Gender as a Social Construct Questions

[Pramana]

The view that gender is a social construct is predominate in queer theory. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that: "Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed." http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/.

On that account, here are some critical discussion questions:

1. Does the claim that gender is a social construct adequately account for FTM and MTF binary transgender experience? There is support for biological causes for transgender identities, based on evidence that there are differences between male and female brain types, and that sometimes genetic or fetal development conditions produce a brain/body gender mismatch. A biological explanation of that type might seem best suited to make sense of situations where people have a strong sense of dysphoria from a young age, and wish to medically transition to change their body to match a male or female gender identity to which they feel a strong association. And perhaps being born with an intersex brain type might explain analogous situations where from a young age people experience dysphoria regarding sex-specific features of their body as a result of a strong sense that they are agender. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/.

2. Is the claim that gender is a social construct a semantic one? Most people would probably agree that some aspects of being a woman or a man are socially constructed, so choosing to define gender in this way might simply narrow the scope of what is covered by the term gender while allowing for significant physical and mental biological sex differences between women and men.

3. How does the theory that gender is a social construct fit with evolutionary psychology theories of sexual orientations? Psychologists understand sexual orientations as an intrinsic mechanism which mammalian species have evolved to direct sexual desires towards members of the opposite gender, the same gender, both genders, or no genders. This is thought to explain why heterosexuality is by far the most common sexual orientation, as it has evolved to orient individuals towards suitable reproductive partners. (Lisa M. Diamond, What Does Sexual Orientation Orient? A Biobehavioral Model Distinguishing Romantic Love and Sexual Desire, Psychological Review, 2003, Vol. 110, No. 1, pages 173–192). In addition, psychologists have theorized that gender identities and gender roles are partly linked to one's sexual orientation. For example, heterosexual males have probably evolved to be attracted to features suggestive of fertile and healthy young women, and heterosexual women have probably evolved a self-awareness and concern for mannerisms, styles of dress, etc. that express and enhance those features so they will be more competitive at attracting the most advantageous reproductive partners. (Anthony F. Bogaert and Lori A. Brotto, Object of Desire Self-Consciousness Theory, Journal Of Sex and Marital Therapy (2014) 40:4, pp. 323-338).

4. How much will increased acceptance and adoption of non-binary gender identities really change in society? Queer theorists laud the increasing popularity of non-binary gender identities among members of the millennial generation as resistance to oppressive gender role stereotypes, and potentially as an intermediary step towards a genderless society. (Abigail Oakley, Disturbing Hegemonic Discourse: Nonbinary Gender and Sexual Orientation Labeling on Tumblr, Social Media + Society, August 2016, Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 1-12). But if most people are heterosexual whereby they have an intrinsic, biologically ingrained tendency both to be attracted to members of the opposite sex and to want to appear attractive to members of the opposite sex (and extrapolate by analogy here to homosexuality and bisexuality), then might we not expect that noticeable differences between men and women will persist in society, although it may become more common semantically to refer to them as sex differences rather than gender differences? To put that another way, what percentage of people who adopt non-binary gender identities in their teens or twenties will continue to find those terms useful while in their 30s and 40s, after becoming married, having children, starting a career?

[cavalier080854]

I cannot answer this, as my view is problematic to the dogma and ideology prevailing at AVEN. Anything I say will, and has, resulted in a warning. That should say something about the answers you will get here.

[Ray Nimrod]

Some of your questions are really interesting, thank you for posting this. I am not enough, sadly, documented enough to answer you well. I would like, however, to state a point :

 

You talk about evolution explaining some theories you mentionned, but you should be careful about this, as it is very (very) difficult to distinguish which characteritics of human nature are purely biological and which one are socially constructed, if making such a distinction is even possible. Plus, the fact there are scientifically proven relation of causality for some (or even most) individuals doesn't mean those apply to everyone. Humankind is very broad.

 

About 4, I am under the impression most poeple just want an environnement where they can safely express what they are, and this "what they are" can vary through life. May be wrong tho.

 

(Did I just said "one point" ? Well, that's how it is)

[Emery.]

Let me quote my own post to anwser this:

 

I see gender as social, but being rooted in biology quite heavily. Being free from thought constrains doesn't mean we're frre from biology, cultural context or inborn personality traits like femininity or masculinity and their various aspects.

 

Of course, our concepts, as a society, of femininty and masculinity are not the only ones that are out there, take a look at the animal kingdom, and you'll realise how many different way there are to organise procreation. And even take a look at some less stereotypical people and how they couple up. 

