4 ms·

Except it is to many people. The "gender is a social construct" crowd is very prominent, if not the current consensus in academia. I have a boy and its obvious

Except it is to many people. The "gender is a social construct" crowd is very prominent, if not the current consensus in academia. I have a boy and its obvious gender differences are innate, not learned. It was somewhat eye-opening as I was raised with the "gender is a construct" theory even though I was fairly skeptical of it. Other parents I've spoken to have noticed the same thing. I think we're going to look back to this period and think "wait, did people really think gender was 100% social" the same way we think back to things like, say, phrenology or classifying homosexuality as a mental illness.

icen 9y ago
Conflating these seems a bit disingenuous. It seems plausible that you can innately know your sex, and that this comes with some behaviour. It's not the same as saying that girls being associated with the colour pink isn't a social construct.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  Well, that's taking it to an irrational extreme. You can cherry pick stuff like "There's no genetic code for liking lace bras and makeup," but there is most likely code that's about adorning and beautifying yourself as a woman. Or code about being attracted to the aesthetic of beauty and beautification thus having a favorite color or color palette, thus the fashion industry standardizing on a handful of palettes considered feminine. Even if the colors are arbitary, just the concept of acceptable and fashionable colors, per season, per fad, etc is highly feminine. Men, often, can wear any color in any season and not have it bother them or have other men criticize them for it. Nor have women consider it unattractive.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    the concept of acceptable and fashionable colors, per season, per fad, etc is highly feminine. Men, often, can wear any color in any season and not have it bother them or have other men criticize them for it. Nor have women consider it unattractive. That the fashionable seasonable colors is associated with the feminine gender is true, but it says nothing about whether it's an inherent trait, as you imply, or something created by society. I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears and has to find ways to get people to buy more product.
    - adekok 9y ago
      Look at sex differences in animals. There are many, many, cases where one sex does the searching for (colorful, lots of adornment) and the other is the searched-for (drab, no adornment). It is entirely reasonable to assume that there is a biological basis for the sex differences in men and womens fashion. There may not be proof that the sex differences are innate, but it's reasonable to propose that they are innate. By the same token, it is unreasonable to deny that these sex differences are innate, until such time as proof is offered. > I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears There's also every reason to believe that people were modifying their appearance before textiles were around. See scarification, use of colored clays / paints, etc. Even something like singing can be used as a way to attract mates. There's no reason to pick textiles as the sole use of fashion.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        We're in complete agreement - I don't deny that it's possible, I'm just suspicious. Regarding the example, I was picking on one given, particularly on the seasonable part. I realize people were adorning themselves before the industrial revolution. But then again, people of all genders were doing that.
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      It seems like there's a middle ground here, which is that there are innate propensities or drives that are then molded and directed by our cultures, in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I mean, I don't trust the processed food industry either, and will readily admit that they do everything they can to manipulate human desires for profit. Do people have an innate desire for Coke and chicken nuggets? No. But looking at what the industry does, and then using that to conclude that (most) humans have no instinctual tendency towards sugar and high fat foods seems mistaken.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        Not jumping to conclusions - one way or the other - was my whole point :)
- jMyles 9y ago
  > It seems plausible that you can innately know your sex Many more people are certain of their sex than of their gender. That's the whole point of analyzing cases like this.
chc 9y ago
Both prepositions can be true. Imagine a society where adults under 5'5" were called Shorties and had to wear green clothes all the time and greet people with "Halloo!" It would simultaneously be true that height is biologically determined, but being a Shortie would still be a social construct.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  Except that's reductionist and silly. Things tend to happen for a reason. Why green? has the world gone mad? We're actually subservient to our genetics much more to our culture. Maybe green gets those people more mates, thus its been standardized. Maybe greeting others in a friendly matter means a larger social circle and more dates. We're not terribly removed from animals and the mechanics of evolution control our culture, just like we see with animals. There's some wiggle room but for the most part is not arbitrary nonsense. The same way many cultures, even ones with no connection, have standardized dresses for women, typically. A dress is a clever garment. Varying the hem determines how revealing and sexy it is thus a young woman would have a short hem and an older one not looking for a mate might not. On top of the design naturally showcasing the bust and the ability to trivially modify it to show more arms, back, and cleavage.
  - ben_w 9y ago
    Silly perhaps, but fair. Humans break on tribal lines at the drop of a hat/naqib/dreadlock, and the genes for height in the above example could easily be replaced with the genes for melanin production, where each of presence and absence of the latter has funky social effects that vary from place to place. Going back to the story, gender is, in humans, a complicated mess. Probably is in other species too (it's not just male dogs who try to hump your leg… although is that a sign of trans male dogs or just reusing an existing behaviour for multiple situations, the female canine behavioural equivalent of male nipples?) Yes, some things happen for a clear reason, but sometimes the reason is "that's not a harmful mutation".
  - chc 9y ago
    The wearing-green detail was actually deliberate. We have pink and blue for girls and boys, respectively, but there's no good reason for it. In other times, pink has been the boy color and blue the girl color. Has the world gone mad? I don't know, but we definitely have some arbitrary gender norms in our culture.
vilmosi 9y ago
>>> I have a boy and its obvious gender differences are innate, not learned. There are a few gender differences that I find quite obviously to be social constructs. Things like pink/blue or dresses/pants? There's nothing innate about those preferences, we're obviously taught "x is for boys" and "y is for girls" about a lot of things.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  I think most parents would say that you have the causality backwards. Children are not taught the "x is for boys and y is for girls". Instead, they figure it out on their own, because they are driven to distinguish themselves along gender lines.
  - vilmosi 9y ago
    It's obviously not backwards since pink/blue used to mean the exact opposite and pants are a relatively recent invention.
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      The specific colors are irrelevant. They are an accident of history. What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty. Most parents I've talked to have the same experience as me: their children identified their own gender, figured out what people of that gender do by looking around at the world, then started imitating that. You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children. My experience (and the experience of most parents I know) is that parents are too busy to really care about trying to indoctrinate their children into the proper gender role. The kids indoctrinate themselves.
      - vilmosi 9y ago
        >>> figured out what people of that gender do by looking around at the world, then started imitating that. Well of course. I'm not saying babies reinvent gender roles every generation. I'm saying the opposite. Society is the one who defines gender roles and teaches the kids what's expected of them. Like in the article. >>> What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty I never said pushed. But the fact that pink is seen as a feminin colour or that boys don't wear skirts because reasons is entirely made up. There's nothing innate about it. >>> You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children. I never said pushed. I'm saying it's not innate. >>> The kids indoctrinate themselves Again, that doesn't mean it's innate.

