0 upvotes, 6 direct replies (showing 6)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
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.
Comment by neverendingplush93 at 14/01/2025 at 09:57 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I can only imagine that God gave us all this intelligence just for us to complicated what was never complicated.
Comment by most_person at 14/01/2025 at 21:55 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Why does gender matter at all then if its dependent on how you feel?
Comment by jrob323 at 14/01/2025 at 22:40 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So a trans woman is ok with you referring to them as "male"?
Comment by Pale_Blackberry_4025 at 15/01/2025 at 05:53 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yikes! Brainwashing nonsense to the max!
Comment by Competitive_News_385 at 15/01/2025 at 11:57 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Okay, you're conflating biological sex, which are physical characteristics, with gender, which is an expression of identity.
This is where you go wrong.
Gender is not an expression of identity.
It's a signal to other people of what your biological sex is so they don't have to look into your underwear like a weirdo to find out.
Comment by flimflam_machine at 14/01/2025 at 17:44 UTC
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
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.
Well said.
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."
It seems odd to call this social. Having the word "woman" to refer to animals within the venn-diagram intersection of "female", "adult" and "human" isn't "social" any more than it's a "social" to use "mare" as a convenient one-word descriptor of those animals within the venn-diagram intersection of "female", "adult" and "horse". (You could go for the "all categories are social constructs" but that leads us off down various other not-particularly-useful pathways).
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)".
When you say "men are" and "women are" it feels more accurate to say that society says "male people should be" and "female people should be". Failing to distinguish the concept of "things that people are told they should be as a result of being part of a category" from the concept of "criteria for being a part of that category in the first place" is a huge cause of confusion in this debate. Sadly language can be ambiguous as to what meaning is intended?
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.
This is where I struggle with conceptualising "gender" (as a trait of the individual and the means of categorising people into genders as categories) as anything other than very regressive. People can express themselves how they like (of course that's a basic liberal position) but if that expression is the means of categorising them then we've gone from "women should do the dishes" via "anyone can do the dishes" (a feminist win) and ended up at "whoever does the dishes is a woman".
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.
Again well said.