 

Even if free from norms, we have inclinations to certain traits, because it's instincts. Some people's instincts are normative, others' not. Gender is social, but not neccesarily made up or a product of learning. Social skills are pre-wired into our brains to a degree. So it's social as opposed to e.g. your shoe size. Shoe size is only material. (If we omit its impact on your social life  ) Your behaviour is social. It can be authentic or inauthentic. More or less of an instinct. More or less learnt. 

 

sorry if I'm seeming chaotic, this doesn't conceptualise in a too linear way, does it? I hope I'm getting across my points?

[butterflydreams]

1. Well, if gender is a social construct, that implies that you can choose it. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, but it isn't true for me in the slightest. I just am how I am. And biological intervention (HRT) has helped me tremendously. It's hard for me to argue it's a social construct in my case. But the social construct argument comes straight out of, IMO, a misguided understanding of postmodernism. We all understand in the modern world that what you are born as doesn't inherently limit you, though this isn't true for some things. I could try my hardest but at 5'7", I'm never going to play in the NBA. We are inherently limited, and gifted, in different ways. This can be hard to hear, but it's true. However, we do extend to everyone the opportunity to try. But this doesn't mean they will succeed.

 

2. I think it is a semantic argument...sometimes. Gender roles are socially constructed, but our inherent sense of selves are not. I explained this to my brother's girlfriend once. I could be on a desert island all alone and I'd still know something was wrong with me. I just get it, intrinsically. Why the heck would I choose to be this way? That's kind of my one question to people in the social construct camp.

 

3. I don't really feel qualified to answer this one.

 

4. I think it actually has the potential to undo a lot of what we've worked so hard to accomplish. Tearing down barriers and opening our minds to what men and women can be. Proliferation of non-binary as a kind of default just boxes people back up. No longer is someone a "different kind of man" that we should respect, that person would now be non binary. But we are all different. I'm a different kind of woman. That doesn't make me non binary. I don't know what makes non binary people identify that way, but they do. And I don't even think they feel like they're different kinds of men/women. They're something else entirely (from what I understand). 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

5 hours ago, Pramana said:

The view that gender is a social construct is predominate in queer theory. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that: "Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed." http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/.

On that account, here are some critical discussion questions:

1. Does the claim that gender is a social construct adequately account for FTM and MTF binary transgender experience? There is support for biological causes for transgender identities, based on evidence that there are differences between male and female brain types, and that sometimes genetic or fetal development conditions produce a brain/body gender mismatch. A biological explanation of that type might seem best suited to make sense of situations where people have a strong sense of dysphoria from a young age, and wish to medically transition to change their body to match a male or female gender identity to which they feel a strong association. And perhaps being born with an intersex brain type might explain analogous situations where from a young age people experience dysphoria regarding sex-specific features of their body as a result of a strong sense that they are agender. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/.

I think it's a little like Death and Taxes-- both are inevitable, one is socially constructed and the other isn't.

 

And how can you get any really meanigful data and apply it universally if you haven't been there?

 

Would getring beaten up as a teenage because of the way one looked and comported automatically Heisenburg any answer from experience that someone like me might give? 

 

I mean really, we don't beat people up for being infertile just because there is evidence that evolutionary psychology has a lot of truth behind it, but that's essentially what happens when you only let people vote with the sexualities on a 'just-this-and-only-this' model and code of conduct.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Duplicate post

[Pramana]

33 minutes ago, Hadley167 said:

4. I think it actually has the potential to undo a lot of what we've worked so hard to accomplish. Tearing down barriers and opening our minds to what men and women can be. Proliferation of non-binary as a kind of default just boxes people back up. No longer is someone a "different kind of man" that we should respect, that person would now be non binary. But we are all different. I'm a different kind of woman. That doesn't make me non binary. I don't know what makes non binary people identify that way, but they do. And I don't even think they feel like they're different kinds of men/women. They're something else entirely (from what I understand). 

My impression is that most people don't one hundred percent fit the male or female gender role stereotypes present in their society to begin with. According to queer theory, the difference between say a biologically male person who chooses to identify as male while acknowledging some feminine traits and a biologically male person who on account of having some feminine traits chooses to identify as non-binary, is that the second person has decided to adopt the non-binary label as a political tool to challenge the male/female gender binary. Thus, for queer theorists, once this political effort has been successful, there will be no need for gender labels. And in fact, some queer theorists such as Abigail Oakley who I quoted in the OP have a problem with labels like non-binary or genderfluid, because those labels are still formulated which reference to the gender binary categories of male and female and so don't go far enough to reject it.

