biological sexism and the basis of gender

[consuming negativity]

i remember reading a book called delusions of gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions_of_Gender), which addresses claims that men and women have hard-wired differences that explain gender. basically, it goes through all the claims throughout centuries which were used to use biology to explain social inequality between women and men and how, every time we investigate further, they seem to be complete bullshit. it describes a social basis for gender, based on hard science.

i was recently reading this (https://libcom.org/library/response-americans-gender-theorie-communiste), though, and i think it elaborates on that work in a really important way. i've seen that we've had discussions before on this website about whether or not "sex" is a real thing or if it is just a social construction, and i think i'm coming to agree with the viewpoint that biological sex itself is an example of biological sexism.


This division of society between workers and non-workers is immediately doubled in another division internal to the first, but escaping its terms: the gendered division of society.

The first condition of this surplus labor is "population control," the control of the principal productive force (which is the increase of the population), and thus the control of those who are the producers. The autonomization of the social character of activity is in itself the existence of a constraint on surplus labor, and is constructed as a social distinction of anatomical characteristics. From biological reproduction, and from the specific place of women in this reproduction, the result of a social process is presupposed as given. The point of departure (and having a point of departure is one of the necessary flaws of theoretical production) is what makes this place specific as social construction and differentiation : the modes of production up to today. The increase of the population as principal producive force is no more a natural relation than any other relation of production

Indeed, up until capital, including where it becomes contradictory, the principal source of surplus labor is the work of increasing the population. The necessary appropriation of surplus labor, a pure social phenomenon (surplus labor is not tied to the supposed overcapacity of labor) creates gender and the social pertinence of the gender distinction in a sexual and naturalized way. The possession of a uterus does not signify "baby maker"; to move from one to the other one requires an entire social apparatus of appropriation and a scenario of “making babies”2, the apparatus through which women exist. The possession of a uterus is an anatomical feature, and not immediately a distinction, but "baby maker" is a social distinction which makes the anatomical feature a natural distinction. Within the nature of this social construction, of this system of constraint, that which is socially constructed -- women -- are always sent back to biology. Without putting this into operation, to have a uterus is an anatomical feature and not a distinction: the uterus does not make the woman any more than the melanin makes the slave. Just as for capital to appear as a thing is a manifestation of self, belonging to its being, it would not be a relation without appearing as a thing ; just as value of labor power would not be what it is without appearing as the price of labor ; just as the production of the social category of woman would not be what it is without being naturalized and the relation between men and women would not be a social relation without appearing as natural.

Whether one is in the Amazon, in the Islands of Trobriand (Malinowski), in Athens or New York, there is autonomization as a form of the community or class, there is surplus labor and therefore labor, and thus there is the population as principal productive force. And by the same token, there is a gender division, the creation of women3 by the social actuation and the appropriation of the biological reproductive capacity and there is appropriation of the biological reproductive capacity of women. Each time, a whole structure of social violence defines them, and they are coerced and conscripted (this can be the prohibition of the usage of certain hunting weapons, private and domestic labor, or part-time work).

this is just a small snippet of the article, which answers four separate questions. honestly, the entire thing is very very complex and complicated and as baked as i am right now i can barely understand what they're saying. i plan on reading it again, but if anybody else would enjoy digesting some of this, it would be appreciated. i think there's probably a lot of good stuff in there, based on this, and what else i managed to read, mainly on questions 2 and 4. at one point, though, i think it argues that specifically gender-based agitation is unnecessary, though, because our gender relations are a direct result of capitalism. i'm not sure how i feel about that at all, though, and it seems contradictory to what's above. like i said, it's a lot to work with, and gender isn't really my specialty, as much as i enjoy learning about it.

[consuming negativity]

really? nobody wants to help me?

fine, fuckers. i'll put it all into layperson's terms myself. but you're also going to get my own personal interpretation along with it.

The productive forces of society are a lot more than just the workers at this point: machines, scientific development, and social organization all also contribute to how much a single worker is able to produce. Rather than speaking of all of these things together, we can synthesize all of it into a single concept that the author calls "the productive force of labor" - that is, how much we are able to produce through our labor, thanks to all of the advancements in society that allow each individual worker to be much more productive now than they ever were in the past.

When we increase worker productivity through scientific development, through making bigger and better machines, and doing other things, we make capital itself more powerful. There are more things to buy, there is more labor being put out, and as a result, money matters even more today than it did 100 years ago. Our own advancements have actually led to the opposite - we have advanced capitalism and our own misery through advancing our abilities to produce, which should have, paradoxically, led to us having to work less, rather than more.

Because an increase in population leads to an increase in the amount that can be produced, and also the amount that can be consumed, through our dual roles as consumers and producers, an increase in population directly causes an increase in the power of capital. The same phenomonenon, actually, happened during feudal times in Europe as a result of the black plague. When there was less labor, it became more valuable, and conditions improved for those on the bottom of society as many of them were dead from the plague, while the aristocrats - far away from the rest of society - were relatively unscathed and now in greater need of labor. In capitalist society, the working class itself is the primary productive force of society, which gives the machines and everything else their ability to produce: nothing runs without us, nothing exists without us. There can't be surplus labor to sustain the capitalist class which depends on it without there being a sufficiently advanced productive force in society that allows for there to be surplus labor, and this is why our exploitation has increased exponentially, through the empowerment of the exploitative classes, as we have worked so hard to increase our productivity as a society. There are no workers without non-workers, and there is no surplus value without value which is not. Everything depends on each other to exist, and the abolition of the workers destroys the system. This is why the working class is the revolutionary class in our society - because through our self-abolition we can abolish these distinctions. Capitalism didn't create the concept of surplus labor, which necessarily implies exploitation - it just is the advancement of class monopoly on production in the modern world.

