0 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
Then isn't describing sex using the same logic that it's a set of a characteristics that define what biologically someone is. U don't see how this argument is. There's defining biologically characteristics that define the men and women, how Is gender separate from that when it's the same thing using characteristics to define something.
Comment by Radiant-Tackle-2766 at 15/01/2025 at 02:18 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think the main thing here is that you’re forgetting sex is used to describe everything in the animal kingdom. Not just humans.
Gender is a strictly societal thing because only humans have it.
Comment by Jolandersson at 13/01/2025 at 17:37 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Because gender isn’t using biological characteristics.
Gender is about stereotypes, like how women are supposed to be gentle and feminine, while men are supposed to be manly and rough.
Comment by transparent_D4rk at 15/01/2025 at 05:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Sex is the biology, Gender is the role people with any given appearance are expected to perform. for example, when someone dresses androgynous, you do not expect them to act stereotypically feminine or stereotypically masculine. you might not know what to expect. a lot of people argue that you can construct your gender however you'd like, so you can wear dresses and makeup and identify as a man, and people do. but when someone identifies as trans or nonbinary, or both, they are more intentionally constructing their gender identity based on what aligns with their internal experience, which may grab from a lot of different gender aesthetics, attitudes, etc. if your internal experience doesn't take from as many buckets, the idea of being trans or non binary probably doesn't align with your internal experience. So again, sex is your biological sex characteristics you are born with, while gender is the social role you are expected to perform. making the argument that social role is inherently tied to biology is obviously false because people are literally doing it and engaging in it, which means it exists.
society is simple; if you can observe social behavior occuring, it is part of society. full stop. there's not really a discussion to be had about whether it should exist or not, because it will continue to exist regardless of the verdict someone might come to. To enforce its removal from society is to acknowledge its existence in the first place, which is inherently contradictory and logically inconsistent to the ideology of those who want to see it stop. This is true in the sense that they are arguing it is unnatural; the problem being that anything observable is "natural" in the sense that it is occurring. this is especially true in the case of social behavior. any other argument you can make regarding what is "natural" is subjective and based on an individual's perception of what nature is and how it "should" be. There may be others that agree with your sense, but that is par for the course considering your beliefs are going to reflect your internal experience and your material reality. people who have a similar material reality to you are more likely to have beliefs that are similar to yours, which is why "beliefs" can feel like "facts." the conflation of sex and gender is an example of this. it is the belief of some kinds of people that gender roles are inherently linked to biology, and ignores the development of social roles based on logistics and material conditions. so, in short, our gender roles should reflect the material reality of our time, and they do, for the most part.
Comment by Critical-Air-5050 at 14/01/2025 at 09:03 UTC
0 upvotes, 6 direct replies
Okay, you're conflating biological sex, which are physical characteristics, with gender, which is an expression of identity.
It's like this, animal DNA gets packed into chromosomes. These chromosomes determine the physical characteristics of the animal, such as height, eye color, whether the animal has tentacles, or paws, or has a forked tongue. Chromosomes also carry information about the sexual reproductive organs of the animal, as well. Will it fertilize or produce eggs. We categorize biological sex based on roles within reproduction. Animals whose bodies produce eggs are female, those who fertilize the eggs are male. (There's more nuance to this, but for the sake of brevity I'm leaving it out).
So saying "male or female" doesn't imply very much outside of physical characteristics because there are male deer, male fish, female spiders, female tigers, and so on.
Gender is a social construct which tries to extend the physical traits a person has into the social sphere and call the sexes by different names, the gender 'binary' is "man" and "woman." Then society says "Men are (insert a bunch of things men are supposed be, like, idk, football fans, soldiers, fighters, bread winners, etc)" and "Women are (again, just make a list of things)". But gender is more about how someone expresses themselves, and how they express themselves sometimes incorporates their sex organs, but doesn't always.
But very few people look between their legs and says "This means I have to like fast cars and sports" or "This means I have to like dresses and cook." Instead, people decide what they like without consulting their crotch, and then express their personality however they feel.
Gender doesn't appear to be something animals have, though. They don't assign social roles, so to speak, to the biological sex of similar animals. We don't find "gender" in nature, basically. Gender is unique to humans because we like to categorize and classify things, but don't account for how fuzzy and nebulous gender really is.
Gender is also heavily influenced by economics. Getting a bit deeper in the weeds; the capitalist framework tells men that they have to do things like not cry. Men should be strong and build things, or farm things. Men should be the bread-winner for his family, or he's not a man. The framework tells women they have to be caretakers and homemakers, and the primary parent. It tells them they have to dress a certain way, wear makeup, etc. But these aren't *natural* extensions of the chromosome pairs in their DNA. They're artificial, non-scientific frameworks provided by society, and importantly the economic system of that society.