[binary suns]

5 hours ago, Pramana said:

1. Does the claim that gender is a social construct adequately account for FTM and MTF binary transgender experience?
2. Is the claim that gender is a social construct a semantic one?
3. How does the theory that gender is a social construct fit with evolutionary psychology theories of sexual orientations?
4. How much will increased acceptance and adoption of non-binary gender identities really change in society?

1. Yes, if the shoe fits, wear it.
2. Yes, the social agreed-upon assumptions intended to reconstruct the realities of our sex and subsequent looks and behaviors, is used for attributing meaning via a logical set of assumptions to better understand the patterns seen in the world around us.
3. Gender in this regard, is a useful nomenclature tool to help create further predictive assumptions about the world around us.
4. The lesser self-evident aspects of gender will shift and change - style will update, some behavioral trends and preferences will change but not all, some ways in which people respond to some behavioral trends and preferences will change along the scale of accepting/neutral-ignoring/rejecting the behavior or preference into our personality - which could affect some of the behaviors/preferences not covered in the prior example....

 

 

I speak two a few things regarding gender re: social construct. the first is to notice how money, friendship and other relationships, art, architecture, these things are all social constructs as well - some more so than others.

• The value of money is pretty much entirely a social construct.
• Art is half and half - with art there is a cultural response to its own history, but it is influenced by our perceptions of reality around us.
• Architecture has a lot of real-world facters that precondition what is successful - natural disasteres, load bearing, gravity on its own self, wind and change over time... But if you notice you see many viable options to choose from when erecting any edifice - and the stakeholders of the project must discuss with each other, agree upon assumptions about the future demands the edifice will need to overcome, and barter with the demands of cost and time of the project's completion - even the project itself needs to be negotiated. Despite being almost entirely dependent on the real world - there still is significant amount of "social construction" to architecture's field of study.

The second is to notice how a social construct is necessarily variant - there will be a common assumption agreed upon, which is most popularly held to be true. But there often will be secondary or minority assumptions that hold some other belief about reality to be true. And furthermore, over time which assumptions about reality are made in regards to the social construct - will shift and flow, and when applicable, advance or decline.

 

And the third is to notice how a social construct has meaning because there are is a majority who cares about it as such. While there is criticism viable here to claim that this is a false meaning - there is also the acceptance of what the current reality is - since the majority of a population highly values the construct in a certain way, this value in and of itself is incredibly true and real. Furthermore, social constructs are intended to attempt to reveal reality - so to expect it to entirely dissipate within our lifetime is unlikely - more likely it will shift without much growth or decline, or it will shift while growing or declining.. but there will never be an end result. there is always change happening, whether it is insignificant or strongly noticable.

 

 

 

 

in my opinion considering the discourse I've presented (and the discourse that I've contemplated to be able to speak to this topic as I have), the reality which gender comments upon won't go away, but perhaps one could argue it may become unimportant eventually - but my criticism of that hypothesis is:

• to expect something like gender to become irrelevant, which has critical value in reproduction and sexual preference respondent to our hormones and other biologic factors - whether those factors do exhibit as genetics intends or do not - seems quite unrealistic to me. Even if sexual reproduction no longer was needed to proliferate the human species - to dismantle the effects of hormones and other factors would require purposeful manipulation by an authoritative power.

[binary suns]

10 minutes ago, Pramana said:

My impression is that most people don't one hundred percent fit the male or female gender role stereotypes present in their society to begin with.

Agreed - but any assumption such as a stereotype or a predictive model or a theory or etc... is built upon noticeable patterns. Arguably it is plausible that our hypotheses may be flawed, perhaps entirely foolish - or that the patterns may be generally arbitrary but self-containing to structure their own self once manifesting by a certain pattern.... My expectation however, is that most of our theories in this information age are more accurate than illusory. As I've denoted with my prior post - the accuracy may be a "preferred value" which shifts over time, but that is not the same as false hypotheses. The preferred value is, exactly, culture.

[binary suns]

15 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Thus, for queer theorists, once this political effort has been successful, there will be no need for gender labels.

for the sake of clarity, considering the complex depth of information I'm representing with the last two posts, I state that I find this theory very difficult to believe.

[binary suns]

4 hours ago, cavalier080854 said:

I cannot answer this, as my view is problematic to the dogma and ideology prevailing at AVEN. Anything I say will, and has, resulted in a warning. That should say something about the answers you will get here.

pm me and I'll paraphrase. what I post will be my words, my decision to post - and so if anyone gets a warning, it will be me.

[Emery.]

6 hours ago, Pramana said:

Thus, for queer theorists, once this political effort has been successful, there will be no need for gender labels.

