4 ms·

If gender identity is not biological, what is it?

by conanbatt 7y ago

lightbyte 7y ago
Gender identity is an emergent social construct, there isn't anything biological about it.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  Besides the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood. Ignoring those glaring omissions, you're closer to having a point.
  - dahart 7y ago
    The parent is completely correct, why are you fighting it? This isn’t something you can out-logic, the words have definitions. Sex is the biological part and gender is the social & cultural aspects of sex.
    - rpmisms 7y ago
      According to Merriam-Webster, gender /includes/ the social & cultural aspects of sex. The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn't widely accepted yet. Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. They are measurable biological phenomena that tie strongly into your definition of gender.
      - lightbyte 7y ago
        >The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn't widely accepted yet. This is not an extremely recent development in the slightest, the distinction was being made almost 60 years ago in modern dictionaries.
      - dahart 7y ago
        Gender doesn’t exclude sex. Gender relates to sex, but it is not the same thing. > The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn’t widely accepted yet. What are you talking about? The use of gender as a sex “role” was coined in 1955, over 60 years ago. Before that “gender” referred to grammatical gender, not to people. So if you use “gender” relating to people, that form of the word has always meant the social aspects of sex, not the biological aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender There was never a time when “gender” meant the same thing as “sex”. > Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. You’re confusing yourself. Being a mother & father are sex based facts. Fatherhood and motherhood as words that can mean that someone is factually a mother or father, or it can in context be referring to the gender roles of motherhood and fatherhood. The stereotype of a father playing catch with a son is a gender role, not biology. You’re choosing words which have both meanings, which doesn’t help you understand what sex and gender actually mean.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  If there is nothing innate to the human on Gender identity, if its purely a construct, then you can engage in full repression of gender identities with no consequences.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Weird, doesn't seem to work that way with religion.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      Religion is an organization. Gender identity is an individual concept.
- astine 7y ago
  The distinction between a social construct and biology is artificial. Reading and writing are a social construct but learning to read and write at a young age has a profound impact on your brain structure.[1] I think what you mean to say is that there is no instinctual sense of gender identity that people are born with... that it is purely a learned identity. I'm not certain that is true as gender distinctions are pretty deeply ingrained nearly every culture around the world including most hunter-gather cultures, (The exact extent and nature of the distinction varies, but mere existence of an distinction is close to a constant.) and there is reason to believe that the sexual division of labor was key to the evolution of human sociality, which would make gender identity distinction hundreds of thousands of years old at the youngest. I'd be interested in any studies demonstrating that there is no instinctual component. 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2018.1425803 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2018.1...
moate 7y ago
Social conditioning? Let's start at the basics: What do you think "gender identity" means exactly?
wl 7y ago
It's all the social stuff that goes along with being a "man", "woman", or whatever other identity we adopt.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  I don't understand how someone can simply adopt stereotypes of another gender, consider themselves that gender, and then be considered that gender. If I'm a man according to my chromosomes, but my mannerisms, grooming, music and fashion choices are considered feminine, am I woman? Or just a feminine man? And if I'm a woman, but I'm still attracted to other women, am I entitled to represent myself as a lesbian? All I've done is choose to express some preferences, and then consider myself a part of a group based on stereotypes of that group. How is that not stereotyping and appropriation? The only thing left is what label I want to put on myself, which is largely meaningless.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    > The only thing left is what label I want to put on myself, which is largely meaningless. That's... that's the point. I'll refer to you however you want to be referred (inb4 helicopter joke). There's nothing more to it. Just accept other people's preference and move on with your day. It's that simple.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      I'm fine with that day-to-day. Has literally never been a problem for me. But when it's affirmative action, sports divisions, or in this case, people discussing if a study is reflecting biological sex differences or things people choose to express in a study, yeah let's be really fucking clear that someone is choosing to express social stereotypes and that's not always the same thing as "being a woman".
  - krapp 7y ago
    You're confusing sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is cultural, albeit often correlated with biology. For instance - it was once considered perfectly masculine behavior for men to wear pantyhose, high heels and makeup, and to kiss each another on the mouth. Now, those traits would likely be considered feminine (or at least, not masculine.) Does that mean men were formerly somehow more biologically female, because they expressed what we would consider feminine traits? Obviously not. Was their gender female, then? Not in the context of their own culture, they were men being what men were considered to be. It does mean the constructs of "masculinity" and "femininity" are not innately biological, and that the correlation between sex and gender is mostly a manifestation of cultural norms, not biological imperative. All of the confusion in your comment seems to stem from the assumption that sex and gender are a priori the same. You may find Wikipedia's article on gender to be useful[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

If gender identity is not biological, what is it?