The functional purpose of the control of reproduction, then, serves the purpose of allowing control over production; specifically, it allows control over the working class which is the primary productive force in our society, and control over our population. By relegating this status to women and subsuming them to men, we have re-created the power relationship that exists between the powerful and the exploited within our own interpersonal relationships. The differentiation between the social and our individual lives is responsible for the obfuscation here, and it is no coincidence that fascists and conservatives are so eager to turn women - here defined solely by their reproductive role - into nothing more than what they've defined them as - "baby makers". Women are valued in our society completely and totally based on their ability to make more workers to increase production, which is included in their capacity as free house-laborers, and explains why it is so hard for some people to see transwomen as actual women - because our definition of what is "woman" is defined based on the uterus. An old woman who cannot produce offspring - a hag, a witch, whatever - is useless to this society. A feminist woman who refuses to be a baby-maker is useless to this society. A good-looking woman who does what she's told and will make and raise many children - that is what a conservative sees as beautiful and it is what contributes to the creation of more surplus labor value for the blood-sucking parasites to guzzle down like liquid money.

e: just to be clear, though, i haven't gotten to questions 3 and 4 yet

[Mr. Piccolo]

Sometimes sexism toward women can take anti-natalist forms as well. Conservatives (and even some liberals) often rant about welfare mothers with a large numbers of children supposedly milking the welfare system. The Bell Curve was a product of anti-welfare mother hysteria.

[RedWorker]

Sometimes sexism toward women can take anti-natalist forms as well. Conservatives (and even some liberals) often rant about welfare mothers with a large numbers of children supposedly milking the welfare system. The Bell Curve was a product of anti-welfare mother hysteria.

Usually reactionary phenomena has contradictory representations. E.g. "in communism nobody will want to study to be a doctor, everyone will choose the lowest job", "in communism nobody will want to be the garbage man, everyone will choose the highest job". Also, "communists are jealous workers who hate rich people" and "communists are annoying rich kids who will never be workers".

Here it is also true. Sexists usually promote the gender role of women as breeders and care-givers. e.g. Stalin banning abortion and encouraging more children. Along with countless other examples.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Usually reactionary phenomena has contradictory representations. E.g. "in communism nobody will want to study to be a doctor, everyone will choose the lowest job", "in communism nobody will want to be the garbage man, everyone will choose the highest job". Also, "communists are jealous workers who hate rich people" and "communists are annoying rich kids who will never be workers".

Here it is also true. Sexists usually promote the gender role of women as breeders and care-givers. e.g. Stalin banning abortion and encouraging more children. Along with countless other examples.

I agree. Dick Gregory once made a similar comment about white attitudes toward black reproduction. Basically, in the days of slavery white plantation owners pressured their slaves to be as fertile as possible to expand the slave labor force. However, after the end of Jim Crow and the development of the welfare state, the descendants of the plantation owners complained about black fertility because now they saw black children as a cost and not a benefit.

[consuming negativity]

I agree. Dick Gregory once made a similar comment about white attitudes toward black reproduction. Basically, in the days of slavery white plantation owners pressured their slaves to be as fertile as possible to expand the slave labor force. However, after the end of Jim Crow and the development of the welfare state, the descendants of the plantation owners complained about black fertility because now they saw black children as a cost and not a benefit.

and it just so happens that the current narrative is that the welfare system designed for the disadvantaged is the method by which black children are able to be a "drain" on society because of (black) women with uncontrolled reproductive capacity

[Quail]

really? nobody wants to help me?

fine, fuckers.

Calm down a bit. Tbh I didn't actually see this thread, but I will get round to looking at it properly as soon as I have time.

[Hexen]

You have to remember that gender and even the concept of 'biological sex' are all social constructs and they don't actually exist.

[The Disillusionist]

You have to remember that gender and even the concept of 'biological sex' are all social constructs and they don't actually exist.

Really? Do you science at all? :ohmy:

Psychologically, I am actually of the belief that men and women are far more similar than they are different. And yes, there is a spectrum of gender and "biological sex". Gender is a social construct. Biological sex is not.

But some people have ovaries and some have testicles. Those extra cellular structures are in fact the result of scientifically-demonstrable processes. The same goes for hormones, which are widely understood to influence human behavior. The same also goes for chromosomes... our foundational genetic structures are different.

Biological "sex" is a thing. We wouldn't exist if it wasn't, reproduction would not be possible.

However, if people feel that their genders are different from the biological sex they were born with, then I say let them be the gender they want to be, and let them undergo procedures to be the biological sex they want to be.

I can't stress this enough, because people misunderstand it EVERY TIME I bring anything like this up, because Marxists are a primitive breed and don't believe in modern science: NATURALISTIC FALLACY- The assumption that just because something is, that it ought to be. My own translation: We shouldn't build social structures around biological differences between people. We're all much more similar than we are different.

Summary: Just because biological sex exists doesn't mean we should oppress people over it.

[Invader Zim]

You have to remember that gender and even the concept of 'biological sex' are all social constructs and they don't actually exist.



Nonsense. Like some other person on here a few weeks ago, you've either been reading Judith Butler, or at least heard some basdardisation of her already convoluted philosophising on the gender/sex divide, and made the catastrophic error of taking it seriously.

Leaving aside from a moment the question of intersex bodies - where do you think babies come from, storks? I have found an image that should help you:

https://younjukwon.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/1-s2-0-s0070215308004055-gr1.jpg

[Rafiq]

I can't stress this enough, because people misunderstand it EVERY TIME I bring anything like this up, because Marxists are a primitive breed and don't believe in modern science: NATURALISTIC FALLACY- The assumption that just because something is, that it ought to be. My own translation: We shouldn't build social structures around biological differences between people. We're all much more similar than we are different.


No, on the contrary, Marxists recognize biological sex only in terms of its practical relation to the process of biological reproduction - the point is that gender relations are not (solely) built around these differences, and likewise for you pseudo-scientists, certain behaviors exhibited by both sexes might INVOLVE their biological sex, but they are not reducible to them. But conceiving biological sex only in terms of the reproductive organs does not do much justice for what we commonly associate with it. To conceive gender as "being built around biological differences" is itself what we attack - because biological differences in sex have remained constnat, and yet in all historic epochs gender relations have changed - surely with the sexual slavery of women in common (and therefore "similarities" in some regards between them), but all expressions and manifestations of it constituting a different relation to its respective social totality.

It has nothing to do with any moral pretense about what ought to be, or what not ought to be. That is your own error. We Marxist,s on the contrary, recognize that obscufating the origins of a problem itself reproduce the problem. Richard Lynn and the authors of IQ and Wealth of Nations are absolutely opposed to third world poverty - they oppose its existence. But by grounding its basis in genetically based IQ differences, the solution they come up with is for "Western nations to give those countries more aid" or the implementation of a eugenics program in those countries. Can you not see how these "solutions" exemplify existing relationships of power between the impoverished brown people and international capital?, i.e. the white man's burden, and so on?