For them, maybe. Maybe they find a reflection of who they are in behaviour solely and are being read correctly. Maybe they don't need labels, maybe they don't need coming outs. Not all of us have a means of communication with the world about who we are, what's going on in our heads.

[butterflydreams]

9 hours ago, Pramana said:

And in fact, some queer theorists such as Abigail Oakley who I quoted in the OP have a problem with labels like non-binary or genderfluid, because those labels are still formulated which reference to the gender binary categories of male and female and so don't go far enough to reject it.

This isn't the first time I've heard this, but once again, I find it to be authoritarian and awfully regressive. Authoritarian because they're telling me that labels don't matter, and this binary feeling I experience is not really real. Regressive because there is an element of people out there who really don't like people like me, a trans woman. By getting rid of gender, what do you think they'll fall back on? "Oh you can choose to be whatever you want, but you're still biologically male, so we can treat you like shit, etc, etc." This is why you have so many trans people saying they aren't even biologically their birth sex. To fight against that accusation. We are all born differently. This is undeniable. Our brains form differently and sometimes, they don't match up with how our bodies form. I don't live in a world of queer theory. I live my actual life, and it is what it is. 

 

By by the way, I'm not getting too personal in this, just arguing the facts as I see them. Personally, I do find the social construct argument frustrating and not reflective of my experiences in the slightest.

[Emery.]

Yes, queer theory seems a bit out of touch with reality, doesn't it?

[binary suns]

eh, I wouldn't say that much ^ not exactly out of touch but rather overfocused on one part of it.

 

and there's certainly good other knowledge that queer theory proliferates just fine, 

 

I always say. just because c is wrong, don't necessarily mean a and b are wrong too. 

 

and I wouldn't really say anything is right or wrong either... but now I'm getting into philosophy people don't want to care about at this point

[Emery.]

This is why it is just a bit out of touch with reality imo 

 

I get the impression like the queer theorists are talking about how the world should look like, not how it actually looks like.

 

While I totally agree with their normative statements, I still find no other way to function within this social reality than to claim a transgender identity. Identifying with a label is rather communicating where you are in the world, like describing to the control tower and other pilots where your plane is and what it is experiencing. Should people communicate? If they want to live in a society or cooperate with others, that's pretty useful. Should they wonder where they are in terms of a certain coordinate system? My answer to that is - why not? Even if you don't agree with this particular system of coordinates, doesn't mean a lot of people don't use it. It's just about it. Many people are purely utilitarian.

[butterflydreams]

1 hour ago, Emery. said:

I get the impression like the queer theorists are talking about how the world should look like, not how it actually looks like.

Exactly. It's like they have this utopian vision of how they think the world ought to be. I think that's probably why I feel they're so authoritarian. Because that's what authoritarians do. That said, many people who buy into the idea of a social construct do seem to have good intentions and might even be staunch allies. One of my friends is kind of like this. She supports me, but didn't realize I didn't view what I'm going through as social constructivism. She seemed surprised when I explained how biological and real it is for me. 

 

I honestly feel left out of the social construct argument. I don't know what reality that describes, but it isn't mine. And the implications of the argument, followed to conclusion are kind of scary. If you can just choose to be whatever you are, and you're not born any particular thing, then conversion therapy should work, right? After all, this isn't something intrinsic about you, it can be chosen, and it can be changed. I don't know why people never seem to follow this through to the conclusion. IMO it's a great example of Horseshoe Theory in action. 

[binary suns]

be careful about equating visionaries to authoritarians. having the courage to have vision is an essential thing!

 

 

[Pramana]

5 hours ago, Emery. said:

I get the impression like the queer theorists are talking about how the world should look like, not how it actually looks like.

 

3 hours ago, Hadley167 said:

Exactly. It's like they have this utopian vision of how they think the world ought to be.

I agree that queer theory contains something of an ivory tower disconnect. I like theory, but find that theory is more convincing when it is more closely indexed to how it would operate in practice to create real world changes.
 

5 hours ago, Hadley167 said:

This isn't the first time I've heard this, but once again, I find it to be authoritarian and awfully regressive. Authoritarian because they're telling me that labels don't matter, and this binary feeling I experience is not really real. Regressive because there is an element of people out there who really don't like people like me, a trans woman. By getting rid of gender, what do you think they'll fall back on?

