Gender theory

Dean wrote: A Person wrote: I think, as far as kids go, that if they are old enough to have gender and its roles and functions forced upon them, they are also capable of responding to and learning that gender is socially constructed, is something that is more done than something that is. Obviously, I would not be able to teach them this. I do not have a degree in sociology/gender studies or in education. But the fact that kids are capable of implicitly understanding gender, are capable of being able to say things like "those are girl's clothes", etc. makes it seem entirely possible to me that this sort of topic could be included in elementary social studies at a basic level. You obviously aren't a parent either  (Sorry, couldn't resist. ) Gender is a sociological construct but sex isn't - no amount of education can affect anyone's biological sex and when that biology kicks in there is nothing you can do to stop it. Educate the grown-ups first - once they "get it" the rest will follow.

Personally, I don't view "biological sex" as a thing that exists. I mostly am in agreement with Judith Butler, who does not view the sex/gender dichotomy to be real. This gives a good short explanation. I also think this quote from an Endnotes article on the topic of gender is a short and simple way to put it:

Sex is the flip side of gender. Following Judith Butler, we criticise the gender/sex binary as found in feminist literature before the 1990s. Butler demonstrates, correctly, that both sex and gender are socially constituted and furthermore, that it is the “socializing” or pairing of “gender” with culture, that has relegated sex to the “natural” pole of the binary nature/culture. We argue similarly that they are binary social categories which simultaneously de-naturalise gender while naturalising sex. For us, sex is the naturalisation of gender’s dual projection upon bodies, aggregating biological differences into discrete naturalised semblances. While Butler came to this conclusion through a critique of the existentialist ontology of the body,22 we came to it through an analogy with another social form. Value, like gender, necessitates its other, “natural” pole (i.e. its concrete manifestation). Indeed, the dual relation between sex and gender as two sides of the same coin is analogous to the dual aspects of the commodity and the fetishism therein. As we explained above, every commodity, including labour-power, is both a use-value and an exchange-value. The relation between commodities is a social relation between things and a material relation between people. Following this analogy, sex is the material body, which, as use-value to (exchange) value, attaches itself to gender. The gender fetish is a social relation which acts upon these bodies so that it appears as a natural characteristic of the bodies themselves. While gender is the abstraction of sexual difference from all of its concrete characteristics, that abstraction transforms and determines the body to which it is attached — just as the real abstraction of value transforms the material body of the commodity. Gender and sex combined give those inscribed within them a natural semblance (“with a phantomlike objectivity”), as if the social content of gender was “written upon the skin” of the concrete individuals.

Sorry for the Marxist terminology, but it is apt and a well made analogy describing how I view sex/gender. I am also a gender nihilist, but I don't want to get into that because without a nuanced view it could easily slide into TERFy territory.

Also, as far as not being a parent goes, no I am not. But I do watch 3-4 kids every day for about 12 hours. :)

Quoted from standford philosophical encyclopedia

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

"Gender as a mode of social situation. Most feminist theorists distinguish between sex and gender. Sex comprises the biological differences between males and females. Gender is what societies make of sexual differences: the different roles, norms, and meanings they assign to men and women and the things associated with them on account of their real or imagined sexual characteristics. Gender thus has several dimensions (Haslanger 2000).

Gender roles. Men and women are assigned to distinct social roles. For example, most societies reserve political and military offices mostly for men, and assign women most childrearing responsibilities.

Gender norms. Men and women are expected to comply with different norms of behavior and bodily comportment. For example, men are expected to be assertive and athletic; women, deferential and modest. Gender norms are tailored to gender roles: men and women are expected to conform to those norms that make them fit for their gender roles (whether or not they actually occupy those roles).

Gendered traits and virtues. Psychological traits are considered “masculine” and “feminine” if they dispose their bearers to comply with the gender norms assigned to men and women, respectively. “Masculine” traits are therefore regarded as virtues in men and (often) vices in women, while “feminine” traits are regarded as vices in men and virtues in women.