[BIXX]

Sex is a social construct though- just like a penis doesn't make you a man, a penis doesn't make you biological sex male. It just means you have a penis, and may have the capacity to reproduce. The whole "you're biologically male!" thing is such massive bullshit because it is just an attempt to turn towards a scientific justification for a new binary.

[Invader Zim]

Sex is a social construct though-

Not in the context of discussing science - and 'sex' is a biological term: in such disucssion, gender is understood to be the social construct.


just like a penis doesn't make you a man

You confuse male anatomy with masculinity. It is perfectly possible to have a discussion about the former while acknowledging the latter. Indeed, it is so well understood that it goes without saying for the most part. This isn't the 1960s.


a penis doesn't make you biological sex male.

Anatomy =/= gender identity

You can be a man, hold a masculine identity, and not have a penis. Nobody is suggesting any different. Indeed, The Disillusionist spent the majority of their post making that qualifier crystal clear, precisely to address your "point".


The whole "you're biologically male!" thing is such massive bullshit because it is just an attempt to turn towards a scientific justification for a new binary.

No. It really isn't. It just means that when scientists, social scientists, and others are talking about 'sex' they are talking about biology, not idenity.


No, on the contrary, Marxists recognize biological sex only in terms of its practical relation to the process of biological reproduction - the point is that gender relations are not (solely) built around these differences, and likewise for you pseudo-scientists, certain behaviors exhibited by both sexes might INVOLVE their biological sex, but they are not reducible to them. But conceiving biological sex only in terms of the reproductive organs does not do much justice for what we commonly associate with it. To conceive gender as "being built around biological differences" is itself what we attack - because biological differences in sex have remained constnat, and yet in all historic epochs gender relations have changed - surely with the sexual slavery of women in common (and therefore "similarities" in some regards between them), but all expressions and manifestations of it constituting a different relation to its respective social totality.

Which doesn't at all contradict what The Disillusionist wrote when s/he made precisely that distinction:

"And yes, there is a spectrum of gender and "biological sex". Gender is a social construct. Biological sex is not."

[Rafiq]

Which doesn't at all contradict what The Disillusionist when s/he made precisely that distinction:

"And yes, there is a spectrum of gender and "biological sex". Gender is a social construct. Biological sex is not."

He made the assertion that "social structures were built around biological sex" as though they were merely a "mistaken" logical extension of the "objective" existence of biological sex. And regarding the banal assertion that gender and sex are not identical I think any sane person would accept such a premise too: The point is - what constitutes biological sex? To what extent?

I claim for humans it does not extend beyond the existence of reproductive organs. Even in primitive societies there were gender relations that constituted externality from what can constitute "biological sex" (because the regulation of sex was, even if vastly less complex than today, still necessary to sustain such societies and their reproduction).

It is the mistake of empiricists to conflate the whole continental school with postmodern relativism. Disillusonist can think that he's "dragging Marxists into the modern era" as though Marxism has remained stagnant since the 19th century, but we have the rich legacy of western Marxism to abide by. The last great Marxist theoretician was a certain Louis Althusser, who died in 1990. Who was the last great analytical philistine? Is it Chomsky, who was spent no time bothering with philosophy at all and has instead taken his analytic foundations as an unquestioned given? He falsely attributed the rejection of the notion of biological sex to "primitive Marxists" when in fact classical Marxists would probably be the most inclined not even to heavily bother with such questions. It is simply inadmissible that we allow this clown to go around harking about Marxism when in fact they have as much familiarity with it as your average journalist.

[Invader Zim]

He made the assertion that "social structures were built around biological sex" as though they were merely a "mistaken" logical extension of the "objective" existence of biological sex. And I think any sane person would accept such a premise too: The point is - what constitutes biological sex? To what extent?

Plainly, biology and nothing more; the clue is in the term 'biological sex'. The social construct is the creation of cultural structures, identities, and expectations for behaviour based on biological features. All of which comes under the label gender. These is no argument here Rafiq, we are all on the same page. Biological sex is just that - everything else is gender.


I claim for humans it does not extend beyond the existence of reproductive organs.

It does not necessarily even extend that far, given that human beings can hold an array of reproductive organs. The term sex is useful only in thinking on that level - it has no utility beyond that - which, again, The Disillusionist made perfectly clear.

[Rafiq]

Don't you think the claim: "Gender relations were built around biological differences" implies that they were merely the structural consequence of them? Why else would he go on about what he thinks we falsely attributed to him, the "naturalistic fallacy" and so on?

[Invader Zim]

Don't you think the claim: "Gender relations were built around biological differences" implies that they were merely the structural consequence of them?
Only if you choose to read nuance into what was stated which isn't actually in the text. there is no need to assume that because someone says that social constructions have been built around biological differences to assume that the biological differences cause the cultural distinctions which have emerged. If the The Disillusionist was making that point, then they can correct me. In which case they are indeed wrong.

[consuming negativity]

Calm down a bit. Tbh I didn't actually see this thread, but I will get round to looking at it properly as soon as I have time.

haha, sorry quail. that's just how i talk in normal conversation. i like to curse a lot and it's really a sign of familiarity and endearance if i curse around someone, because i'm assuming they know that i don't mean it. i enjoy this stuff, i wasn't mad at anybody, but i'll try to keep in mind that my text is what it is and that it's open to interpretation once i put it up here. the reminder is appreciated either way, though - thank you.

[Rafiq]

My own translation: We shouldn't build social structures around biological differences between people. We're all much more similar than we are different.

What are the implications of this?

[Invader Zim]

What are the implications of this?

Precisely what I said:

"The social construct is the creation of cultural structures, identities, and expectations for behaviour based on biological features."

Which means precisely what it says - that human societies have created social constructed ideas around biological features. It does not imply that the biological features have created those socially constructed ideas - societies have, and arbitrarily, which is why both geographically and historically those social constructions vary considerably. Again, the clue is in the term: 'social construction', not 'biological construction'.

As for the question of building social constructions on top of these biological differences, the fact that it tends to result in negative social outcomes is very clear. It underpins notions of 'otherness' and creates arbitrary divides between human beings.

Now, specialists can debate whether biology does indeed inform how these constructions have emerged (communer's opening point) - but that is a debate I am unqualified to pass serious comment on. As a person grounded very much in the humanities, as opposed to the biological sciences, I personally do not believe so - or if it is then it seems to be usually highlly overstated. But not being a scientist, I do not have sufficient understanding of the evidence to pretend that my dull hypothesis on this is correct. There may well be various biological underpinnings for certain types of behavior, but it seems clear that biology can, at best, have only a tiny influence on this.

[The Disillusionist]

Only if you choose to read nuance into what was stated which isn't actually in the text. there is no need to assume that because someone says that social constructions have been built around biological differences to assume that the biological differences cause the cultural distinctions which have emerged. If the The Disillusionist was making that point, then they can correct me. In which case they are indeed wrong.

No, I was not making that point. I feel like the last two sentences of my post in question should have made that very clear.

[Invader Zim]

No, I was not making that point. I feel like the last two sentences of my post in question should have made that very clear.

Great. We are all on the same page. End of, then.

[BIXX]

Can someone tell me the actual usefulness of labeling someone's biological sex? Like, what can biological sex be used for that saying "so and so has xyz bits of skin hormones and chromosomes" (which, in fact, for medical treatment, is probably better as saying someone is a man or woman has certain assumptions carried with that statement that may be innaccurate).

Also just because the social construct of bio sex is based on what body parts you have* (whereas gender is based on your role in society*) doesn't make it not a social construct- it is just derived (rather shittily) from physical characteristics. But for example, what defines a biological male? Female? Intersex? How much of the criteria must be met for each definition must someone meet to be considered male, female, or intersex? By which method do we determine that at this amount of criteria met someone falls into those categories? How is that criteria not a social construct?




*I mean its more complicated than that and the way they interact plays a role but for simplicity's sake I'm not going into all that

[Invader Zim]

Again, there is no such thing as social construction of biological sex - something is either an innate biological feature or it isn't, how we label it makes no odds to the biological reality. Why is this difficult to understand?

[Rafiq]

The fundamental "binary" divide here has the point of reference in the process of reproduction. It is also useful in examining the physical characteristics that have gender-based connotations in our society - because we all know that gender relations are not "irrational", they exist in any society that must regulate reproduction in approximation to the process of production. In a potential post-capitalist society, there would be no need to regulate women's reproductive organs insofar as we could expect the spontaneous inclination to have multiple kids would end, because it is absolutely bound up with poverty and relations of private property (the necessary economic utility of children, high infant mortality rates, and so on).

Saying biological sex does not exist, is like saying gender relations do not exist. They do, whether one opposes their present expression (or existence) or not. The idea that what humans make isn't irrevocably a part of reality is completely paradoxical. Biological taxomony with regards to different species is also a "social construct" because it fundamentally hinges on isolating characteristics, wroughting them out that are only meaningful to humans. But again, its practical purpose, which is basically to identify different animals in relation to us, remains rational.

Likewise, the practicality of identifying biological sex is simply in reference to conceiving the process of reproduction. Reproduction is what makes biological sex real, and reproduction allows us to conceive the "excess" which is supposed to destroy the binary simply as contingent upon the binary created through reproduction. How useful this would be in a society that has no need to regulate human reproductive capacities, and so on, is quite lost upon me.

[BIXX]

But I didn't say that biological sex doesn't exist- it exists in the same way patriarchy, gender, and racism exists. Social constructs exist, its just that many of them shouldn't.

[Invader Zim]

Do you actually grasp what a social construct is? They are not immutable characteristics.

[Redistribute the Rep]

But the way immutable characteristics are categorized and conceptualized can be socially constructed

[BIXX]

Do you actually grasp what a social construct is? They are not immutable characteristics.

Sex is not the immutable characteristic though- its a system ofcategorization that is largely pulled out of our asses.

I do not dispute that there are people with this or that set of chromosomes or hormones or physical characteristics, but the categorization into different sexes is the think I have a problem with, primarily cause it is not a very good way of describing those characteristics. Furthermore its primary use in a social context is to attack trans identities ("Ah ha! Your gender is x but your biological sex is y!"- who even cares what's the point of bringing this up?).

[BIXX]

But the way immutable characteristics are categorized and conceptualized can be socially constructed

God damnit RTR. y u gotta be so concise

[Invader Zim]

Yes, but you aren't talking about biological sex, you are talking about linguistics and semiotics.

[BIXX]

Yes, but you aren't talking about biological sex, you are talking about linguistics and semiotics.

But biological sex is just the system used to categorize its not the actual characteristics.

[Invader Zim]

No, the labels and meaning we give to anatomy and physiology are what we use to categorise the innate.

[Sinister Intents]

No, the labels and meaning we give to anatomy and physiology are what we use to categorise the innate.

So because I have a penIs, testicles, and masculine appearance, that makes me male because it's innate?

[BIXX]

No, the labels and meaning we give to anatomy and physiology are what we use to categorise the innate.

Jesus Christ are you thick?

The system by which we do so is called biological sex. And those categories are inadequate for categorization anyway- any attempt at categorization will be flawed in the same way. The fact of the matter is that it makes more sense to describe people rather than categorize them, particularly so as 'biological sex' is then used as a secondary gender system for the policing of reproductive practice (or lack thereof).

[Invader Zim]

Jesus Christ are you thick?

The system by which we do so is called biological sex. And those categories are inadequate for categorization anyway- any attempt at categorization will be flawed in the same way. The fact of the matter is that it makes more sense to describe people rather than categorize them, particularly so as 'biological sex' is then used as a secondary gender system for the policing of reproductive practice (or lack thereof).

It isn't a case of my being 'thick', but rather your being inconceivably ignorant. Why do you still fail to understand what was made clear by both Rafiq and myself posts ago? To quote Rafiq, in unusually brevity:

"Marxists recognize biological sex only in terms of its practical relation to the process of biological reproduction - the point is that gender relations are not (solely) built around these differences, and likewise for you pseudo-scientists, certain behaviors exhibited by both sexes might INVOLVE their biological sex, but they are not reducible to them."