I'm not entirely sure how language would work under a theory like Abigail Oakley's. I understand their argument to be that terms like "female" and "male" are oppressive because those terms are chosen for the individual by society, and because those terms force individuals to conform to a standard which doesn't reflect the complexity of individual experiences. And terms like non-binary are still oppressive, because even though they represent resistance on the part of the individual to this linguistic boxing in of their true selves, they still require individuals to partition their experience as partly female and partly male, and so continue an oppressive discourse that limits individual expression. I find it kind of odd, though, that despite being a social constructivist, Oakley seems to assume an ideal of an individual possessing a true self, which must be uncovered from under the distorting and oppressive influence of social forces. Perhaps it could be argued instead that individuals and society are interdependent, that the development of individual persons occurs as a result of being raised in a society and learning a language, and that to communicate effectively we will have to use a vocabulary which is socialized in the sense that terms must be capable of generalizing from our experience to the experience of others so that people will be able to understand us?

[butterflydreams]

I strongly disagree that terms male and female are oppressive. They're observations made about people at birth. Observations of biology. Observation is like step one of science and logic. That simply cannot be "oppressive". As a society, we can choose or not choose to allow that observation to dictate everything about a person's life. In the society I've lived in, we generally shun that idea. And for the most part, it's ok. However, I will never give birth. It will never happen. How I was born prevents that from being a possibility in my life. So because I was born male, some things are simply off limits to me. I mourn that, accept it, and move on.

 

I'm not helped by denying my own reality. The reality that I was born physically male. Trans people basically just have a condition. A mismatch. I'm not oppressed or hurt by being told that I was born male. I think to fully reconcile ourselves as trans people, we must acknowledge our biological reality. At least in terms of sex characteristics.

 

Because again, horseshoe theory...if I'm already female, and my body is female, then why the hell am I transitioning to begin with? Why go through all the trouble?

 

Honestly, I think there are just two camps here. Two ways of looking at this world. I don't mind them both existing. Theories are fine after all. But I do get nervous when I feel like one starts to gain mainstream traction because it might negatively affect me and my ability to live a normal life. Transition is crucial to that. And many many trans people are just like me. Theories are one thing, but when they start to affect people negatively, we all have step up and say something.

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Hadley167 said:

Honestly, I think there are just two camps here. Two ways of looking at this world. I don't mind them both existing. Theories are fine after all. But I do get nervous when I feel like one starts to gain mainstream traction because it might negatively affect me and my ability to live a normal life. Transition is crucial to that. And many many trans people are just like me. Theories are one thing, but when they start to affect people negatively, we all have step up and say something.

To some degree, I suspect the issue is semantic, as it seems that by "gender" in the context of "male", "female", and "non-binary", queer theorists are referring to whether one's personality characteristics and personal preferences align with the gender role stereotypes that attach to their biological sex in their society. On the other hand, it seems that evolutionary psychologists view gender as more closely related to biological sex, emerging from the differing reproductive strategies that females and males have evolved and thus more closely tied to sexual orientation.

I gather the impetus for queer theorists to favour the socially constructed definition of gender is because they place significant value on the ability to challenge gender role stereotypes. But could we instead challenge gender role stereotypes by arguing for a more nuanced picture of the variances and diversity within female and male categories, rather than claiming that everyone who doesn't fit gender role stereotypes is non-binary? The motivation among queer theorists for going the non-binary route appears to be their belief that it is the most politically advantageous strategy, but as you suggest there may be a significant political cost to reducing everything to biological sex once "gender" is removed from discourse in a "genderless society".

[butterflydreams]

4 hours ago, Pramana said:

queer theorists are referring to whether one's personality characteristics and personal preferences align with the gender role stereotypes that attach to their biological sex in their society

Which is pretty regressive if I do say so myself. Isn't that what we're trying to get away from?

 

4 hours ago, Pramana said:

On the other hand, it seems that evolutionary psychologists view gender as more closely related to biological sex, emerging from the differing reproductive strategies that females and males have evolved and thus more closely tied to sexual orientation.

I think they're the other extreme to the argument, but personally, I feel like they're "more right" than other positions. Certainly most reflective of my own experiences.

 

4 hours ago, Pramana said:

But could we instead challenge gender role stereotypes by arguing for a more nuanced picture of the variances and diversity within female and male categories, rather than claiming that everyone who doesn't fit gender role stereotypes is non-binary?

Absolutely! Gender role stereotypes (which aren't all bad btw) are socially constructed (but often based on biological realities if you really pull them apart). Still, they're much more prone to being pulled apart than actual gender or sex of individuals. If you put a cis male through what I've been through in transition, you can be assured he'd be so incredibly distressed by it. These things about us are so real. They're not to be trifled with. People just are what they are, you know?

 

5 hours ago, Pramana said:

The motivation among queer theorists for going the non-binary route appears to be their belief that it is the most politically advantageous strategy, but as you suggest there may be a significant political cost to reducing everything to biological sex once "gender" is removed from discourse in a "genderless society".

