community," for millions or even billions of people, as X having "meaning" -- just because X means different things to different people -- then there isn't anything I can do to help you. Under that extremely narrow definition of meaning, about the only thing I can think of that has "meaning" are the definitions of numbers, because everything else can be open to interpretation to some degree. Art? Meaningless. Music? Meaningless. Dance? Meaningless. Family? Meaningless. Love? Meaningless, because different people use that word to mean different things. "Impractical with no real reference."

[R_1]

And you are very sadly wrong about the brain science behind gender.

Point out where I am wrong. I pointed out that there's literally nothing in the science of gender ruling out brain changes altering one's gender identity. And there's nothing ruling out an alternating state of being. There's genes, and all, but that still doesn't have to do with brain plascity and the likes. If you have any studies that says otherwise, do show them, otherwise, you're claiming I don't know anything about the science of gender. And asides, I'm not aware of making any claims regarding how static or fluid one's identity, and I'm not aware of any studies that aren't flawed that actually attempted to address the issue just because it's difficult for one to differentiate between actual state of being changes and confusion. I'm also not aware of claiming that one's identity can be raised, and asides, nature v. nurture have yet to be resolved though one could have a idea as to where and what variables are more or less important.

And for the rest, I haven't even said anything about trying to force people to fit into a certain gender role. Nothing about what I'm saying supports that at all. Oh, and for the records, saying something is a social construct doesn't imply that it can be raised or altered so easily or anywhere of that sorts. To show this, one can easily look at debates at what defines sexuality.

And you're right, under my perspective, all of those end up as being literally meaningless. But, a philosophical stance is being elitist? None of my perspective involves a claim of superiority. You may argue that I have a philosophical stance that caters to a elitist class, therefore elitist, but so do people who do not have a gender and prefers to identify based on their sex just because their philosophy is I am is what others can observe. There's people who are borderline near elitist to most people when they carry anti-sexual, or sexual philosophy, and that's just another point to be raised.

So, really, what's your point?

[dash]

And you are very sadly wrong about the brain science behind gender.

Point out where I am wrong. I pointed out that there's literally nothing in the science of gender ruling out brain changes altering one's gender identity. And there's nothing ruling out an alternating state of being. There's genes, and all, but that still doesn't have to do with brain plascity and the likes. If you have any studies that says otherwise, do show them, otherwise, you're claiming I don't know anything about the science of gender. And asides, I'm not aware of making any claims regarding how static or fluid one's identity, and I'm not aware of any studies that aren't flawed that actually attempted to address the issue just because it's difficult for one to differentiate between actual state of being changes and confusion. I'm also not aware of claiming that one's identity can be raised, and asides, nature v. nurture have yet to be resolved though one could have a idea as to where and what variables are more or less important.

And for the rest, I haven't even said anything about trying to force people to fit into a certain gender role. Nothing about what I'm saying supports that at all. Oh, and for the records, saying something is a social construct doesn't imply that it can be raised or altered so easily or anywhere of that sorts. To show this, one can easily look at debates at what defines sexuality.

And you're right, under my perspective, all of those end up as being literally meaningless. But, a philosophical stance is being elitist? None of my perspective involves a claim of superiority. You may argue that I have a philosophical stance that caters to a elitist class, therefore elitist, but so do people who do not have a gender and prefers to identify based on their sex just because their philosophy is I am is what others can observe. There's people who are borderline near elitist to most people when they carry anti-sexual, or sexual philosophy, and that's just another point to be raised.

So, really, what's your point?

I've never said that science says that brain changes (e.g. hormonal changes at puberty) can't alter one's gender identity. I don't know why I was cis until I was about 14, and then that changed. And I know there are people who are multiple systems with headmates of different genders, all sharing the same underlying neurology.

What I did say is that it has been established in science that for most people (again, most, since there are always outliers who do not have a gender or who have a non-binary gender or who have more than one gender), core gender identity is innate and fixed, independent of social factors.

(What it means in a given culture for someone to be a man or a woman or a third gender is of course very cultural. What men and women wear is about as cultural as it gets.)

My point, simply put, is that for most people, gender identity is an innate trait. It is not a social construct. And it is not "meaningless." That, and as someone who has personally struggled for years with gender dysphoria (especially when I shift to binary male, which happens on occasion), I find it very hurtful personally that you consider the very real pain I am going through to be philosophically "meaningless." It means a great deal to me to be accepted as male, because I know just how fragile and conditional that acceptance is.

