Gender is a social construct

[Broletariat]

Give me some good reads on this please and thank you.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Poorly worded title. It's not a social construct. Gender's social role, however, is a social construct. The kind of 'pink = girly, blue = boys' thing. I don't think the idea of having a penis or a vagina is really a social construct at all, obviously.

[#FF0000]

Poorly worded title. It's not a social construct. Gender's social role, however, is a social construct. The kind of 'pink = girly, blue = boys' thing. I don't think the idea of having a penis or a vagina is really a social construct at all, obviously.

I think what you call "gender's social role" is what Gender is. The whole having a penis or vagina thing is what sex someone is.

[Who?]

Read Shumalith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex.

Fuck gender, man.

[Tenka]

Poorly worded title. It's not a social construct. Gender's social role, however, is a social construct. The kind of 'pink = girly, blue = boys' thing. I don't think the idea of having a penis or a vagina is really a social construct at all, obviously.
That's just sex; a little dimorphism in our species to facilitate the particular mode of reproduction that has proved most advantageous to our ancestors, as far as I understand it. It's not a social construct, nor is it something that fundamentally divides us -- the view that it is, is a social construct of patriarchy.

I don't think that, materialistically, different genitals and chromosomes and levels of hormones justify applying the labels "male" or "female" to human beings -- just perhaps to those variations in reproductive equipment. I fancy there's a reason "sex" refers to genitalia in addition to the physical social interaction and confused notions of personal identity.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Delusions of Gender: How our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine is an excellent book that debunks the experiments and methodology of a lot of the major players in the past few years on gender difference.

[Binh]

Socialism and Sexuality by Sherry Wolf is great.

Dialectic of Sex provided the basis for radical feminism by arguing that women are akin to the proletariat and men akin to the bourgeoisie, with an unending and intrinsic conflict of interests between them. This has very reactionary political implications. I rarely recommend not reading a book, but this is an exceptional case.

A big reason why Firestone came to these conclusions was because of the very extreme sexism she experienced in the New Left of the 60s; women active in civil rights/anti-war organizing were often relegated (by men) to making coffee for meetings, that kind of thing, and actively blocked from leading positions as speakers, organizers, etc. and so women had to fight, largely on their own, for their rights and the equal respect they deserved.

Gender is a social construct but it is a social construct (an extremely oppressive one) erected on a real material, biological basis. Almost all of the science about supposed male-female difference is highly biased and methodologically flawed. Phil Gaspar has written some good columns on the topic in the International Socialist Review.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Delusions of Gender: How our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine is an excellent book that debunks the experiments and methodology of a lot of the major players in the past few years on gender difference.

Darn,you beat me to it! :ohmy:

Great book.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sex is also a social construct to some extent. Firstly, biological sex is not absolutely immutable, e.g. sex change is potentially possible, and would probably become easier in the future; More generally even if sex organs in the biological sense are physically determined, how these are used in sexual relationships are still socially determined. Human sexuality is much more than just pure animalistic instinct. The desire to analyse human sexuality in a reductionist manner is IMO not progressive.

[¿Que?]

Sex is also a social construct to some extent. Firstly, biological sex is not absolutely immutable, e.g. sex change is potentially possible, and would probably become easier in the future; More generally even if sex organs in the biological sense are physically determined, how these are used in sexual relationships are still socially determined. Human sexuality is much more than just pure animalistic instinct. The desire to analyse human sexuality in a reductionist manner is IMO not progressive.
Not only that, the whole binary construction is nothing more than the reflection of the gendered nature of scientific knowledge, however, this is changing. For the past few years, in the biosciences, women and men are pretty even in terms of bachelor's degrees. This doesn't mean that gendered biological constructs, such as binary sex, doesn't exist. But it may be that it only tells part of the story.

[Le Socialiste]

Poorly worded title. It's not a social construct. Gender's social role, however, is a social construct. The kind of 'pink = girly, blue = boys' thing. I don't think the idea of having a penis or a vagina is really a social construct at all, obviously.

Quick note: you're mistaking sex for gender there, friend. Sex is defined as the biological characteristics of males, females, and everything along the spectrum. It also pertains to what one's genitals are/look like, whereas gender is a set of social norms and behaviors that are applied to one depending on what their genitals look like. Gender varies across different continent's and societies; it isn't natural.

