Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Gender theory
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGender theory
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Poll Question: Should gender theory be taught in schools?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
7 [20.59%]
20 [58.82%]
3 [8.82%]
4 [11.76%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2016 at 09:25
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:


1. No, sex/gender identity have nothing to do with your sexuality. That's like, queer theory 101.
Now this is just semantics.  While gender may be a social construct up to a point, sex is not.  So whether you call it sex identity or sexuality is beside the point.  It's still very much a thing and for a heterosexual, immediately identifies the opposite sex as, well, opposite.  There is no ambiguity there.  Nobody who's actually heterosexual (rather than being forced to conform to his/her gender role by society) is ever sexually attracted to those from his/her own sex.  So that means something by way of 'the other' sex does exist.  

I am not hung up on words, we can call it male and female or we can call it something else but the notion of opposite sexes will remain as long as a majority of humans are heterosexual in orientation which is very much the case today.  Unless, of course, a concerted effort is made to condition kids to feel ambiguous about themselves Wink just the same way as people were earlier (and still are in some parts of the world) forced to deny the fact that perhaps they, as individuals, were somehow differently orientated sexually than others. But in that case, you would again be using social engineering to achieve a purportedly natural outcome so it would really be no different for all purposes from the earlier orthodoxy. 

I am just saying, nobody told me that I am supposed to get attracted to women; it just happened.  So that part of it is not social conditioning at all since in my culture it was taboo to discuss anything to do with sex in the presence of children. To be clear, by attraction, I mean lust and not love since you conflated sexual and romantic attraction earlier in the discussion. There are biological forces at work when it comes to sexual attraction and which way it REALLY goes is decided by the body, not the mind. 
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

2. Understanding the socially constructed nature of gender does not invalidate anyone's experiences.

See above.  I have a problem with your over ambition in also claiming sex as in sexual identity is only a social construct.  Gender, yes, but not sex.  And no, I am not interested in sociologists claiming that sex is only a social construct to further whatever ideological beliefs they may hold.  Let a biologist demonstrate the same and I will readily open my mind to this possibility. 


Edited by rogerthat - October 07 2016 at 09:27
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2016 at 06:44
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Magnum Vaeltaja Magnum Vaeltaja wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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. 

Exactly, even if biologists are being guided in their research by philosophical principles, they're still leaps and bounds more credible to speak about biology because they actually use empirical evidence and collect reproducible results experimentally.

Evidence and results mean nothing if you don't interpret them. Besides, biological determinism is silly.


Interpretation of results is part of the process of science itself. The philosophy of science isn't needed. And biological determinism may be silly but it's true so.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2016 at 22:33
Obviously I'm not saying we should teach elementary kids college-level philosophy. But to teach kids ways to understand, accept, and support each other, to prevent things like this:

would not be impossible.
Back to Top
Magnum Vaeltaja View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 01 2015
Location: Out East
Status: Offline
Points: 6777 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2016 at 21:50
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

 
Philosophy of science (e.g. Karl Popper) is great stuff. It's about how science should proceed. When philosophy takes the place of science, then it's not such great stuff.

The idea that gender is a distinct notion from sex and that gender works on a continuum is not even controversial in psychology. For this reason, I don't think that puberty is particularly relevant to this question, as some other posts have supposed. Individual deviations from prescribed gender roles occur very early even at pre-school ages. The question is what is the curriculum and what level of sophistication does it entail? If it's mainly as an anti-bullying effort, I think it might be worthwhile. However, because of the huge gulf between what is readily accepted in psychology versus what the mainstream populace just assumes as a gut reaction, I think we should educate the adults (the educators, parents, politicians, ...) first.


Yep, I'll have to agree with everything you just said. There's no doubt that at young ages, and consistently throughout childhood/adolescence, we should make efforts to reinforce to children that it's okay to have characteristics from whatever gender they feel most comfortable associating with/not identifying with a gender at all. And I can't see it as something that would be particularly difficult to implement into the education system. It could easily fit in with more or less all the other basic life skills/common courtesies that get taught in kindergarten and early grades. 

Edit: In that respect, I voted "yes" to the original poll. I think gender theory should get taught in schools; not necessarily the philosophical musings that A Person has been listing off (save that for grad school), but definitely a common courtesy/mutual respect of others type of implementation that promotes people embracing their identities.


Edited by Magnum Vaeltaja - October 06 2016 at 21:53
when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2016 at 20:39
Originally posted by Magnum Vaeltaja Magnum Vaeltaja wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

<span style=": rgb248, 248, 252;">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.</span>

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. 