I am not suffering because people are forcing me into a female "gender role." No one forces me to wear women's clothes, or make-up, or to behave in a female or feminine way. My family is accepting. My friends are accepting. I am suffering because I know I am something other than what my anatomy says I am.

But then again, you said you consider love to be "meaningless," so I don't even know why I'm talking to you. Truly, I am putting this out here for the benefit of everyone else reading this thread.

Are you aware of the case of David Reimer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

See also (a few things I found online with a quick search):

The American Psychological Association, 2004: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/gender.aspx

Some scientific articles about this subject (abstracts online, but full articles behind a paywall):

Swaab, 2004: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Brain: Relevance for Gender Identity, Transsexualism and Sexual Orientation

Swaab, 2007: Sexual Differentiation of the Brain and Behavior

Savic, 2010: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Brain in Relation to Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

Bao and Swaab, 2011: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Brain: Relation to Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Neuropsychiatric Disorders

Hines, 2011: Gender Development and the Human Brain

Medscape: Evidence Supporting the Biologic Basis for gender Identity http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840538

[butterflydreams]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

Well if the definition of woman requires you to be female than technically you wouldn't be no matter how feminine you presented. If you are male , you generally will have generally be treated better than females. So for a male to call himself a woman makes females upset because of they have not had to deal with the oppression that females experience. Personally I don't use cis even though I am a female who does not experience disphoria. Generally girl is used to refer to a female , and boy for males. Yes people do have expectations but we don't have to follow them. I wonder of we didn't set up gender roles , then would people feel the need to get hormones & surgery. When it comes to pronouns I think we should make a singular pronoun that can be used for both anyone.

I take huge issue with this. Were you raised as a boy? If not, then you can't speak to what that is like. Blanket statements like "boys are treated better than girls" in the west anyway, are harmful and erasing of abused and mistreated boys. The message I received being raised as a boy was that I didn't matter. My feelings didn't matter. My happiness didn't matter and I was essentially a disposable utility whose only value was in what I could do for women or society in general. Did you have your genitals mutilated at birth, legally? I did. Against my consent. So you'll have to forgive me if I call bullshit on this tired female-only-victim narrative. Beyond that, saying that you can't identify as something because someone says you haven't experienced "x" "oppression" is just another instance of the oppression Olympics. It's useless, helps no one, and gets us nowhere.

[Guest]

deleted.

[Christina24]

"Gender" is a social construct, just like "race," and I vote that we get rid of those social constructs. Seems like they're just ways to separate people into "us vs. them" and "superior vs. inferior" categories.

You're free to get rid of it for yourself, but not to say that other people should get rid of categories or labels that are very important for them.

It's bad enough for a trans woman (as an example) to be told by the whole world that she's not a woman, is a fake and a liar and a fraud and will never be a "real woman," without folks inside the queer community bashing her for asserting she's a woman as well, because gender is "just a social construct" and by asserting she's a woman, she's somehow hurting or oppressing or dividing other people.

Gender is not "just a social construct." it's a deeply cherished part of who some people are. Not everyone has a gender. And it's wrong to impose one on those people. But gender is a lot more to many people than socially constructed gender roles, fashion, etc.

Well if the definition of woman requires you to be female than technically you wouldn't be no matter how feminine you presented. If you are male , you generally will have generally be treated better than females. So for a male to call himself a woman makes females upset because of they have not had to deal with the oppression that females experience. Personally I don't use cis even though I am a female who does not experience disphoria. Generally girl is used to refer to a female , and boy for males. Yes people do have expectations but we don't have to follow them. I wonder of we didn't set up gender roles , then would people feel the need to get hormones & surgery. When it comes to pronouns I think we should make a singular pronoun that can be used for both anyone.

I take huge issue with this. Were you raised as a boy? If not, then you can't speak to what that is like. Blanket statements like "boys are treated better than girls" in the west anyway, are harmful and erasing of abused and mistreated boys. The message I received being raised as a boy was that I didn't matter. My feelings didn't matter. My happiness didn't matter and I was essentially a disposable utility whose only value was in what I could do for women or society in general. Did you have your genitals mutilated at birth, legally? I did. Against my consent. So you'll have to forgive me if I call bullshit on this tired female-only-victim narrative. Beyond that, saying that you can't identify as something because someone says you haven't experienced "x" "oppression" is just another instance of the oppression Olympics. It's useless, helps no one, and gets us nowhere.

I never said that men couldn't be victims , I said in general men have it better which is how it usually is.