How would your 'descriptions' differ from 'categorisation'? The irony is that you seem to grasp, on a rudimentary level at least, that there is a difference between male and female biology, suggest we 'describe' as opposed to 'categorise', yet still try to claim that biological sex itself is socially constructed. When you type this nonsense do you remember to breathe? Again, do you actually know what the term social construction' means, or are you just parroting the term?

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the object and linguistic categorisation.


So because I have a penIs, testicles, and masculine appearance, that makes me male because it's innate?

Your biology is what it is, and short of surgery immutable. How you choose to identify youself is another matter. The latter is you gender. Have you bothered reading the thread?

[Luís Henrique]

Now, specialists can debate whether biology does indeed inform how these constructions have emerged (communer's opening point) - but that is a debate I am unqualified to pass serious comment on. As a person grounded very much in the humanities, as opposed to the biological sciences, I personally do not believe so - or if it is then it seems to be usually highlly overstated. But not being a scientist, I do not have sufficient understanding of the evidence to pretend that my dull hypothesis on this is correct. There may well be various biological underpinnings for certain types of behavior, but it seems clear that biology can, at best, have only a tiny influence on this.

My impression is that the issue is not that the "influence" is tiny - but that it is impossible to assess. Maybe if we had three legs instead of two, our society would be completely different (that's an idea for a SF story, maybe), and would historically evolve in totally different directions. But since we have always two legs, and never three, we cannot compare two-legged societies to three-legged societies and reach any significant conclusions about to what extent our society is determined by our two-leggedness.

Same regarding our two biological sexes.

About the biological differences that actually do exist (fair-skinned people vs dark-skinned people, tall people vs short people, etc.), and can consequently be assessed, they do not seem to have any important impact in our sociology or history. Or, at least, no one has been able to give any coherent explanation - or even description - of those supposed impacts.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

The fact that it is impossible to assess (or to reject completely) makes it a hypothesis and theory.....and while any hypothesis or theory may have varying degrees of credibility and assumed relevance to reality...this does not negate the fact that they are still hypothesis and theories based on assumptions which derive authority from subjective and contextual consensus.

[Hexen]

Really? Do you science at all? :ohmy:

Psychologically, I am actually of the belief that men and women are far more similar than they are different. And yes, there is a spectrum of gender and "biological sex". Gender is a social construct. Biological sex is not.

But some people have ovaries and some have testicles. Those extra cellular structures are in fact the result of scientifically-demonstrable processes. The same goes for hormones, which are widely understood to influence human behavior. The same also goes for chromosomes... our foundational genetic structures are different.

Biological "sex" is a thing. We wouldn't exist if it wasn't, reproduction would not be possible.

However, if people feel that their genders are different from the biological sex they were born with, then I say let them be the gender they want to be, and let them undergo procedures to be the biological sex they want to be.

I can't stress this enough, because people misunderstand it EVERY TIME I bring anything like this up, because Marxists are a primitive breed and don't believe in modern science: NATURALISTIC FALLACY- The assumption that just because something is, that it ought to be. My own translation: We shouldn't build social structures around biological differences between people. We're all much more similar than we are different.

Summary: Just because biological sex exists doesn't mean we should oppress people over it.


Nonsense. Like some other person on here a few weeks ago, you've either been reading Judith Butler, or at least heard some basdardisation of her already convoluted philosophising on the gender/sex divide, and made the catastrophic error of taking it seriously.

Leaving aside from a moment the question of intersex bodies - where do you think babies come from, storks? I have found an image that should help you:

https://younjukwon.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/1-s2-0-s0070215308004055-gr1.jpg

I see this forum's Brosocialist tendencies come into play where you enforce imaginary gender binaries by erasing Transpeople/Intersex people by saying that biological sex exists.

You're forgetting the fact that the human body is flexible.

[PhoenixAsh]

Unless gene therapy advances...The reality is that we will always have an X or a Y chromosome in whatever combination. You can't change that reality.

[Hexen]

Unless gene therapy advances...The reality is that we will always have an X or a Y chromosome in whatever combination. You can't change that reality.

I think you should (and everyone here) read this to see where I'm coming from: http://pastebin.com/3piAiS4n

[PhoenixAsh]

I think you should (and everyone here) read this to see where I'm coming from: http://pastebin.com/3piAiS4n

I know the arguments. I think that they are shite, foolish and confuse biology with social construction...but above all are wishful thinking. Arguments you made before that this that this erases trans people is beyond ridiculous.

The fact is...you either have an X or Y chromosome. This is a reality. Whether you identify with that X or Y chromosome or if you have an extra pair of them or how it is perceived in society or by yourself...doesn't really alter that fact...at all.

Nor does phenotypical expressions matter....as with XX males and XY females...which almost invariably have developed genital structures and is observably an aberration in meiosis....and have their respective labels (as indicated). As is AIS where the label is CAIS, MAIS or AIS as a prefix to male/female (again...most notably affects only male genitalia development). Or intrasex.

So the idea and concept that there is only a male or female biological sex as is proposed in these idiotic rants against biological sex....is completely uninformed.

And...before you start...humans don't change their X or Y chromosomes during their life. So unless you are going to argue that humans are in fact shrimps or lizards (which can change gender or chromosomal structures) or birds (in which homogametic and heterogametic gender expressions are inverted)...and animal classification is merely a social construct.........those arguments really don't fly or pertain to the subject.

[consuming negativity]

but they're just words used to describe things

there is nothing about a person that makes them "male" other than us deciding that they are male based on what we can observe about them

anatomy in and of itself does not actually differentiate people based on gender, and the idea of "biological sex" is actually just a way of pretending that our gender roles are biologically-based because we have classified some sex organs as "penises" and others as "vaginas" and consider some things to be "neither" or "intersex" because they don't fit into our arbitrary, useless classification system

like yes there is a biological BASIS for biological sex, but biological sex in and of itself is just scientific sexism. it's just a concept, nothing more.

[PhoenixAsh]

but they're just words used to describe things

Yes. And what it describes is real and is not imaginary. It really doesn't matter at all what you call it. We can call it hubblebub and hubblebbubba for all I care...the fact remains that it is the social structure which attaches meaning and connotations.

The rather unpleasant notion people here don't seem to want to deal with is that you either have a penis or a vagina or there has been an aberration on cell division which wasn't really supposed to happen...and we have different terms for these as well...we can rename them if you like...doesn't really change the biological reality of it though.

