4 ms·

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

by wl 7y ago

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
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    No, I very intentionally never used the word sex, because everything I mentioned was gender. My concern is when stuff that is entirely social (okay, let's keep calling that gender) starts getting codified or labelled, and I'm still confused why we have discrete labels for things that, according to many of the same people using the most labels, are a completely fluid spectrum. I'm okay with completely fluid spectrum, but here's what happened in this HN discussion: someone commented about the research being about "biological genders", and everyone says they're confused. Do a Ctrl+F of the linked article for "Gender" and "Sex" and then tell me that the research isn't also confused because everyone is confused all of the time, especially people who are "confused".
    - krapp 7y ago
      >and I'm still confused why we have discrete labels for things that, according to many of the same people using the most labels, are a completely fluid spectrum. Visible light is a spectrum, yet we still use labels for distinct colors, despite "color" being arbitrary (a "social construct".) Labels can still be useful for communicating concepts and establishing a common ground, even if they're imprecise, or if different cultures don't even agree on the difference between "blue" and "green." >Do a Ctrl+F of the linked article for "Gender" and "Sex" and then tell me that the research isn't also confused because everyone is confused all of the time, especially people who are "confused". Everyone isn't confused all the time. People do disagree, though, and society is still working out just what gender means in the modern day.
conanbatt 7y ago
That would be expected identities from society, as opposed to the personal identification to one of them. If you believe that a persons gender identity is put onto them by the expectation of society, might as well forcibly decide which identities are valuable and supress all the rest. It would have no downside.

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

by wl 7y ago

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

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
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  No, I very intentionally never used the word sex, because everything I mentioned was gender. My concern is when stuff that is entirely social (okay, let's keep calling that gender) starts getting codified or labelled, and I'm still confused why we have discrete labels for things that, according to many of the same people using the most labels, are a completely fluid spectrum. I'm okay with completely fluid spectrum, but here's what happened in this HN discussion: someone commented about the research being about "biological genders", and everyone says they're confused. Do a Ctrl+F of the linked article for "Gender" and "Sex" and then tell me that the research isn't also confused because everyone is confused all of the time, especially people who are "confused".
  - krapp 7y ago
    >and I'm still confused why we have discrete labels for things that, according to many of the same people using the most labels, are a completely fluid spectrum. Visible light is a spectrum, yet we still use labels for distinct colors, despite "color" being arbitrary (a "social construct".) Labels can still be useful for communicating concepts and establishing a common ground, even if they're imprecise, or if different cultures don't even agree on the difference between "blue" and "green." >Do a Ctrl+F of the linked article for "Gender" and "Sex" and then tell me that the research isn't also confused because everyone is confused all of the time, especially people who are "confused". Everyone isn't confused all the time. People do disagree, though, and society is still working out just what gender means in the modern day.

conanbatt 7y ago

That would be expected identities from society, as opposed to the personal identification to one of them. If you believe that a persons gender identity is put onto them by the expectation of society, might as well forcibly decide which identities are valuable and supress all the rest. It would have no downside.