lightbyte 7y ago

Gender identity is an emergent social construct, there isn't anything biological about it.

rpmisms 7y ago
Besides the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood. Ignoring those glaring omissions, you're closer to having a point.
- dahart 7y ago
  The parent is completely correct, why are you fighting it? This isn’t something you can out-logic, the words have definitions. Sex is the biological part and gender is the social & cultural aspects of sex.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    According to Merriam-Webster, gender /includes/ the social & cultural aspects of sex. The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn't widely accepted yet. Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. They are measurable biological phenomena that tie strongly into your definition of gender.
    - lightbyte 7y ago
      >The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn't widely accepted yet. This is not an extremely recent development in the slightest, the distinction was being made almost 60 years ago in modern dictionaries.
    - dahart 7y ago
      Gender doesn’t exclude sex. Gender relates to sex, but it is not the same thing. > The exclusion of sex from gender is an extremely recent development that isn’t widely accepted yet. What are you talking about? The use of gender as a sex “role” was coined in 1955, over 60 years ago. Before that “gender” referred to grammatical gender, not to people. So if you use “gender” relating to people, that form of the word has always meant the social aspects of sex, not the biological aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender There was never a time when “gender” meant the same thing as “sex”. > Also, motherhood and fatherhood are biologically gender-linked roles. You’re confusing yourself. Being a mother & father are sex based facts. Fatherhood and motherhood as words that can mean that someone is factually a mother or father, or it can in context be referring to the gender roles of motherhood and fatherhood. The stereotype of a father playing catch with a son is a gender role, not biology. You’re choosing words which have both meanings, which doesn’t help you understand what sex and gender actually mean.
conanbatt 7y ago
If there is nothing innate to the human on Gender identity, if its purely a construct, then you can engage in full repression of gender identities with no consequences.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Weird, doesn't seem to work that way with religion.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Religion is an organization. Gender identity is an individual concept.
astine 7y ago
The distinction between a social construct and biology is artificial. Reading and writing are a social construct but learning to read and write at a young age has a profound impact on your brain structure.[1] I think what you mean to say is that there is no instinctual sense of gender identity that people are born with... that it is purely a learned identity. I'm not certain that is true as gender distinctions are pretty deeply ingrained nearly every culture around the world including most hunter-gather cultures, (The exact extent and nature of the distinction varies, but mere existence of an distinction is close to a constant.) and there is reason to believe that the sexual division of labor was key to the evolution of human sociality, which would make gender identity distinction hundreds of thousands of years old at the youngest. I'd be interested in any studies demonstrating that there is no instinctual component. 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2018.1425803 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273798.2018.1...

moate 7y ago

Social conditioning? Let's start at the basics: What do you think "gender identity" means exactly?

wl 7y ago

It's all the social stuff that goes along with being a "man", "woman", or whatever other identity we adopt.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
I don't understand how someone can simply adopt stereotypes of another gender, consider themselves that gender, and then be considered that gender. If I'm a man according to my chromosomes, but my mannerisms, grooming, music and fashion choices are considered feminine, am I woman? Or just a feminine man? And if I'm a woman, but I'm still attracted to other women, am I entitled to represent myself as a lesbian? All I've done is choose to express some preferences, and then consider myself a part of a group based on stereotypes of that group. How is that not stereotyping and appropriation? The only thing left is what label I want to put on myself, which is largely meaningless.
- input_sh 7y ago
  > The only thing left is what label I want to put on myself, which is largely meaningless. That's... that's the point. I'll refer to you however you want to be referred (inb4 helicopter joke). There's nothing more to it. Just accept other people's preference and move on with your day. It's that simple.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    I'm fine with that day-to-day. Has literally never been a problem for me. But when it's affirmative action, sports divisions, or in this case, people discussing if a study is reflecting biological sex differences or things people choose to express in a study, yeah let's be really fucking clear that someone is choosing to express social stereotypes and that's not always the same thing as "being a woman".
- krapp 7y ago
  You're confusing sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is cultural, albeit often correlated with biology. For instance - it was once considered perfectly masculine behavior for men to wear pantyhose, high heels and makeup, and to kiss each another on the mouth. Now, those traits would likely be considered feminine (or at least, not masculine.) Does that mean men were formerly somehow more biologically female, because they expressed what we would consider feminine traits? Obviously not. Was their gender female, then? Not in the context of their own culture, they were men being what men were considered to be. It does mean the constructs of "masculinity" and "femininity" are not innately biological, and that the correlation between sex and gender is mostly a manifestation of cultural norms, not biological imperative. All of the confusion in your comment seems to stem from the assumption that sex and gender are a priori the same. You may find Wikipedia's article on gender to be useful[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender