Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[its free real estate]

I'd have to see. I mean, even doing an image search for 'androgynous faces' turns up a load of people I find attractive in their own right

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=androgynous+face&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

Your reactions might vary.

This is extraordinarily tendentious.

"I would root half these people I found on an internet image search", says man who boasts about his love of pornography.

 

[its free real estate]

It's self evidently true:



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender

But I guess, just like things like 'Climate change', and 'Racialism' it's just a small bunch of incredulous white supremacists, sexists and global energy tycoons fighting a brave rearguard action against a Leftist conspiracy that has somehow managed to get global scientific consensus behind them.

Those brave neo-nazis, mysoginists and energy tycoons. Fighting the good fight despite the Leftists manipulating the world into agreeing with their postions via overwhelming scientific consenus.

At least you have migrated your wiki of choice. Kudos.

Also, social constructionism is not a science. Doesn't even meet the minimum threshold for one.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This is extraordinarily tendentious.

"I would root half these people I found on an internet image search", says man who boasts about his love of pornography.

What do you want from me, matey?

 

[Malifice]

Also, social constructionism is not a science. Doesn't even meet the minimum threshold for one.

I know. Youre the idiot who doesnt seem to understand this point.

Like; you're the one that continuously asserts social constructs as objective measurable things. All you're doing is measuring the social construct, in some weird effort to prove the social construct doesnt exist. You cant seem to tell the difference between a social construct (a socially agreed on thing that only exists due to human social interaction) and a thing that objectively exists outside of human social agreement.

You're not alone. A lot of people assume things to exist, things that really only exist because we agree they do, and cease existing when we agree they dont exist (or cease existing when we cease to exist as social animals).

It's ingrained in the human psyche to see things that way. I find it's particularly prevalent in people with Right wing political views, who construct entire world views (themselves a social construct ironically) that strives to break the world down into black and white and seek some kind of underlying truth in those social constructs.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 10 dollars is worth 10 dollars because we say it is. Not because the note itself (or the gold it's backed by) actually holds that value objectively and independent of human agreement. The note exists, as does the element of gold it's backed by of course (those things are objectively real) but the value we place on that gold or note is totally made up and socially constructed.

Ditto 'girls wear pink'. We just agree that's what girls do, and that's what many of them do. There isnt a 'wear pink gene' attached to women that makes them do it; it's just what we socially agree on and define as 'feminine' behaviour and attach to people who possess objective biological female sex.

 

[its free real estate]

I know. Youre the idiot who doesnt seem to understand this point.

Like; you're the one that continuously asserts social constructs as objective measurable things. All you're doing is measuring the social construct, in some weird effort to prove the social construct doesnt exist. You cant seem to tell the difference between a social construct (a socially agreed on thing that only exists due to human social interaction) and a thing that objectively exists outside of human social agreement.

You're not alone. A lot of people assume things to exist, things that really only exist because we agree they do, and cease existing when we agree they dont exist (or cease existing when we cease to exist as social animals).

It's ingrained in the human psyche to see things that way. I find it's particularly prevalent in people with Right wing political views, who construct entire world views (themselves a social construct ironically) that strives to break the world down into black and white and seek some kind of underlying truth in those social constructs.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 10 dollars is worth 10 dollars because we say it is. Not because the note itself (or the gold it's backed by) actually holds that value objectively and independent of human agreement.

Ditto 'girls wear pink'. We just agree that's what girls do, and that's what many of them do. There isnt a 'wear pink gene' attached to women that makes them do it; it's just what we socially agree on and define as 'feminine' behaviour and attach to people who possess objective biological female sex.

I never said there was a wear pink gene. Women accentuating their femininity, however that manifests, is biological. It is not socially constructed. It is innate to the vast majority of women.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ditto 'girls wear pink'. We just agree that's what girls do, and that's what many of them do. There isnt a 'wear pink gene' attached to women that makes them do it; it's just what we socially agree on and define as 'feminine' behaviour and attach to people who possess objective biological female sex.

Indeed. Didn't we learn earlier in the thread that pink was once a quite manly colour? Societal thought and practice moved on and a new social construct was born.

 

[its free real estate]

Indeed. Didn't we learn earlier in the thread that pink was once a quite manly colour? Societal thought and practice moved on and a new social construct was born.

It could be blue, mauve, brown, or black. If there exists a feminine colour, that signals a difference between men and women, then femininity is not a construct.

 

[Malifice]

Just to clarify this point, when Timmy comes home wearing a dress and high heels and make-up, and tells you he wants to give birth to a baby:

Saying: 'Take off that dress and make up and shoes Timmy, you're dressing like a girl and you're a boy' - is enforcing the social construct of gender.

Saying: 'Timmy, you cant give birth to a baby as you dont have ovaries, a uterus and a vagina' - is explaining the differences between biological sex.

Can you see the difference?