Gendered performance/behavior. Many feminist theorists, often influenced by postmodernism, stress the contextual and performative aspects of gender (West & Zimmerman 1987; Butler 1990). Rather than viewing masculinity and femininity as fixed traits, these theorists represent human beings as more flexible and disposed to enact both “masculine” and “feminine” behaviors in different contexts. The man who avoids tenderly comforting a crying baby in the presence of women may do so when alone. Masculinity and femininity can be seen as contrasting styles of performance in almost any role. Female body builders strive to show off their muscles in a “feminine” way.

Gender identity. A person's ascribed gender identity—how others identify him or her—may not match his or her subjective gender identity. Subjective gender identity includes all of the ways one might understand oneself to be a man, a woman, both, or neither. One could identify with any subset of gender norms, roles, and traits ascribed to the gender of which one sees oneself as a member, while repudiating others. One could even repudiate them all, but still identify oneself as a man or a woman in terms of what one sees as distinct roles men and women ought to play in bringing about a just future (one that may or may not include gender distinctions). One could, as many feminists do, understand one's gender identity as a predicament shared by all with the same ascribed identity, and thus as a basis for collective action to change the very basis of one's gender identity. One could embrace an “androgenous” identity, decline to view oneself in gender polarized terms at all, or play with gender identities in a postmodernist spirit".

A Person wrote: Vompatti wrote: A Person wrote: Personally, I don't view "biological sex" as a thing that exists. wtf, tl;dr -- so how do you explain penises and vaginas? Also, if sex didn't exist, why would gender be relevant? Penises and vaginas are just penises and vaginas. When a body is "sexed", that is, designated as male or female, it is a thing that is being done to it, not an identification of some innate character of that body. Also, the sex/gender thing is relatively new in feminist theory k

But isn't it most common to designate penis-flavoured bodies as male and vagina-flavoured ones as female?

A Person wrote: Vompatti wrote: A Person wrote: Vompatti wrote: A Person wrote: Personally, I don't view "biological sex" as a thing that exists. wtf, tl;dr -- so how do you explain penises and vaginas? Also, if sex didn't exist, why would gender be relevant? Penises and vaginas are just penises and vaginas. When a body is "sexed", that is, designated as male or female, it is a thing that is being done to it, not an identification of some innate character of that body. Also, the sex/gender thing is relatively new in feminist theory k But isn't it most common to designate penis-flavoured bodies as male and vagina-flavoured ones as female? It is, but why?

I dunno butt could it be because that's what male and female essentially means?

The point being, if gender, whatever it is, isn't tied to any biological features, why even borrow from biological concepts when attempting to define it? Why not just make up completely new words?


Edited by Vompatti - October 05 2016 at 16:20

A Person wrote: Penises and vaginas are just penises and vaginas. When a body is "sexed", that is, designated as male or female, it is a thing that is being done to it, not an identification of some innate character of that body. Also, the sex/gender thing is relatively new in feminist theory k

Vompatti wrote: A Person wrote: Vompatti wrote: A Person wrote: Vompatti wrote: A Person wrote: Personally, I don't view "biological sex" as a thing that exists. wtf, tl;dr -- so how do you explain penises and vaginas? Also, if sex didn't exist, why would gender be relevant? Penises and vaginas are just penises and vaginas. When a body is "sexed", that is, designated as male or female, it is a thing that is being done to it, not an identification of some innate character of that body. Also, the sex/gender thing is relatively new in feminist theory k But isn't it most common to designate penis-flavoured bodies as male and vagina-flavoured ones as female? It is, but why? I dunno butt could it be because that's what male and female essentially means? The point being, if gender, whatever it is, isn't tied to any biological features, why even borrow from biological concepts when attempting to define it? Why not just make up completely new words?