icen 9y ago

Conflating these seems a bit disingenuous. It seems plausible that you can innately know your sex, and that this comes with some behaviour. It's not the same as saying that girls being associated with the colour pink isn't a social construct.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago
Well, that's taking it to an irrational extreme. You can cherry pick stuff like "There's no genetic code for liking lace bras and makeup," but there is most likely code that's about adorning and beautifying yourself as a woman. Or code about being attracted to the aesthetic of beauty and beautification thus having a favorite color or color palette, thus the fashion industry standardizing on a handful of palettes considered feminine. Even if the colors are arbitary, just the concept of acceptable and fashionable colors, per season, per fad, etc is highly feminine. Men, often, can wear any color in any season and not have it bother them or have other men criticize them for it. Nor have women consider it unattractive.
- icebraining 9y ago
  the concept of acceptable and fashionable colors, per season, per fad, etc is highly feminine. Men, often, can wear any color in any season and not have it bother them or have other men criticize them for it. Nor have women consider it unattractive. That the fashionable seasonable colors is associated with the feminine gender is true, but it says nothing about whether it's an inherent trait, as you imply, or something created by society. I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears and has to find ways to get people to buy more product.
  - adekok 9y ago
    Look at sex differences in animals. There are many, many, cases where one sex does the searching for (colorful, lots of adornment) and the other is the searched-for (drab, no adornment). It is entirely reasonable to assume that there is a biological basis for the sex differences in men and womens fashion. There may not be proof that the sex differences are innate, but it's reasonable to propose that they are innate. By the same token, it is unreasonable to deny that these sex differences are innate, until such time as proof is offered. > I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears There's also every reason to believe that people were modifying their appearance before textiles were around. See scarification, use of colored clays / paints, etc. Even something like singing can be used as a way to attract mates. There's no reason to pick textiles as the sole use of fashion.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      We're in complete agreement - I don't deny that it's possible, I'm just suspicious. Regarding the example, I was picking on one given, particularly on the seasonable part. I realize people were adorning themselves before the industrial revolution. But then again, people of all genders were doing that.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    It seems like there's a middle ground here, which is that there are innate propensities or drives that are then molded and directed by our cultures, in both healthy and unhealthy ways. I mean, I don't trust the processed food industry either, and will readily admit that they do everything they can to manipulate human desires for profit. Do people have an innate desire for Coke and chicken nuggets? No. But looking at what the industry does, and then using that to conclude that (most) humans have no instinctual tendency towards sugar and high fat foods seems mistaken.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Not jumping to conclusions - one way or the other - was my whole point :)
jMyles 9y ago
> It seems plausible that you can innately know your sex Many more people are certain of their sex than of their gender. That's the whole point of analyzing cases like this.