[Frigid Pink]

I don't think "gender" is innate. I think it's a social construct. I think so because there's a difference between "sex" (our anatomy) and "gender" (a social construct based on our anatomy). I think people are born with innate tendencies/traits/characteristics that may or may not match those that society ascribes to people based on anatomy.

However, when someone says they are "other than what my anatomy says I am," then I view that as "transsexualism" which is completely different than "transgenderism."

I googled the definition for "sex" and found:

"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"

I googled the definition for "gender" and found:

"the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)"

I googled the definition for "transsexual" and found:

"a person who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex"

I googled the definition for "transgender" and found:

"denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender"

[A. Lynn Lee]

Ok, there's a lot going on in this thread that makes me a bit uncomfortable but I'm gonna chime in in the hope that my perspective will help others understand. I don't mean any of this as an attack on any particular person, regardless of whether or not I agree with you. You are entitled to your own opinion and your own experience.

First off, there is a difference between the statement "Gender is meaningless." and the statement "Gender is meaningless to me." The first statement is very dismissive and invalidating of those of us for whom gender means a whole lot or who have experienced a great deal of turmoil, both inner and socially, because of our gender. It's okay to not "get" gender because for you it has no real significance or because you don't have a gender. It is not okay to impose that belief on other people.

Second, just because there is more than one definition of a word doesn't make the word pointless, nor does it invalidate any of the multiple definitions of it. For example, take the word "plain". There are many definitions of this word such as: not decorated or elaborate, easy to understand, not beautiful or attractive, a knit stitch, clearly or unequivocally, or a large area of flat land with few trees. Some of these definitions have overlap, like un-elaborate or straightforward, others do not; like flat land and easy to understand. Just because the word means something different to different people in varying contexts doesn't make the word or concept without value. The same principle holds true for gender.

Third, most concepts are not agreed upon by 'all science' or 'all linguists' or even 'all people'. This is especially true for concepts of gender and sex, particularly as they relate to trans* people. There is *so much* that we don't understand about gender and the way it intersects with biology and sociology. There hasn't been nearly enough study done on the topic to clearly define it much less decisively say what causes it to form or why it's experienced differently by individual people and societies.

Fourth, wasn't the whole point of this topic to denote the difference between gender and sex? Meaning the two are not necessarily defined by one another. If you identify as a man (speaking of the gender) then it doesn't matter what your sex (assigned or self-identified) is. You are a man. For the purposes of polite discourse, on this sub-forum when a person identifies as something (whatever that may be) we believe them. At the very least, we treat them as what they identify as. It is generally considered polite to use the gendered words and/or pronouns that a person identifies themselves with, even hypothetical people. Referring to a person as "a man who identifies as a woman" is inappropriate because it implies that trans-women are really just "pretending to be women".

I'd also like to point out that Google is not always a reliable source, particularly when it involves definitions of identity labels (like transgender) which vary from person to person.

______________

Okay, now that that's done; I want to talk a bit about my own personal experience. I identify as a non-binary gender. There is not a corresponding assigned sex to my gender(s). Mandating I label or disclose my assigned biological sex makes me very, very uncomfortable and quite frankly, it's no one else's business. For me, what's going on in my pants (or my secondary sex characteristics) is a very private thing that also has nothing to do with the way that I interact with people online nor does it mean anything about my gender identity. I may choose to disclose such information when it's relevant or I may not. Nobody has a right to my medical information or my body history.

In my opinion the concepts of gender and race are social constructs, an innate feeling defined by an individual, and reflections of biological realities. Those last three categories are not mutually exclusive. I also identify strongly with both my gender and my race. Who I am is very closely tied up with where my family is from, the community I was raised in, what color my skin is, and what I feel on the inside. Some of those things are evident to others for example: my skin isn't white and my family eats a lot of rice; other aspects I have to identify for myself to other people such as: I am genderfluid and being so is considered unacceptable by my conservative, religious, asian family. It is hurtful to me that multiple people on this thread have said that those things don't matter. I have to live with the biological and social ramifications of those traits and the ways other people treat me because of those traits have formed me into the person that I am today. They are not meaningless to me. Trying to take away (or ignore) things like my gender and my race leaves me without essential parts of my very person. Being a bi-racial person with a gender that does not correspond to my sex assigned at birth has made me a more compassionate and sympathetic ally to people who are a part of any racial, sexual, religious or gender minority. Treating people equally does not make us all the same. Nor should it. There is beauty and value in the diversity of our looks, experiences, and identities.

*Climbs off of soapbox.* We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

[Emery.]

Can I give you multiple likes, A. Lynn Lee? I was just wondering to write something similar, but you were first and framed it much better than I would have.