What does change is the social reality of it which attaches stereotypes and moralization. And there is the issue.


there is nothing about a person that makes them "male" other than us deciding that they are male based on what we can observe about them

anatomy in and of itself does not actually differentiate people based on gender, and the idea of "biological sex" is actually just a way of pretending that our gender roles are biologically-based because we have classified some sex organs as "penises" and others as "vaginas" and consider some things to be "neither" or "intersex" because they don't fit into our arbitrary, useless classification system

I think you have that the other way around. Our gender roles and gender identities are based on our biology (or in opposition to it) and how it phenotypically expresses itself and are defined as what we individually and as a society conceive about that biology. And that last part is what people seem to have an issue with and confuse that with the biological part while it is rather the social part and they seem to think that biological sex determines gender identity...which it obviously doesn't...but your physical reality sometimes won't match up with gender identity. It is however real.

Which is why a lot of people really want sex reconstructive therapy and...if science advances enough...I think we will see people try chromosomal corrections if it were at all possible.



like yes there is a biological BASIS for biological sex, but biological sex in and of itself is just scientific sexism. it's just a concept, nothing more.

No. It is not just a concept. It is the building block on which your phenotype is based...without that biology...you wouldn't exist. What isn't real is gender and stereotyping. That is not biology but based on social connotations and consciousness.

That biological classification system however is not so binary as you seem to think it is...nor does it say something about your gender identity or how society perceives your gender and gender identity.

[consuming negativity]

no, you have it backwards again - it isn't that it's not as binary as i think it is - it's that it's not as binary as YOU think it is. the idea of a penis or a vagina or a clitoris in and of itself is just a concept to describe something that you recognize exists on a scale. sure, it tends toward two general concepts that we describe, but they don't actually exist and aren't meaningful except socially when we use terminology to describe them. the fact that people want surgery to make theirs look more like part of the binary just goes to show the fact that, in reality, there really isn't a binary at all.

[PhoenixAsh]

no, you have it backwards again - it isn't that it's not as binary as i think it is - it's that it's not as binary as YOU think it is. the idea of a penis or a vagina or a clitoris in and of itself is just a concept to describe something that you recognize exists on a scale. sure, it tends toward two general concepts that we describe, but they don't actually exist and aren't meaningful except socially when we use terminology to describe them. the fact that people want surgery to make theirs look more like part of the binary just goes to show the fact that, in reality, there really isn't a binary at all.

You keep confusing biological sex or of it makes you feel better...assigned sex...(X or Y indicators...and a host of other labels) with identity and you keep attach meaning to the biological.

That does not alter any part of what is said here. You either have an X or Y or O indicator....each with their own labels. You seem to want to continue saying that that is not true and the only arguments you offer is to revert back to gender identity, stereotypes which society linked to it and the social construction around these facts. You seem to be under the impression that biological sex determines who you are and should be...and on a social level I am not arguing against that...but on a biological level it doesn't work that way. But you seem to say that it does.

Which is fine. But that ends our conversation because we won't agree on it and I am not about to run in circles to argue this very simple and reproducible biological fact with you.

[Sinister Intents]

There's an "O" indicator? Also couldn't it be said that the X and Y indicator only matter insofar as determining what genitals you will end up with?

[PhoenixAsh]

In grashoppers that is a male grasshopper as sex is determined by the X chromosome. (female grashoppers are XX)

In humans it is called Turner Syndrome and indicates a missing chromosome.

[Sinister Intents]

Outside of all of this: What does this say of people that feel they're a third or a fourth gender?

[BIXX]

There's an "O" indicator? Also couldn't it be said that the X and Y indicator only matter insofar as determining what genitals you will end up with?

Realistically not even that.

The fact is that the categorization that PA is peddling is just a "scientific" way to gemderize people.

[Sinister Intents]

Realistically not even that.

The fact is that the categorization that PA is peddling is just a "scientific" way to gemderize people.

It feels like he's asserting the non existent binary. Because apparently a dick and balls makes me biologically male cuz biology determined by liberal scientists.

[PhoenixAsh]

Outside of all of this: What does this say of people that feel they're a third or a fourth gender?

Nothing. Biological sex does not determine gender.

[consuming negativity]

In grashoppers that is a male grasshopper as sex is determined by the X chromosome. (female grashoppers are XX)

In humans it is called Turner Syndrome and indicates a missing chromosome.

chromosomes don't create sex, they create physical characteristics which we call "sexes"

language changes the way that we perceive the world

here's another example: there are cultures in which colors we have don't exist. they can't tell the difference between, say, red and yellow. but obviously there are different wavelengths, so why can't they see?

it's entirely to do with the language. they cannot conceive of the idea so they cannot see reality. have you ever noticed that when you're in a relationship with someone, they seem much more attractive than they did at first, and when you break up, they suddenly seem way uglier?

it's because our ideas affect our perception - that's the dialectical process that hegel described. and marx was the one who turned it around and realized that the material reality was shaping us as much as we were shaping it.

the point being, there's no real reason for there to be a differentiation of humans into sex categories. there's no real reason to say that a penis is a penis - why is it a section of a person in the first place? why are we drawing borders and dividing ourselves into sections rather than just seeing ourselves as the big whole? what makes a heart a heart or a vein a vein?

the fact that we perceive it that way

literally, in physics, if you attempt to observe an electron, it has an effect on the electron, which has no defined position until we see it as such

reality is what it is, but all of the borders we draw are artificial and meant to help us understand. it has no bearing on reality. we see what we want to see, and we think of it the way we do, and in turn we become what we are treated like. it's in physics, it's in our behavior, it's the dialectical process.

[PhoenixAsh]

Realistically not even that.

The fact is that the categorization that PA is peddling is just a "scientific" way to gemderize people.

The categorization I am "peddling" are the only categorizations there are on a chromosomal level...now...you can continue to confuse sex with gender...or you could provide an argument not relying on gender and gender identity to prove that there is another chromosomal indicator...but until that time you are simply wrong.

[PhoenixAsh]

chromosomes don't create sex, they create physical characteristics which we call "sexes"

Yeah. And sexes is our biological sex...and refers to our sexual anatomy....it is LITERALLY what that means. So don't lecture me on what is does...because I know what it does...I have been saying it the whole freaking time trying you to get it. Sex = Sexe = Sexual Anatomy but Sex =/= Gender an Sex =/= Gender identity.