Exactly, even if biologists are being guided in their research by philosophical principles, they're still leaps and bounds more credible to speak about biology because they actually use empirical evidence and collect reproducible results experimentally.
Philosophy of science (e.g. Karl Popper) is great stuff. It's about how science should proceed. When philosophy takes the place of science, then it's not such great stuff.

The idea that gender is a distinct notion from sex and that gender works on a continuum is not even controversial in psychology. For this reason, I don't think that puberty is particularly relevant to this question, as some other posts have supposed. Individual deviations from prescribed gender roles occur very early even at pre-school ages. The question is what is the curriculum and what level of sophistication does it entail? If it's mainly as an anti-bullying effort, I think it might be worthwhile. However, because of the huge gulf between what is readily accepted in psychology versus what the mainstream populace just assumes as a gut reaction, I think we should educate the adults (the educators, parents, politicians, ...) first.




Edited by HackettFan - October 06 2016 at 20:48
A curse upon the heads of those who seek their fortunes in a lie. The truth is always waiting when there's nothing left to try. - Colin Henson, Jade Warrior (Now)
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2016 at 13:28
Originally posted by Magnum Vaeltaja Magnum Vaeltaja wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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. 

Exactly, even if biologists are being guided in their research by philosophical principles, they're still leaps and bounds more credible to speak about biology because they actually use empirical evidence and collect reproducible results experimentally.

Evidence and results mean nothing if you don't interpret them. Besides, biological determinism is silly.
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2016 at 13:27
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I repeat myself but if most of the human race, like many mammals, are heterosexuals and are only attracted to humans from the opposite sex, then sexual/gender identity has everything to do with it. You cannot project your personal experience on the rest of us. I respect your orientation and expect you to likewise respect mine. Saying there is no such thing as sex pretends that my experience is an artificial construct which it absolutely isn't.

1. No, sex/gender identity have nothing to do with your sexuality. That's like, queer theory 101.
2. Understanding the socially constructed nature of gender does not invalidate anyone's experiences.
Back to Top
Magnum Vaeltaja View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 01 2015
Location: Out East
Status: Offline
Points: 6777 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 23:08
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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. 

Exactly, even if biologists are being guided in their research by philosophical principles, they're still leaps and bounds more credible to speak about biology because they actually use empirical evidence and collect reproducible results experimentally.
when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 23:01
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Dean 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. 
What?
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:43
Originally posted by Dean 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.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:38
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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.
 
Ahem it has everything to do with it if you aren't bisexual. As a heterosexual male I am ONLY attracted to women. It is biological and not a social construct. Even if I disobeyed Dawkins' advice and opened my mind until it fell right out, I still wouldn't be attracted to men. So the notion on opposite sexes is very relevant for heterosexuals; it's not something we were made to believe by society. Why do most lionesses mate only with male lions?

What does gender identity have to do with sexual/romantic attraction?
 
I repeat myself but if most of the human race, like many mammals, are heterosexuals and are only attracted to humans from the opposite sex, then sexual/gender identity has everything to do with it. You cannot project your personal experience on the rest of us. I respect your orientation and expect you to likewise respect mine. Saying there is no such thing as sex pretends that my experience is an artificial construct which it absolutely isn't.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:23
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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 LOL (Sorry, couldn't resist. Wink)

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:
Quote 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. :)

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. 

Babysitting/childminding is nothing like being a parent, though there are obvious observations you make and maybe you do see the continuous growth and development cycle over a prolonged period but I'd be surprised if you had sufficient emotional connection to react to that development rather than just observe it or see the subtle changes that such a connection reveals.
What?
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 22:21
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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.
 
Ahem it has everything to do with it if you aren't bisexual. As a heterosexual male I am ONLY attracted to women. It is biological and not a social construct. Even if I disobeyed Dawkins' advice and opened my mind until it fell right out, I still wouldn't be attracted to men. So the notion on opposite sexes is very relevant for heterosexuals; it's not something we were made to believe by society. Why do most lionesses mate only with male lions?

What does gender identity have to do with sexual/romantic attraction?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:46
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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.
 
Ahem it has everything to do with it if you aren't bisexual. As a heterosexual male I am ONLY attracted to women. It is biological and not a social construct. Even if I disobeyed Dawkins' advice and opened my mind until it fell right out, I still wouldn't be attracted to men. So the notion on opposite sexes is very relevant for heterosexuals; it's not something we were made to believe by society. Why do most lionesses mate only with male lions?
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:26
Originally posted by Magnum Vaeltaja Magnum Vaeltaja wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

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:

I can definitely accept that gender is a societal construct and that individuals should be free to choose which societal roles they wish to adhere to, but the idea that biological sex is arbitrary, or a social construct, is absurd.