As for the OP, there are several articles available online that deal with what you're asking for. This is useful too, I think:

http://www.renderx.com/files/demos/examples/CH11.pdf

[Queercommie Girl]

Quick note: you're mistaking sex for gender there, friend. Sex is defined as the biological characteristics of males, females, and everything along the spectrum. It also pertains to what one's genitals are/look like, whereas gender is a set of social norms and behaviors that are applied to one depending on what their genitals look like. Gender varies across different continent's and societies; it isn't natural.

As for the OP, there are several articles available online that deal with what you're asking for. This is useful too, I think:

http://www.renderx.com/files/demos/examples/CH11.pdf

Sex is a biological characteristic, the act of having sex is not just biological, but also a social construct.

[Le Socialiste]

Sex is a biological characteristic, the act of having sex is not just biological, but also a social construct.

I agree completely. Were you correcting something I'd said, or were you just adding on to it?

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree completely. Were you correcting something I'd said, or were you just adding on to it?


More like an add-on. I feel that sometimes when people talk about "gender as a social construct", they are only referring to the external social manifestations of gender: e.g. social/career roles, clothing people wear, mannerisms, language etc. But sexuality itself is a part of the "gender construct" as well.

[Le Socialiste]

More like an add-on. I feel that sometimes when people talk about "gender as a social construct", they are only referring to the external social manifestations of gender: e.g. social/career roles, clothing people wear, mannerisms, language etc. But sexuality itself is a part of the "gender construct" as well.

Oh, I agree - sexuality is very much a construct.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

the real question is,

is our idea of what is a gender construct, itself determined by other gender constructs


oooohhh :cool:

[ericksolvi]

I often find myself looking up the definitions of words. This is because I've noticed that the way people use certain words gives them a very different meaning from their actual definitions.
Gender is an umbrella term, it covers a lot. It can speak to the purely biological, male or female. But it can also be used when speaking about the sets of personality characteristics that we call masculine and feminine.
I don't think gender is social construct. Most males have a masculine personality, most females a feminine. If this is purely the result of societal pressure then it invalidates the exceptions.
If the tabula rasa or blank slate theory applies to sexuality, then gender roles are a societal construct. This theory brakes when you take into account those who's biological and psychological characteristics don't sink up. If boys only act "like boys" because society tells them to, then why do some boys act "like girls".
That leaves only one rational conclusion that respects each individual:
Biological factors in the brain strongly influence the development of masculine and feminine personality traits. This leads to a majority of males behaving masculine, and a majority of females behaving feminine. However humans being extremely complex organisms, and the brain being one of the most complex parts of us, some individuals will be born with brains that predispose them to personality characteristics that differ from there outward physical characteristics.
This means that the suit of behavioral characteristics we call masculine and feminine are in fact real, and the result of biology.

[Hiero]

Judith Buttler is one who takes up the position that gender is a social construct, to the point where gender is "performativity". Sets of actions and performances that a learned, rather then any "core" "essential" point of reference controling thoose behaviours. Buttler comes from a Lacan and Althusser background and is a post-structuralist. She is difficult to read and there is alot of criticism against her.


This theory brakes when you take into account those who's biological and psychological characteristics don't sink up. If boys only act "like boys" because society tells them to, then why do some boys act "like girls".

Because people have choice. Society is an abstract concept in our minds, it is basically the pool of individual agents who convey rules that the individual can choose from. We call that fragmented world "Society". Some boys can choose to act like girls. Generally upon birth seeing a sexed males and sexed female groups of adult and children begin the construction of sexed and gender beings, the essence of their identity is laid out to them and they are interpellated to take on these sexed and gendered identites. But like many people, interpellation can fail if people choose not to follow. Just the same way for instance we on the revolutionary left choose not to follow "traditionalism" and the interpellation of authority figures fails. So we go ahead and hold a rally and do not heed the call for civil obedience.


Biological factors in the brain strongly influence the development of masculine and feminine personality traits. This leads to a majority of males behaving masculine, and a majority of females behaving feminine. However humans being extremely complex organisms, and the brain being one of the most complex parts of us, some individuals will be born with brains that predispose them to personality characteristics that differ from there outward physical characteristics.
This means that the suit of behavioral characteristics we call masculine and feminine are in fact real, and the result of biology.