And the rest of your post is nice and all...but like I said...you can label it any which way you want to label it...but you are still confusing gender with sex.

[BIXX]

Yeah PA you're incapable of listening to other arguments because we are not actually equating sex to gender but we are pointing out that sex is used as a very similar construct, only difference being it uses science to back its reproductive policing.

[Invader Zim]

I see this forum's Brosocialist tendencies come into play where you enforce imaginary gender binaries by erasing Transpeople/Intersex people by saying that biological sex exists.

You're forgetting the fact that the human body is flexible.

Read the thread.


Outside of all of this: What does this say of people that feel they're a third or a fourth gender?

Nothing because gender =/= sex. Again, as I said to Hexen, read the thread.


chromosomes don't create sex, they create physical characteristics which we call "sexes"

language changes the way that we perceive the world

Language does indeed change the way we perceive the world. But so what? Does recognising that mean failing to recognise scientific fact, e.g. how biological reproduction works - you know the very reason you are here able to trot out sophomoric platitudes?

You're not the only one here who knows who Barthes, Foucault, Butler, etc, are and were. But you make no case as to why they should be taken seriously, you just take it as read that their ideas are truths.


here's another example: there are cultures in which colors we have don't exist. they can't tell the difference between, say, red and yellow. but obviously there are different wavelengths, so why can't they see?

Actually the famous example is blue and green. But as you note, there are different wave lengths - whether an individual or culture is willing or able to recognise it. As a species we cannot see radio waves, but your TV still works because they exist.


have you ever noticed that when you're in a relationship with someone, they seem much more attractive than they did at first, and when you break up, they suddenly seem way uglier?

No.


it's because our ideas affect our perception - that's the dialectical process that hegel described. and marx was the one who turned it around and realized that the material reality was shaping us as much as we were shaping it.

How do our ideas and perception affect what chromosomes a person has?


It feels like he's asserting the non existent binary. Because apparently a dick and balls makes me biologically male cuz biology determined by liberal scientists.

Well done, that is quite possibly the most stupid post ever written on RevLeft and totally ignores what has been written by your opponent. A new low.

Your chromosomes are not a "non existent binary". They are what they are and they are immutable. There is no way to add the additional 'x' for a person with Turner Syndrom. Moreover, you seem to fail to grasp the difference between your chromosomes, which is what PA is talking about, and your 'dick and balls' - which, incidentally, can be surgically removed, your 'Y' chromosome cannot. But again, until you actually grasp what the sex/gender distinction is, which I'm sorry but you don't, discussing the more in depth elements of this topic will be fruitless.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah PA you're incapable of listening to other arguments because we are not actually equating sex to gender but we are pointing out that sex is used as a very similar construct, only difference being it uses science to back its reproductive policing.

I'm pretty sure that PA understands your "argument", but, as already noted, you don't know what you're talking about.

[consuming negativity]

Invader Zim, you can calm down or leave my thread. Thanks.

[Invader Zim]

Invader Zim, you can calm down or leave my thread. Thanks.
What if I say no? But given that, according to you langauge is all perception, do I actually mean no - and even if I do, does it matter (http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf)? And what does calm mean? What if I have a different understanding about what calm means to you?

[consuming negativity]

What if I say no? But given that, according to you langauge is all perception, do I actually mean no - and even if I do, does it matter (http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf)? And what does calm mean? What if I have a different understanding about what calm means to you?

go ahead and save your ego all you want, just stop calling people names.

then again, with moderation yet again on the side of


Well done, that is quite possibly the most stupid post ever written on RevLeft and totally ignores what has been written by your opponent. A new low.


shit like the above, most likely, i'll be forced to either abandon my own thread to derailment or sit and read a bunch of garbage because you can't show people respect

[PhoenixAsh]

Ah. I see that post is name calling? But the post IZ quoted was somehow not? Nor was there any other post in this thread that was name calling previously? Aha. Hmm.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah PA you're incapable of listening to other arguments because we are not actually equating sex to gender but we are pointing out that sex is used as a very similar construct, only difference being it uses science to back its reproductive policing.

No I am listening to your arguments. I have already noted that your arguments equate sex with gender by applying the same principles to it and ignore the fact that biological sex is not as binary as you make it appear.

And reproductive policing? You mean normativety? You do realize that it isn't because of science that most genetic expressions deviating from the X_Y divide can't actually reproduce but that science merely explains why these can't?

Now....we already have a name for all of the chromosomal expressions. We can completely do away with names and simply stop seeing biological differences
and why that is stupid and inane will become frightfully apparent when your baby is beings born and the doctor shoved his tools up your wives asshole because he doesn't actually have a word for vagina and doesn't know where the damned things is...you know. ..because as Communer explained in a previous post....if we don't have a word for it we can't apparently see it.


Now I am of course very happy to hear how you would call all the different genetic expressions and how this would alter the reality of these expressions in any way shape or form...but I won't actually hold my breath there that these arguments will pertain to biological sex rather than gender or gender identity.

[Invader Zim]

go ahead and save your ego all you want, just stop calling people names.

Pointing out the fact that your position is nonsense is not 'sav[ing] my ego'. And no, I'm not going to stop calling out stupid ideas and statements. And note, for all of your whining about moderators not doing their jobs, my posts are within the rules (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules).

"Excessive flaming is not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted."

Unless you're saying that my post was "little but personal insults", then wipe those tears away.


shit like the above, most likely, i'll be forced to either abandon my own thread to derailment or sit and read a bunch of garbage because you can't show people respect

Shit like the above? You mean a statement which attacks a post and idea, not an individual person? You know, rather like your calling my arguments a "bunch of garbage"? And Sinister Intents' argument is stupid, why should I "respect" a stupid idea? What about it demands respect?

If I said: "You're a hypocrite and a moron to boot", that would be a personal insult and name calling - saying an argument is totally stupid is not. Learn the difference.

But all your tears are, of course, are just to distract from the fact that you have no reply.

[consuming negativity]

look, i don't know where you went to law school and i don't care, if you can't be nice then shut up

[Invader Zim]

look, i don't know where you went to law school and i don't care, if you can't be nice then shut up

I didn't go to law school. What does law have to do with anything? And, remember, you're the one whining about moderators and in doing so brought the rules into the discussion. It isn't my fault that you haven't bothered to ever actually read them. So again, why should I be nice or respectful of silly ideas? If someone said some racist shit, would you object to my calling that dumb as well?


shut up

No.