 

[its free real estate]

Just to clarify this point, when Timmy comes home wearing a dress and high heels and make-up, and tells you he wants to give birth to a baby:

Saying: 'Take off that dress and make up and shoes Timmy, you're dressing like a girl and you're a boy' - is enforcing the social construct of gender.

Saying: 'Timmy, you cant give birth to a baby as you dont have ovaries, a uterus and a vagina' - is explaining the differences between biological sex.

Can you see the difference?

What a ridiculous hypothetical.

 

[Malifice]

It could be blue, mauve, brown, or black. If there exists a feminine colour, that signals a difference between men and women, then femininity is not a construct.

No, all that signals is the existence of gender as a social construct! The color (which ever one we randomly agree on) is only feminine because we say it is! The color isnt an objective quality of 'being a woman'. It's just something we assign to women socially.

If the colors we attach to something are subjective, and vary in quality (and indeed even existence) and are only feminine becuase we (at that point in time) socially agree that they are feminine, that's a social construct.

If women (when left to their own devices) only wore pink for some biological reason outside of social agreement that they do so, we could talk. Find me the 'pink gene' for example.

An example is 'giving birth'. I dont need social agreement that women have a uterus. They just do. Biological sex is objective. Gender is not.

You're wierdly measuring the arbitrary traits of a social construct in an effort to prove the social construct doesnt exist.

It's hillarious watching you do it. I genuinely believe you're in a state of cognitave dissonance here. Like; you know you're wrong but cant find a way to admit it to yourself.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I never said there was a wear pink gene. Women accentuating their femininity, however that manifests, is biological. It is not socially constructed. It is innate to the vast majority of women.

Can we actively prove that scientifically? In a vacuum, completely without parental or outside influence, would small children automatically differentiate according to gender? I know that children are curious and they WILL play that 'show me yours and I'll show you mine' game that most of us have as young 'uns. Sooner rather than later they would spot the difference and wonder about it.

But evn so, that would be reaction to visual difference rather than an innate biological urge to differentiate, at least to my mind. Would they segregate themselves? Form a patriarchy or a matriarchy? Would they share leadership and eventual societal roles as they grew, apart as they were from any 'outside' influences?

To me it's a good thought exercise, and very much loops back to the 'blank slate' versus 'biological determinism' debate.

 

[its free real estate]

No, all that signals is the existence of gender as a social construct! The color (which ever one we randomly agree on) is only feminine because we say it is!

If the colors we attach to something are subjective, and vary in quality (and indeed even existence) and are only feminine becuase we (at that point in time) socially agree that they are feminine, that's a social construct.

If women (when left to their own devices) only wore Pink for some biological reason outside of social agreement they do so, we could talk.

An example is 'giving birth'. I dont need social agreement that women have a uterus. They just do. Biological sex is objective. Gender is not.

You're wierdly measuring the arbitrary traits of a social construct in an effort to prove the social construct doesnt exist.

It's hillarious watching you do it. I genuinely believe you're in a state of cognitave dissonance here. Like; you know you're wrong but cant find a way to admit it to yourself.

No, it doesn't. The existence of gender would only be a social construct if you could find somewhere, anywhere in the world, where its expression was exactly the same no matter the biological sex. The fact that the expression differs between men and women universally across cultures indicates it is biological, NOT constructed.

 

[its free real estate]

Can we actively prove that scientifically? In a vacuum, completely without parental or outside influence, would small children automatically differentiate according to gender?

They've run the studies and shown that they do from very early ages (ie 9 months), but it is still contended because people assert that you are gendered in utero and in very early development.

Impossible to test accurately beyond ethical violations.

 

[Malifice]

The fact that the expression differs between men and women universally across cultures indicates it is biological, NOT constructed.

Specious reasoning 101.

Why does the agreement of difference betwen two concepts (femininity and masculinty) logically prove that either thing exists objectively, independent of social construction?

Examples:

Christianity and Buddhism have plently of differences. Both exist. Do either of those things exist independent of social construction?

USA and China have plenty of differences. Both exist. Do either of those things exist independent of social construction?

Rugby and AFL have plenty of differences. Both exist. Do either of those things exist independent of social construction?

 

[its free real estate]

Why does the agreement of difference betwen two concepts (femininity and masculinty) logically prove that either thing exists objectively, independent of social construction?

Because they can parsimoniously be shown to derive from first principles.

 

[Malifice]

Because they can parsimoniously be shown to derive from first principles.

Girls wearing pink can 'parsimoniously be shown to derive from first principles' now can it?

Her: Daddy, why do I have to wear pink and Timmy gets blue?

Dad: Parsimony from first principles honey. Noting to do with social construction, or how Daddy decided to paint your room. Blame those first principles.

 

[its free real estate]

Girls wearing pink can 'parsimoniously be shown to derive from first principles' now can it?

Her: Daddy, why do I have to wear pink and Timmy gets blue?

Dad: Parsimony from first principles honey.