Your theory does not hold up in worldwide comparison. For instance in in one Papua New Guinea group the males take time to do each others hair. In typical Anglo-White Western society this is considered feminine traits, it is to act like a girl. If we take your brain thesis, all this men in one particualt socio-linguistic group developed brains akin to the female brain of western women.

The conection betwen biology and society/culture (which is abstract) is difficult one and we end imagining a link where there is none. Masculine and Feminime are concepts, your turning them into a prior facts, as if masculine and feminine existed before the biological body and then the random evolution of brains happen to fit and find thoose a prior facts. The fact is human beings are creative and they founded masculinity and femininity after biology in their own abstract constructions.

[ericksolvi]

Your theory does not hold up in worldwide comparison. For instance in in one Papua New Guinea group the males take time to do each others hair. In typical Anglo-White Western society this is considered feminine traits, it is to act like a girl. If we take your brain thesis, all this men in one particualt socio-linguistic group developed brains akin to the female brain of western women.

The conection betwen biology and society/culture (which is abstract) is difficult one and we end imagining a link where there is none. Masculine and Feminime are concepts, your turning them into a prior facts, as if masculine and feminine existed before the biological body and then the random evolution of brains happen to fit and find thoose a prior facts. The fact is human beings are creative and they founded masculinity and femininity after biology in their own abstract constructions.[/QUOTE]

Biological predispositions don't determine a persons behavioral characteristics all on there own. Society influences the behavior. If you really think that the way a person acts has nothing to do with their innate in born qualities, then why do some people not conform to societal standards?
If masculine and feminine are just social constructs, explain a biological male who considers him/her self to be a woman at hart. If there is no biological component to this, then behavior is entirely learned, and can be unlearned.
A position that assumes each newborn infant is a tabula rasa (blank slate) makes all behaviors, not just gender linked ones, open to being modified. If nothing in the brain makes transgender individuals behave differently, then then they're just being difficult.
However if you believe like I do that gender/sexuality are innate characteristics with biological components, then people have only limited choice in their behavioral characteristics. Also if gender/sexuality are inborn then nobody can say that an unusual presentation is morally wrong.
If gender is a social construct, then nobody has an excuse not to conform. Unless being non conformist is an individuals goal in and of itself.

[ericksolvi]

"Masculine and Feminime are concepts, your turning them into a prior facts, as if masculine and feminine existed before the biological body and then the random evolution of brains happen to fit and find thoose a prior facts. The fact is human beings are creative and they founded masculinity and femininity after biology in their own abstract constructions. "

I never said anything this stupid. What could you have possibly read in my first response that would make you think that that is what I was meant?

This is the sort of thing an idiot creationist would say "masculine and feminine existed before the biological body and then the random evolution of brains happen to fit and find thoose a prior facts"

Masculine and feminine exist as concepts now, in the present, because humans evolved like a half million years ago, and we've put a lot of time and energy into our fascination with ourselves. To suggest that I would think that masculine and feminine existed in some cosmic void prior to the evolution of man, is insulting.

We humans have had a lot of time to look at ourselves. Somewhere along the way the concepts of masculine and feminine emerged and became galvanized over time.

This is a simple nature/nurture debate. I come down on the side of nature, not some crazed pseudo spiritual nonsense

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If masculine and feminine are just social constructs, explain a biological male who considers him/her self to be a woman at hart. If there is no biological component to this, then behavior is entirely learned, and can be unlearned.

But the self-perception of gender is not necessarily the same as "masculine-feminine", indeed there would be mtf-transsexuals whose behaviours are by no means such as to conform them to being "feminine" in modern culture, and the perceptions of what is feminine and male behaviours in an extended context are necessarily based primarily on social behaviours which are demonstrably varied within the historical spectrum and to a large extent not the product of biology.

This does not negate the potential for there being a biological component, but at the same time, what is masculine and feminine are necessarily unrelated to this.

And what does it matter? If people chose to be so, does it make it different than if it is the result of some biological process or fluke? We should not defend homosexuality on the basis that it is a product of birth; we should not care if it is a choice or something by birth dictated, it should not make a difference to us. So what if the religious nutters and homophobes try to use "it's a choice" as some argument against it, so what? If it's a choice, it's a natural choice (we see it a-plenty in nature, etc), and it has, on its own, no negative social impact, infact it could easily be argued that it has a positive one since it avoids infringing upon those that feel this way and so on so forth). The same goes for transsexuals. If it is beneficial to transsexual mental health that their choices be respected, even if it is not justified by some brain-scan results or whatever, then there is no reason not to recognise it.

Human gendered behaviours are a lot more fluid than just "masculine/feminine" anyway, and this distinction is inherently sexist and reprehensible.

[ericksolvi]

I don't choose my homosexuality. Most of the trans people I've met say they did not choose their gender identity either.

I hate the modern cultural bias against classifying and explaining human behavior. Let's not delve into peoples underlying motivating forces, because it may seem offensive to them, give me brake.

Socrates said "The unexamined life is not worth living". Each person should be morally and intellectually able to stand up to scrutiny. You should in fact scrutinize yourself. Pull apart your own mind and look at who you are one component at a time, and be willing to work on the parts of yourself that fall short.

"I am who I am, and that's who I am" is a line from an old cartoon. Real people should be more willing to look at themselves then Popeye, and be willing to except speculation from others. Simply believing that you are somehow above examination is the height of arrogants and narcissism.

The concept of certain behaviors (and what exactly these behaviors are very to some degree from culture to culture) being considered more masculine or more feminine has been with the human race for millennia. They are not easily dismissed, and modern studies have shown that there is a brain based component that leads each individual to gravitate toward the suit of behaviors represented by one of the two concepts, as determined by his or her culture.

It may be appealing to say the difference is entirely a cultural construct. But as I've spent a lot of time looking into my own mind, I can tell you that there is a long list of labels that describe who I am and one of those labels is man. Those of you that dislike labels, who feel they are antiquated, grow up. Own who you are, if you don't define yourself others will. The desire to classify the world around and within us is part of being human. It's one of the desires that gave rise to language. Rejecting labels is in part rejecting language and reason.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't choose my homosexuality. Most of the trans people I've met say they did not choose their gender identity either.


From a philosophical perspective this point is largely moot: If a person subjectively chooses to be trans, then obviously there is an objective basis for this, otherwise the person wouldn't make such a subjective choice in the first place. What we think of as "free will" isn't objectively completely "free" anyway.

[ericksolvi]

From a philosophical perspective this point is largely moot: If a person subjectively chooses to be trans, then obviously there is an objective basis for this, otherwise the person wouldn't make such a subjective choice in the first place. What we think of as "free will" isn't objectively completely "free" anyway.

Why would anyone choose to make themselves vulnerable to ridicule and possibly even violence?
If you say that doing so to make a cultural, philosophical, or political statement is a valid reason, then I shall bang my head against the wall until I achieve sweet unconsciousness.

[Commissar Rykov]

My Penis is a social construct? Oh shit I am in some trouble now.

[Le Socialiste]

My Penis is a social construct? Oh shit I am in some trouble now.

Your penis is not the source of male aggression/masculinity. ;)

[Meridian]

Your penis is not the source of male aggression/masculinity. ;)
We don't use the terms "aggression" and "masculinity" interchangeably, so stop pretending we do.

[Tenka]

Why would anyone choose to make themselves vulnerable to ridicule and possibly even violence?
If you say that doing so to make a cultural, philosophical, or political statement is a valid reason, then I shall bang my head against the wall until I achieve sweet unconsciousness.
On the other hand, it's reactionary as fuck to think that homosexuality is only acceptable if it's taken to be something biologically based and thus unpreventable (whether it is or not, that only matters to the inane arguments of trans-bashers and gay-bashers, and would not matter to us if only they were educated in the stupidity of their worldviews and changed these -- if only they did not have such a strong, retarding pull over society, etc.).

[ericksolvi]

On the other hand, it's reactionary as fuck to think that homosexuality is only acceptable if it's taken to be something biologically based and thus unpreventable (whether it is or not, that only matters to the inane arguments of trans-bashers and gay-bashers, and would not matter to us if only they were educated in the stupidity of their worldviews and changed these -- if only they did not have such a strong, retarding pull over society, etc.).

I am gay. My opinion is that this is the result of biology. Brain scans have shown small differences in the brains of gay men, when compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
I don't think it's reactionary or narrow minded to be curious about what causes variation in our species. Refusing to examine or even acknowledge the reasons behind human variation, because to do so goes against your beliefs, is dangerously dogmatic.
The Soviets refused to use Mendelian genetics, because Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk. They refused to use the work of a monk, because they were strict atheists, and in refusing they set their agricultural programs back decades.
Modern leftists are touchy about issues relating to sexuality and gender identity. This hang up is just as silly as the Soviets refusing to use the work of Mendel.
We can be accepting of one another and still be curious about what causes differences between us.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why would anyone choose to make themselves vulnerable to ridicule and possibly even violence?
If you say that doing so to make a cultural, philosophical, or political statement is a valid reason, then I shall bang my head against the wall until I achieve sweet unconsciousness.


The whole point of the LGBT Pride movement is to be proud of who you are, and view LGBT as a positive thing rather than something one does because he/she has no choice.

Put it this way, why would many revolutionary Marxists risk their lives to "make a political statement"? Many Marxists don't become socialists and sometimes literally die and get tortured for socialism because they have no choice.

I happen to take LGBT activism very seriously, on par with other major issues within the general socialist movement.

Also, there are many straight allies in the LGBT movement, sometimes they risk a lot too. Did you know that in some cases, those who conduct hate crime don't just kill the trans person, but also his/her partner, who might be completely heteronormative. So by marrying a trans person, one is essentially putting his/her life at risk to some extent.

Life isn't just about how long or short it is, or even how happy or sad it is. The reason why LGBT people are so oppressed today is because of class society, in a fundamental sense. We are not just fighting for LGBT rights in a solely limited defensive sense, we are also fighting for the sexual and gender liberation of all humanity. LGBT politics is also linked with other important areas of socialist politics, such as feminism, anti-colonialism and anti-racism.

[Tenka]

I don't think it's reactionary or narrow minded to be curious about what causes variation in our species. Refusing to examine or even acknowledge the reasons behind human variation, because to do so goes against your beliefs, is dangerously dogmatic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's reactionary to be curious about the causes, to investigate them scientifically (so long as it's not for the purpose of "finding a cure"); but say for example a life-long homosexual male was said to be "biologically straight" or have a "straight brain" after getting some tests done -- it would be reactionary to say that their sexuality was therefore illegitimate or "faked".
I have heard somewhere that there are more differences between any two human brains than between supposedly "male" and "female" brains, so when such tests are more common one can expect to find many exceptions to rules for classification which frankly in my mind are heteronormative and sexist in nature (the science of today is not without patriarchal bias).

[ericksolvi]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's reactionary to be curious about the causes, to investigate them scientifically (so long as it's not for the purpose of "finding a cure"); but say for example a life-long homosexual male was said to be "biologically straight" or have a "straight brain" after getting some tests done -- it would be reactionary to say that their sexuality was therefore illegitimate or "faked".
I have heard somewhere that there are more differences between any two human brains than between supposedly "male" and "female" brains, so when such tests are more common one can expect to find many exceptions to rules for classification which frankly in my mind are heteronormative and sexist in nature (the science of today is not without patriarchal bias).

No offense, but your last paragraph is wrong. Female brains have a larger corpus callosum, the highway between the two hemispheres of the brain (My anthro prof would be so proud that I remember this crap). If you were to place the brain of a biological male and a biological female on a table and let a neurologist dissect them the doctor could identify which was which.

[RedAnarchist]

No offense, but your last paragraph is wrong. Female brains have a larger corpus callosum, the highway between the two hemispheres of the brain (My anthro prof would be so proud that I remember this crap). If you were to place the brain of a biological male and a biological female on a table and let a neurologist dissect them the doctor could identify which was which.

http://www.gender.org.uk/about/07neur/77_diffs.htm


The corpus callosum itself has attracted the attention of biologists searching for sex differences. It will be remembered that it was surgery to sever it that drew attention to the differing organisation of the two sides of the cortex.

There is a great deal of dispute about whether there are reliable average differences between the sexes. Originally, it was claimed that it was larger overall in women, relative to brain size. Later the claim was that the posterior portion, the splenium was larger.

Fausto-Stirling(1,2) is extremely critical of studies in this area. Since 1982 there have been at least seventeen papers published. Since no two approach the problem in the same way, she suggests that none of them corroborate each other. What does appear is that there are changes with age, yet only one of the studies used age-matched subjects. Also, if there any sex differences at all, they show up after birth, possibly not until after adolescence.

Considering the millions of axons which must traverse this region, there is no total picture of their path. Larger nerve bundles can be traced leading to the front and back but, though a reasonable general rule is for them to take the shortest path, this is by no means inflexible..

The result of differences in the corpus callosum are said to result in a greater relative fluency of thought and speech. Reminding ourselves that no-one has actually counted the number of axons, nor traced their connections, we are told that this results in greater communication between the cerebral hemispheres of women. It is suggested that women's greater sensitivity to emotional, non verbal communication, even their intuition, comes from the greater connectivity in their minds. A man is more purpose orientated. Emotions are kept on the right side of his brain, which, being less connected to the left, mean that he can, less easily, express emotions. Clearly, biological effects are not the whole story, for men are expected to be relatively unemotional.

There is another structure that connects between the cerebral hemispheres, the anterior commissure. It communicates visual, olfactory and auditory information and is larger in women than men. Allen has demonstrated that it is also larger in homosexual men.

[Le Socialiste]

We don't use the terms "aggression" and "masculinity" interchangeably, so stop pretending we do.

No one's pretending, so stop making assumptions. I don't identify aggression with masculinity (if you'd read my earlier posts you'd know that).

[Le Socialiste]

Masculinity and femininity aren't an inherent aspect of our biological, chemical, and physical makeup - they're terms that were/are created by society depending on its perception of what constitutes acceptable forms of male and female behavior. Furthermore, we are the only species that seeks to categorize sex, sexuality, and gender. We have tried to categorize what is really a natural spectrum, and how we categorize depends on our place in history and society, as well as region. How many sexes are there? Two, three, seven? It varies across time and space. Our current focus on just two sexes is largely responsible - in some respects - to how we approach the supposed roles of men and women. It has also created an air of heteronormativity, in which anyone who "deviates" is considered beyond the norm. Our fixation on just males and females has served as the basis for how we perceive sex, sexuality, and gender. Our understanding of sexuality is largely derived from the fact that we only see and/or accept two sexes. We have taken the biological and physical aspects of humanity and applied our own cultural bias to it, just as we always have. The important thing is to understand that these things rely on society's constructs and aren't bound by one's "natural" makeup.

[ericksolvi]

"There is another structure that connects between the cerebral hemispheres, the anterior commissure. It communicates visual, olfactory and auditory information and is larger in women than men. Allen has demonstrated that it is also larger in homosexual men."

This quote basically agrees with what I've been saying. That there is a biological component to behavior (Please don't read a negative connotation into the word behavior).
On a complete side note. I've noticed a high tendency, among those highly concerned with gender identity and sexuality related issues, to have disdain for some words, a desire to redefine others, and to remove some from the lexicon all together. The prevailing explanation seems to be that it's felt that language itself has been tainted by patriarchy and elitism. If I've misread things, please explain?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The prevailing explanation seems to be that it's felt that language itself has been tainted by patriarchy and elitism.

Are you denying that it has?

[Tenka]

http://www.gender.org.uk/about/07neur/77_diffs.htm
Thanks for the link; a good read. Though I was curious as to who Allen was, and why their findings were stated so matter-of-factly and in a way that seemed to contradict the general tone of the page, I did some googling and this came up on wikipedia:

In a 1991 brain study performed by Laura Allen and Roger Gorski of UCLA observed that there was size differences of the brain's anterior commissure between a group of heterosexual men and a group of women and homosexual men. But as William Brye and Bruce Parson's point out, this study has "many of the same interpretive difficulties as LeVay's." These include a "tremendous" number of exceptions, such as the fact that 27 of 30 homosexual men had anterior commissures that "fell within the range established by 30 heterosexual men." [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_commissure#cite_note-0) These studies were motivated by the idea that the male homosexual brain is more similar to a female brain in function than the brain of a heterosexual male would be, and hence would express less lateralisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function) and greater cross-talk between hemispheres.

[ericksolvi]

Are you denying that it has?

No I'm not. I just like to understand the exact reasoning behind things. It helps me to better interact with others. I'm a bit socially inept. I have trouble reading subtext, and lack emotional empathy.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There is a difference between biological gender and gender role that not everyone understands. To combat sexism and transphobia we must educate the ignorant of this difference.

[Queercommie Girl]

My Penis is a social construct? Oh shit I am in some trouble now.


Your penis is not a social construct, what is a social construct is to say that just because you have a penis, you must have a certain psychology because of it, and you must dress in a certain way, behave in a certain way, and take on certain social roles because of it.

When people say "gender is a social construct", this is what they mean.