chc 9y ago

Both prepositions can be true. Imagine a society where adults under 5'5" were called Shorties and had to wear green clothes all the time and greet people with "Halloo!" It would simultaneously be true that height is biologically determined, but being a Shortie would still be a social construct.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago
Except that's reductionist and silly. Things tend to happen for a reason. Why green? has the world gone mad? We're actually subservient to our genetics much more to our culture. Maybe green gets those people more mates, thus its been standardized. Maybe greeting others in a friendly matter means a larger social circle and more dates. We're not terribly removed from animals and the mechanics of evolution control our culture, just like we see with animals. There's some wiggle room but for the most part is not arbitrary nonsense. The same way many cultures, even ones with no connection, have standardized dresses for women, typically. A dress is a clever garment. Varying the hem determines how revealing and sexy it is thus a young woman would have a short hem and an older one not looking for a mate might not. On top of the design naturally showcasing the bust and the ability to trivially modify it to show more arms, back, and cleavage.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Silly perhaps, but fair. Humans break on tribal lines at the drop of a hat/naqib/dreadlock, and the genes for height in the above example could easily be replaced with the genes for melanin production, where each of presence and absence of the latter has funky social effects that vary from place to place. Going back to the story, gender is, in humans, a complicated mess. Probably is in other species too (it's not just male dogs who try to hump your leg… although is that a sign of trans male dogs or just reusing an existing behaviour for multiple situations, the female canine behavioural equivalent of male nipples?) Yes, some things happen for a clear reason, but sometimes the reason is "that's not a harmful mutation".
- chc 9y ago
  The wearing-green detail was actually deliberate. We have pink and blue for girls and boys, respectively, but there's no good reason for it. In other times, pink has been the boy color and blue the girl color. Has the world gone mad? I don't know, but we definitely have some arbitrary gender norms in our culture.

vilmosi 9y ago

>>> I have a boy and its obvious gender differences are innate, not learned. There are a few gender differences that I find quite obviously to be social constructs. Things like pink/blue or dresses/pants? There's nothing innate about those preferences, we're obviously taught "x is for boys" and "y is for girls" about a lot of things.

toasterlovin 9y ago
I think most parents would say that you have the causality backwards. Children are not taught the "x is for boys and y is for girls". Instead, they figure it out on their own, because they are driven to distinguish themselves along gender lines.
- vilmosi 9y ago
  It's obviously not backwards since pink/blue used to mean the exact opposite and pants are a relatively recent invention.
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    The specific colors are irrelevant. They are an accident of history. What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty. Most parents I've talked to have the same experience as me: their children identified their own gender, figured out what people of that gender do by looking around at the world, then started imitating that. You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children. My experience (and the experience of most parents I know) is that parents are too busy to really care about trying to indoctrinate their children into the proper gender role. The kids indoctrinate themselves.
    - vilmosi 9y ago
      >>> figured out what people of that gender do by looking around at the world, then started imitating that. Well of course. I'm not saying babies reinvent gender roles every generation. I'm saying the opposite. Society is the one who defines gender roles and teaches the kids what's expected of them. Like in the article. >>> What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty I never said pushed. But the fact that pink is seen as a feminin colour or that boys don't wear skirts because reasons is entirely made up. There's nothing innate about it. >>> You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children. I never said pushed. I'm saying it's not innate. >>> The kids indoctrinate themselves Again, that doesn't mean it's innate.