I can kind of see what Butler is talking about, and I can accept that the concept of naming one set of biological characteristics one name (i.e. male) and a distinct set of biological characteristics by another (i.e. female) is a societal construct, but her argument doesn't seem very grounded in anything objective. 

Objectively, the concept that we have named "sex" exists. When organisms reproduce, the resulting offspring will, by random chance, take on a certain set of characteristics depending on which chromosomes it receives. In humans, if you are randomly given two X chromosomes by your parents, you will bear a certain set of characteristics. You will have a vagina, clitoris and ovaries. You will produce egg cells as gametes. Whereas if nature randomly selects that you'll carry an X and Y chromosome, you will have a penis and testicles and you will produce sperm cells as gametes. Regardless of whether or not you consider these two individuals as different entities is irrelevant; there are inherent differences between them and one cannot reproduce with its own; it must look to the other in order to have its own offspring. Thus, a dichotomy does exist and that's that. And no "oppression" is at play because a doctor declares one offspring male and another female; random chance decided on the child's sex, not the individual doctor or the greater medical community. 

Of course, there are some nuances. Biological systems are complex; more complex than any social scientist or gender studies researcher can simply reason out in their head with mental gymnastics. There are some conditions that arise where genes don't operate as they should during sexual differentiation, and intersex individuals definitely exist, but they are statistical anomalies. In that sense, sex is a bit of a "pseudo-spectrum", with some uncertainty arising. But in general, sex should, and can, be defined empirically. There should be something quantitative and tangible that sex describes, and there is. In humans, XX chromosome = female, XY chromosome = male. These genetic differences lead to very distinct structural differences that can be observed and form the basis for a very rigorous definition of sex. 

As I said before, though, gender is a whole different bag of tricks, and actually does relate to the societal constructs associated with sex, and is certainly more of a continuum than gender is. So once Judith Butler gets an in-depth background in genetics, I'll be happy to hear more of her ideas.

If the term sex just described a particular set of chromosomes you have, it is utterly useless. No one argued that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist, just that it doesn't really have any meaning in terms of defining sex/gender.
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:23
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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? Confused

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? Shocked

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. :)
Back to Top
A Person View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 21:20
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 19:06
Originally posted by A Person 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?
Back to Top
Magnum Vaeltaja View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 01 2015
Location: Out East
Status: Offline
Points: 6777 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 18:47
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

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:

I can definitely accept that gender is a societal construct and that individuals should be free to choose which societal roles they wish to adhere to, but the idea that biological sex is arbitrary, or a social construct, is absurd.

I can kind of see what Butler is talking about, and I can accept that the concept of naming one set of biological characteristics one name (i.e. male) and a distinct set of biological characteristics by another (i.e. female) is a societal construct, but her argument doesn't seem very grounded in anything objective. 

Objectively, the concept that we have named "sex" exists. When organisms reproduce, the resulting offspring will, by random chance, take on a certain set of characteristics depending on which chromosomes it receives. In humans, if you are randomly given two X chromosomes by your parents, you will bear a certain set of characteristics. You will have a vagina, clitoris and ovaries. You will produce egg cells as gametes. Whereas if nature randomly selects that you'll carry an X and Y chromosome, you will have a penis and testicles and you will produce sperm cells as gametes. Regardless of whether or not you consider these two individuals as different entities is irrelevant; there are inherent differences between them and one cannot reproduce with its own; it must look to the other in order to have its own offspring. Thus, a dichotomy does exist and that's that. And no "oppression" is at play because a doctor declares one offspring male and another female; random chance decided on the child's sex, not the individual doctor or the greater medical community. 

Of course, there are some nuances. Biological systems are complex; more complex than any social scientist or gender studies researcher can simply reason out in their head with mental gymnastics. There are some conditions that arise where genes don't operate as they should during sexual differentiation, and intersex individuals definitely exist, but they are statistical anomalies. In that sense, sex is a bit of a "pseudo-spectrum", with some uncertainty arising. But in general, sex should, and can, be defined empirically. There should be something quantitative and tangible that sex describes, and there is. In humans, XX chromosome = female, XY chromosome = male. These genetic differences lead to very distinct structural differences that can be observed and form the basis for a very rigorous definition of sex. 

As I said before, though, gender is a whole different bag of tricks, and actually does relate to the societal constructs associated with sex, and is certainly more of a continuum than gender is. So once Judith Butler gets an in-depth background in genetics, I'll be happy to hear more of her ideas.
when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents
Back to Top
Vompatti View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 22 2005
Location: elsewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 67407 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2016 at 16:05
Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by A Person A Person wrote:

Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

Originally posted by A Person 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? Confused

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? Shocked

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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.166 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.