Why would every culture have distinct concepts of femininity and masculinity?

 

[Snake_Baker]

This is what happens when an entire generation of sociology charlatans are churned out of universities.

There's literally dozens of papers out there written by proper scientists dealing with the biological responses to facial symmetry, body symmetry, skin tone, olfactory responses etc., etc., etc.

Then of course there's also hypergamy & Briffaults law etc., but they too have biological underpinnings.

 

[Malifice]

Why would every culture have distant concepts of femininity and masculinity?

Because we're incredibly social and tribal animals, who need to sexually reproduce to survive, and sexual diamorphism and sexual selection is a thing?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

No, it doesn't. The existence of gender would only be a social construct if you could find somewhere, anywhere in the world, where its expression was exactly the same no matter the biological sex. The fact that the expression differs between men and women universally across cultures indicates it is biological, NOT constructed.

Okay. I see a girl. She has a vagina. She gives birth. I can't give birth. I don't have a vagina either. These are biological differences that can be verified visually.

BUT.

Our mental reaction to these stimuli as human beings together, that is what puts a societal construct around these differences. Not biologic urge but our intellect. Femininity and masculinity become more than what they should as different power dynamics within the community and within ourselves come to play.

In the near-beginning, as hunter/gatherers, male strength meant something. Ghosts of this line of thought linger all across the globe but in many instances our settled consumer society has left the hunter/gatherer culturally extinct.

 

[its free real estate]

Because we're incredibly social and tribal animals, who need to sexually reproduce to survive, and sexual diamorphism and sexual selection is a thing?

So then femininity isn't a social construct. It has a biological basis.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Impossible to test accurately beyond ethical violations.

This is true.

 

[its free real estate]

Okay. I see a girl. She has a vagina. She gives birth. I can't give birth. I don't have a vagina either. These are biological differences that can be verified visually.

BUT.

Our mental reaction to these stimuli as human beings together, that is what puts a societal construct around these differences. Not biologic urge but our intellect. Femininity and masculinity become more than what they should as different power dynamics within the community and within ourselves come to play.

In the near-beginning, as hunter/gatherers, male strength meant something. Ghosts of this line of thought linger all across the globe but in many instances our settled consumer society has left the hunter/gatherer culturally extinct.

Once upon a time it was fashionable for men to wear hats, and every handsome, wealthy man wore a fedora. Now if you wear a fedora you are considered a creepy incel. We should not confuse fashion trends for what's really going on. Signalling status or youth is eternal, the mechanism by which you choose to do it (and its success) varies.

 

[Downhill Skier]

No, all that signals is the existence of gender as a social construct! The color (which ever one we randomly agree on) is only feminine because we say it is! The color isnt an objective quality of 'being a woman'. It's just something we assign to women socially.

If the colors we attach to something are subjective, and vary in quality (and indeed even existence) and are only feminine becuase we (at that point in time) socially agree that they are feminine, that's a social construct.

If women (when left to their own devices) only wore pink for some biological reason outside of social agreement that they do so, we could talk. Find me the 'pink gene' for example.

An example is 'giving birth'. I dont need social agreement that women have a uterus. They just do. Biological sex is objective. Gender is not.

You're wierdly measuring the arbitrary traits of a social construct in an effort to prove the social construct doesnt exist.

It's hillarious watching you do it. I genuinely believe you're in a state of cognitave dissonance here. Like; you know you're wrong but cant find a way to admit it to yourself.

I agree social construction exists but it clearly has links to biological sex . when you keep using examples such as fashion or toys different genders play with it’s pretty hard to argue a biological link

What about a males propensity to play contact sports , Manuel labour work , ,violent tendencies , risky behaviour , career focus etc etc etc.

 

[Malifice]

So then femininity isn't a social construct. It has a biological basis.

Why on earth are you suggesting those two things are exclusive to one another, or that we cant include biological traits in our social construction?

For example a lot of people try and assert the existence of an African race (or other distinct racial groups). They'll use biological traits (arbitrary and socially constructed ones) as some of the critereon (i.e. Black skin).

I said there is some biological basis to the evolution of gender roles ages back. They (like all society) evolved from a time where sexual diamorphism was a lot more relevant than it is now. Men are physically stronger than women; and remain virile thier whole lives (as opposed to women who have a set amount of time to reproduce, leading to different mating strategies). Out of that biology, we contructed a whole lot of socially contructed gender roles, and gender norms.

Again; I have never once argued that objective biological sex doesnt exist, or that sexual diamorphism or sexual selection doesnt exist. It exists in Homo Sapiens as much as it does in every other species on the planet.

Im just saying established' gender' as a concept gender roles (colors, modes of dress, toys, standard of behaviour etc etc) imposed on the different genders is socially constructed and agreed on.

Nations (and borders) evolved from human tribalism for Gods sake, which is also a biological imperative. That doesnt make them any less socially constructed.