A genderless society does just as much harm to all the regular ol cis people out there as the gendered society we have does to non binary people right now. We can easily find a way to include non binary people without throwing quite literally 99%+ of the population under the bus. All those people don't want to be genderless any more than I want to be a man. Or a cis man wants to be a woman. 

[Binary_fiction]

I've always seen gender as a composite more than one single thing. By saying that biological sex is based on physical features and gender solely on societal aspects, we make it very linear and it becomes easy to think that non binary genders are "made up".

 

as a result, instead I always advocate for the idea that gender is an assembly of the following:

 

- Societal and environmental features, such as the culture and interpersonal projection of your gender presentation and it's acceptance in the current society,

 

- biological, as surprising as it may seem, trans and non binary individuals seems to have certains specific configurations (many studies on the subject found online) that could point out to the idea that there's a biological compound to this.

 

- psychological, as the feeling of dysphoria or euphoria from certain aspect of your own identity/biological sex/presentation could bring either a traumatic or beneficial experience or bear no reaction at all.

 

by joining these factors together, we establish what we can call "gender identity". This identity reflects who you are on the inside to the outside world.

 

i understand that some people believe in the idea that non binary is a "trend" at the moment because of he explosion of people who come out as such but really what makes more sense is to say that the momentum gained from the advancement of trans and non binary rights is what created this burst in the population. Is it possible that some people are indeed just following a trend? It's possible but I like to never assume people's gender and never invalidate people's identities.

 

I myself am non binary... I came out this year as such, at 33 years of age and many people thought that I was doing it for "attention". Until I made them realize that coming out in my hometown was never an option and I needed to make a radical change in my life in order to be able to come out of my shell. I moved a province away before doing it. 

 

I understand why people could think that gender, if solely a social construct, would be hard to grasp or be seen as an "invention" but one must remember that "man" and "woman" are also constructs and merely words give to how someone represent themselves. We never question those words simply because it's what we were told was the "norm". The perception of gender has to change from the school bench first if we want to make progress now for a better tomorrow.

[chridd]

To me, it looks like people are using the word gender to mean two completely different things, and then not realizing this or clarifying and then misunderstanding each other or coming to wrong conclusions (which caused me to be confused about trans issues for a long time, and now annoys me every time I see the first sense used).

 

Some people, like the person who wrote the WHO statement quoted in the OP, use gender to refer to things like gender norms and gender roles, i.e., behaviors that tend to differ between males and females.  There's almost certainly some part of this that's culturally dependent (e.g., skirts vs. kilts; differing views on females working outside the house in the past vs. now), but I don't think anyone really knows how much is and isn't socially constructed (studying this sort of thing is hard, and there are also political issues since there are people who will use any difference as an excuse for sexism).

 

Other people use gender to refer to a thing that can (sometimes? often? almost always?) cause dysphoria if it's different from the person's biological sex; this is what's different from sex for a trans person.  This has some connection to the first definition (there may be a correlation between one's gender and what gender roles they're naturally inclined to; and being trans can affect how people feel about gender roles), but it's not the same thing (any sex/gender/gender role combination is possible), and there's a much closer connection between this and physical sex (many trans people experience physical dysphoria, and would even in the absence of gender roles; some even experience only physical dysphoria and don't care about gender roles at all).  I suspect many people who use the first sense don't even know that this is a thing; unless you've experienced dysphoria and recognized it for what it is, it's not at all obvious that gender would work this way.  This, from what I understand, is not socially constructed at all.  I suspect that trans people exist precisely because the idea that some people are male and others female isn't socially constructed (even if ideas about how males and females are supposed to behave are); people are born not only knowing that male and female people exist, but also knowing (subconsciously) which of those they are.

 

With non-binary, similarly, I see people saying two different sorts of things.  As I understand it, in the second sense of gender, while most people are either male or female, a small minority of people are neither—that is, either they experience dysphoria both with a male and with a female body, or don't experience dysphoria with either.  This would make it similar to physical sex (where most people either are born with a penis and develop facial hair, low voice, etc. at puberty, or are born with a vagina and develop breasts, wide hips, etc. at puberty, but a small minority have ambiguous genitals or conditions where they don't develop typical secondary sex characteristics); I don't think this will result in a genderless society or anything (male and female are still meaningful and still apply to most people).  However, there are other people who seem to talk about things like "breaking the gender binary" and treating it as a political thing, or who seem to think most people aren't binary (or wouldn't be binary if they knew that was an option), and I kind of suspect maybe they're the same people who think the first definition of gender is the only one?  Or non-binary people with typical mind fallacy, or who spend so much time around other NBs that they forget most people aren't?  Or people who think non-binarity is a meme, or transphobes making strawman arguments?  I don't know.