If you say to me: "I have a penis". My reply would simply be: So what? Who gives a shit?

[Hiero]

Biological predispositions don't determine a persons behavioral characteristics all on there own. Society influences the behavior. If you really think that the way a person acts has nothing to do with their innate in born qualities, then why do some people not conform to societal standards?
My bold.

Because people can choose not to follow dominant forms. This happens all the time even within masculinity. There is no one masculine and feminine. In your biological determinist outlook which is the correct masuline and feminine? For instance in certian groups contact sport is seen as the result of "men being men". Yet there are plent of men/boys who decide not to engage in contact sport because they dislike it and they do consider themselves to be a man and not a feminine.

I don't think it is a conform and an anti conform issue. It is about the choices people make about how they want to interact with the world. Some people will try and force sexed people into specific identities, like telling young boys to stop being gentle and go kick a football. But they are being gentle to begin with not to "be difficult", but it is because they want to engaged with the world as a gentle person.

As I said earlier, your biological determinism fails apart once you try to deal with large ethnographies of gender.


If masculine and feminine are just social constructs, explain a biological male who considers him/her self to be a woman at hart. If there is no biological component to this, then behavior is entirely learned, and can be unlearned.

That is what people do, the embody their belief system and take it on to be natural. Ideological and structure systems work the same way, capitalism is embodied through the class system as the natural way of humans.



A position that assumes each newborn infant is a tabula rasa (blank slate) makes all behaviors, not just gender linked ones, open to being modified. If nothing in the brain makes transgender individuals behave differently, then then they're just being difficult.

I don't think newborns are tabula rasa and never said anyone was being difficult.


However if you believe like I do that gender/sexuality are innate characteristics with biological components, then people have only limited choice in their behavioral characteristics. Also if gender/sexuality are inborn then nobody can say that an unusual presentation is morally wrong.
If gender is a social construct, then nobody has an excuse not to conform. Unless being non conformist is an individuals goal in and of itself


"Limited choice", like I said a comprehensive world wide ethnography does not reveal limited choices. And this isn't about what is morally convenient. It is not about being "difficult" or "non conformist". Your intergrity of the biological argument fails if your doing it just to be morally correct.

Another argument against your biological determinism is cross dressing. In your arguement gender is about brain structure, but a good cross dresser shows that gender is part of sets of behaviours. A cross dresser can act feminine during one night of the week, yet fit back into male categories through the week.

My other arguement is that gender is a locus of habits learned through engagement with the world. People learn gendered ways of being and people can choose from a wide selection presented to them. Some are face more coercion in there choices, some are punished for choices deemed wrong, some adapt from multiple sources while some imitate from a narrow source. This is applied to different scenerios whether it be conflict, consumption habits, child rearing, sexual engagement, boldily reactons, clothing etc. That is, gender is type a praxis applied to sex beings.



This is a simple nature/nurture debate. I come down on the side of nature, not some crazed pseudo spiritual nonsense


I never said you said any of thoose things, I am saying what you head towards is idealistic transcendentalism. I don't know what you mean that it is "galavinsed" over history. But it is not a linear and determined thing. Gender changes within the current conflicts of history. For instance the inclusion of women into the workforce requires new forms of gender, first to authorise women's right to be in the workforce.

Your biological determinism does not work in a cross cultural comparison nor does it work in a historical comparison.

[Hiero]

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacific/people/hazy.htm

Here is a great example of how gender is a social construct. In Samoa some boys are raised as Fa'afafine's, boys raised as girls. Often families who have too many boys will raise the youngest boy as a girl, that person then takes on alot of the social duties of girls and helps the mother with family work.



Your penis is not a social construct, what is a social construct is to say that just because you have a penis, you must have a certain psychology because of it, and you must dress in a certain way, behave in a certain way, and take on certain social roles because of it.

When people say "gender is a social construct", this is what they mean.

If you say to me: "I have a penis". My reply would simply be: So what? Who gives a shit?

The body and body parts are also social constructs. Like there is biological matter but there is alot of social history and politics invested into our bodies and the parts.

They fact someone said "hey my penis is not a social construct" conveyed more proof then ever that it is a social construct. Then after he said "I am in some trouble now" confers it even more, the imagined threat that gender studies could actually castrate men.

The actualy penis is taken up into social construction, other wise castration would not be a concern to humans.