If you hadn't chosen to not read anything you'd see that the things I quoted from don't bother to borrow from biological concepts. :)

A Person wrote: rogerthat wrote: A Person wrote: Penises and vaginas are just penises and vaginas. When a body is "sexed", that is, designated as male or female, it is a thing that is being done to it, not an identification of some innate character of that body. Also, the sex/gender thing is relatively new in feminist theory k Sorry to pop the question but did you not go through puberty? And on the off chance that you are indeed apathetic to sex, why not live and let live and let the rest of us experience it? Yes I did, and I am not apathetic to sex (I identify as bi/pan depending on if the people i am talking to know what pansexuality is), but I am not sure what that has to do with anything.

A Person wrote: Dean wrote: A Person wrote: I think, as far as kids go, that if they are old enough to have gender and its roles and functions forced upon them, they are also capable of responding to and learning that gender is socially constructed, is something that is more done than something that is. Obviously, I would not be able to teach them this. I do not have a degree in sociology/gender studies or in education. But the fact that kids are capable of implicitly understanding gender, are capable of being able to say things like "those are girl's clothes", etc. makes it seem entirely possible to me that this sort of topic could be included in elementary social studies at a basic level. You obviously aren't a parent either  (Sorry, couldn't resist. ) Gender is a sociological construct but sex isn't - no amount of education can affect anyone's biological sex and when that biology kicks in there is nothing you can do to stop it. Educate the grown-ups first - once they "get it" the rest will follow. Personally, I don't view "biological sex" as a thing that exists. I mostly am in agreement with Judith Butler, who does not view the sex/gender dichotomy to be real. This gives a good short explanation. I also think this quote from an Endnotes article on the topic of gender is a short and simple way to put it: Sex is the flip side of gender. Following Judith Butler, we criticise the gender/sex binary as found in feminist literature before the 1990s. Butler demonstrates, correctly, that both sex and gender are socially constituted and furthermore, that it is the “socializing” or pairing of “gender” with culture, that has relegated sex to the “natural” pole of the binary nature/culture. We argue similarly that they are binary social categories which simultaneously de-naturalise gender while naturalising sex. For us, sex is the naturalisation of gender’s dual projection upon bodies, aggregating biological differences into discrete naturalised semblances. While Butler came to this conclusion through a critique of the existentialist ontology of the body,22 we came to it through an analogy with another social form. Value, like gender, necessitates its other, “natural” pole (i.e. its concrete manifestation). Indeed, the dual relation between sex and gender as two sides of the same coin is analogous to the dual aspects of the commodity and the fetishism therein. As we explained above, every commodity, including labour-power, is both a use-value and an exchange-value. The relation between commodities is a social relation between things and a material relation between people. Following this analogy, sex is the material body, which, as use-value to (exchange) value, attaches itself to gender. The gender fetish is a social relation which acts upon these bodies so that it appears as a natural characteristic of the bodies themselves. While gender is the abstraction of sexual difference from all of its concrete characteristics, that abstraction transforms and determines the body to which it is attached — just as the real abstraction of value transforms the material body of the commodity. Gender and sex combined give those inscribed within them a natural semblance (“with a phantomlike objectivity”), as if the social content of gender was “written upon the skin” of the concrete individuals. Sorry for the Marxist terminology, but it is apt and a well made analogy describing how I view sex/gender. I am also a gender nihilist, but I don't want to get into that because without a nuanced view it could easily slide into TERFy territory. Also, as far as not being a parent goes, no I am not. But I do watch 3-4 kids every day for about 12 hours. :)

Dean wrote: Judith Butler is not a biologist so quoting a philosopher at me is pretty much the same as quoting the bible, if you believe that then good for you, if you don't then good for you - and to be perfectly honest that is all you can say about philosophy.

Surely you also would have to discard a biologist's work since it depends on the philosophy of biology.

Dean wrote: A Person wrote: Dean wrote: Judith Butler is not a biologist so quoting a philosopher at me is pretty much the same as quoting the bible, if you believe that then good for you, if you don't then good for you - and to be perfectly honest that is all you can say about philosophy. Surely you also would have to discard a biologist's work since it depends on the philosophy of biology. Really? The philosophy of science is not science. Philosophy does not affect physiology.