 

(Does this agree with anyone else's understanding?)

[Binary_fiction]

2 hours ago, chridd said:

To me, it looks like people are using the word gender to mean two completely different things, and then not realizing this or clarifying and then misunderstanding each other or coming to wrong conclusions (which caused me to be confused about trans issues for a long time, and now annoys me every time I see the first sense used).

 

Some people, like the person who wrote the WHO statement quoted in the OP, use gender to refer to things like gender norms and gender roles, i.e., behaviors that tend to differ between males and females.  There's almost certainly some part of this that's culturally dependent (e.g., skirts vs. kilts; differing views on females working outside the house in the past vs. now), but I don't think anyone really knows how much is and isn't socially constructed (studying this sort of thing is hard, and there are also political issues since there are people who will use any difference as an excuse for sexism).

 

Other people use gender to refer to a thing that can (sometimes? often? almost always?) cause dysphoria if it's different from the person's biological sex; this is what's different from sex for a trans person.  This has some connection to the first definition (there may be a correlation between one's gender and what gender roles they're naturally inclined to; and being trans can affect how people feel about gender roles), but it's not the same thing (any sex/gender/gender role combination is possible), and there's a much closer connection between this and physical sex (many trans people experience physical dysphoria, and would even in the absence of gender roles; some even experience only physical dysphoria and don't care about gender roles at all).  I suspect many people who use the first sense don't even know that this is a thing; unless you've experienced dysphoria and recognized it for what it is, it's not at all obvious that gender would work this way.  This, from what I understand, is not socially constructed at all.  I suspect that trans people exist precisely because the idea that some people are male and others female isn't socially constructed (even if ideas about how males and females are supposed to behave are); people are born not only knowing that male and female people exist, but also knowing (subconsciously) which of those they are.

 

With non-binary, similarly, I see people saying two different sorts of things.  As I understand it, in the second sense of gender, while most people are either male or female, a small minority of people are neither—that is, either they experience dysphoria both with a male and with a female body, or don't experience dysphoria with either.  This would make it similar to physical sex (where most people either are born with a penis and develop facial hair, low voice, etc. at puberty, or are born with a vagina and develop breasts, wide hips, etc. at puberty, but a small minority have ambiguous genitals or conditions where they don't develop typical secondary sex characteristics); I don't think this will result in a genderless society or anything (male and female are still meaningful and still apply to most people).  However, there are other people who seem to talk about things like "breaking the gender binary" and treating it as a political thing, or who seem to think most people aren't binary (or wouldn't be binary if they knew that was an option), and I kind of suspect maybe they're the same people who think the first definition of gender is the only one?  Or non-binary people with typical mind fallacy, or who spend so much time around other NBs that they forget most people aren't?  Or people who think non-binarity is a meme, or transphobes making strawman arguments?  I don't know.

 

(Does this agree with anyone else's understanding?)

I don't know if I can agree or disagree with what you're saying since you're not really defining what gender is but instead define what it isn't.

 

all that being said, my name is "binary fiction" because I believe the gender binary should be deconstructed. Why? Because I believe that the factors which define gender (in my previous post) makes gender a "spectrum" instead of 2 dots (binary). That spectrum includes the gender binary in itself but it doesn't exclude non binary identities. It's just a way to be more inclusive and in my opinion, it would be impossible to have a strictly binary world exist with a strictly non binary world as they both would contradict each other's. The only way to be able to define them together is by defining gender on a spectrum where people falls for the most part, at one far end or another but some are elsewhere on the graph.

 

 

[Pramana]

6 hours ago, chridd said:

With non-binary, similarly, I see people saying two different sorts of things.  As I understand it, in the second sense of gender, while most people are either male or female, a small minority of people are neither—that is, either they experience dysphoria both with a male and with a female body, or don't experience dysphoria with either.  This would make it similar to physical sex (where most people either are born with a penis and develop facial hair, low voice, etc. at puberty, or are born with a vagina and develop breasts, wide hips, etc. at puberty, but a small minority have ambiguous genitals or conditions where they don't develop typical secondary sex characteristics); I don't think this will result in a genderless society or anything (male and female are still meaningful and still apply to most people).  However, there are other people who seem to talk about things like "breaking the gender binary" and treating it as a political thing, or who seem to think most people aren't binary (or wouldn't be binary if they knew that was an option), and I kind of suspect maybe they're the same people who think the first definition of gender is the only one?  Or non-binary people with typical mind fallacy, or who spend so much time around other NBs that they forget most people aren't?  Or people who think non-binarity is a meme, or transphobes making strawman arguments?  I don't know.

I've been viewing the issue in a similar way, which is why I think the issue is partly semantic. If gender is a non-biological social construct but MTF and FTM transgender experiences and some non-binary experiences have biological causes, then it seems like instead of saying "transgender" it would be more accurate to say 'transsexual", and sexual orientations would also have to be defined in terms of attraction to sex rather than attraction to gender. And that leads into my last question regarding the extent of the practical difference this would achieve. Sure "gender" would lose importance in a "genderless" society, but only because we have redefined the term in such a way that it no longer holds importance.

[chridd]

7 hours ago, Binary_fiction said:

I don't know if I can agree or disagree with what you're saying since you're not really defining what gender is but instead define what it isn't.

I'm defining gender as "whatever it is that causes dysphoria if it's different than a person's sex" (and claiming that this is a completely different thing what the WHO is talking about, but people confuse the two, and they're not completely unrelated; and that the thing that causes dysphoria is not socially constructed, but the thing the WHO is talking about at least partially is).  My current understanding is that it's something along the lines of "what sex a person subconsciously expects to be".

 

Or, in other words, I'm arguing that

16 hours ago, Binary_fiction said:

- Societal and environmental features, such as the culture and interpersonal projection of your gender presentation and it's acceptance in the current society,

 

- biological, as surprising as it may seem, trans and non binary individuals seems to have certains specific configurations (many studies on the subject found online) that could point out to the idea that there's a biological compound to this.

 

- psychological, as the feeling of dysphoria or euphoria from certain aspect of your own identity/biological sex/presentation could bring either a traumatic or beneficial experience or bear no reaction at all.

aren't different aspects of one thing, but rather two completely different things that people confusingly use the same word for.

[Binary_fiction]

10 minutes ago, chridd said:

I'm defining gender as "whatever it is that causes dysphoria if it's different than a person's sex" (and claiming that this is a completely different thing what the WHO is talking about, but people confuse the two, and they're not completely unrelated; and that the thing that causes dysphoria is not socially constructed, but the thing the WHO is talking about at least partially is).  My current understanding is that it's something along the lines of "what sex a person subconsciously expects to be".

 

Or, in other words, I'm arguing that

aren't different aspects of gender, but rather two completely separate things that people confusingly use the same word for.

According to your opinion that is right? The reason why I always oppose gender being only one facet (in your case a psychological factor of the subconscious) is that not everyone experience it the same way and not all trans/non binary people experience dysphoria. Some do (in my case I do) and some doesn't. This is the reason why I say that gender is a compound and not a unilateral facet of our personality. Then again, this is of course my opinion on the subject and the reason why I analyze it this way is because of my background in microbiologist/health sciences.

 

i believe that gender is based on more than psychology and that there is a biological and societal component to the ordeal which creates a context and a predisposition in the situation.  Your definition makes it sound like somewhat of a mental condition where "being trans or non binary" is valid if you experience dysphoria but that's not the case. Some people will not undergo surgery or change any of the perceptions they see in the mirror every days. Some people who consider themselves trans or non binary will not use HRT or dress in different clothing or want to for that matter. To narrow down being trans to "dysphoria" of the biological sexual does 2 things:

 

- It invalidate non binary identities whom does not particularly identify with one specific gender/biological sex feature,

 

- It also create a "there are only 2 options" scenarios where there can only be male or female primary and secondary sex feature and people who wants to reach out to one of them. This again invalidate non binary people along side those who don't want to transition even tho they are trans.

 

i'd say that expressing gender in term of biological sex and dysphoria is incomplete but as I mentioned already before, that's my opinion and not a fact.

[chridd]

18 minutes ago, Binary_fiction said:

This is the reason why I say that gender is a compound and not a unilateral facet of our personality.

...I'm more arguing that gender is (at least) two separate facets (both of which are important), and that we should use different words for those two facets, because otherwise it's confusing.

13 minutes ago, Binary_fiction said:

Your definition makes it sound like somewhat of a mental condition where "being trans or non binary" is valid if you experience dysphoria but that's not the case.

Not necessarily.  I'm leaving open the option that whatever it is that causes dysphoria can also exist in some people and not cause dysphoria.  I also don't think there are only two options—like I said, never experiencing dysphoria regardless of sex, and experiencing dysphoria with both a male and with a female body (but maybe not with an androgynous body) are also possibilities.  (Also I'm including social dysphoria in my definition, not just physical.)