[PhoenixAsh]

I find it kind of weird that both PC, MS and Hexen made objectively similar posts or worse before IZ...yet didn't get such a response that they should be nice or shut up. I am puzzled by that.

Either way

MS your wanted me to stop adressing you but that gets increasingly different when you ask me questions or refer to me in posts. So:


It feels like he's asserting the non existent binary. Because apparently a dick and balls makes me biologically male cuz biology determined by liberal scientists.

There is no binary as I have tried to explain to you...NOR does biological sex define your gender. It defines your anatomical structure which we call male/female or intersex. 3 options...which stop making it binary as per definition. We also have a host of other labels for various chromosomal and genetic realities which determine sex and anatomical structures....which are statistically (not to be confused with personal) so insignificant that they rarely occur above a percentage point in the population.

This means you have a dick because of your chromosomes and genes. This exists. It is real. It is not a social definition.

This however does not determine your gender or gender identity. Nor does this equate to you a normative value. It merely defines your anatomical structure. All the rest is either your personal identity or what society says about what they think you are and should be.

The confusion comes from the fact that a division on a biological level (based entirely on anatomically structures) define a host of sex expressions with a host of labels of wich the majority decide along the (prefix)male or (prefix)female as they relate to anatomical expression.

Male/female in biology does not automatically mean man/woman. Where the first set describes anatomical structures....the second set describe gender.

Gender binary does NOT mean the division of biological structures alone BUT the definition of biological structures into the equating gender expressions based on the the male/female devide.

This means that gender binary is this:

Because you are male or female means you are therefore a man or a woman...no exception.

THAT is gender binary.

It is a social construction based on a faulty application of biological sex and the moralization, simplification and generalitization about biological sex.

Biological sex however is NOT binary (as mentioned several times) nor does it determine gender.

This means that while your anatomy is providing you with a dick and balls....this does not make you a man (gender) perse....it CAN depending on whether or not you are. You do NOT identify as a man. But you do have a (prefix)male anatomy.

Now...we can do away with calling that anatomy male or female. We could call it, for example, preto and preta. And we can do away with the prefixes and conceive a host of special names for each of those. That however does NOT change the reality that you have a named anatomical structure that does NOT determine who you feel, think or are and may or may not align with your conception/identity/reality of who you are.

[Invader Zim]

The irony is, PA, that Rafiq made this same point in short form many posts ago. It is worth posting yet again:

"Marxists recognize biological sex only in terms of its practical relation to the process of biological reproduction - the point is that gender relations are not (solely) built around these differences, and likewise for you pseudo-scientists, certain behaviors exhibited by both sexes might INVOLVE their biological sex, but they are not reducible to them."

[PhoenixAsh]

It is one of the things he and I agree on.

For completions sake though....we need to ad issues such as 5ARD (exclusively pertaining to males) and their female equivalents. In which in some handfull of the cases a person ends up with a different set of chromosomes from their gonad expression. This has an occurance of 0.00001.1% and the gonad not matching up has an occurance of 0.000001% or less. So that is that amount of expression within their groups.Meaning that over the total population it needs to be multiplies by (roughly) 50%....which makes the expression even less common.

These conditions are because of an allele error caused by either a cellular division error and/or hereditary factors associated with inbreeding and with environmental issues (which means that they can be caused by both).

They are classified as 5ard intersex.

As far as we know none of these can develop a working set of the other sex gonads. The gonads expression can morph with age. Which makes that the closest thing resembling the sex alteration which is genetically coded within other species.

Individuals usually self identify with their biological chromosomal sex.The frequency with transport gender inside this group is about the same as in XY and XX populations.

The sex morphing of other species is however the norm. Depending on hierarchy all the individuals of that species have the ability...and will express that ability in the right circumstances. It is hard coded in their DNA...and will result in the morphing on functional level. Humans don't do this unless something goes horribly wrong and even then can't develop a functional set and develop an host of medical issues. Which is why such arguments are not relevant on a human level.

[Rafiq]

The irony is, PA, that Rafiq made this same point in short form many posts ago. It is worth posting yet again:

"Marxists recognize biological sex only in terms of its practical relation to the process of biological reproduction - the point is that gender relations are not (solely) built around these differences, and likewise for you pseudo-scientists, certain behaviors exhibited by both sexes might INVOLVE their biological sex, but they are not reducible to them."
My point is a very simple one, a Marxist-epistemological one: Truth does not exist in the abstract, divorced from practice. Different wavelengths only "exist" as definite categories we define because again, of its practical application, wrought out from - for example, knowing gold from blood. The question if whether these colors "exist" objectively, outside of our minds misses the point: because they entail a PRACTICAL relation between us, and the objectively existing phenomena (I.e. light). Our subjective relation to objective reality constitutes an objective condition.

Likewise for sexuality, it is true that biological sex, as some abstraction, does not exist. What wroughts it into existence is the process of reproduction - as a reference point. Reproduction is a practical process. So this is the true Hegelian conception of sex: reproduction makes sex real, not the other way around. The confusion arises with the reality that reproduction's practical expression is social: and that is the point of gender. Reproduction exists in approximation to the productive capacities, means of society. That is why even in primitive societies gender existed: out of this necessity (not an innate predisposition to act a certain way because of your sex).

What then, separates biological sex from just an abstraction, if it's expression is subordinate to gender relations? Precisely the reality of the GAP between them, precisely because as communists we know it is possible that gender can cease to exist, because it is NOT synonymous with biological sex - or an inevitability. Precisely because with Communism, reproduction will continue to exist without sexual slavery and gender: it is fundamentally this horizon, this reality that makes biological sex real. Of course it is INHERENTLY bound up with gender: but that is the point - going so far as to recognise the lack-of permanent identification with each other, it assumes the relative nature of gender and the eternal possibility of the appropriation of reproductive processes to the cause of Communism. It is entirely possible that in some future society life can be conceived artificially, without sex. It is possible that biological sex could cease to exist as a meaningful category for humans. But it has not. The practical process of reproduction remains.

[Sinister Intents]

I find it kind of weird that both PC, MS and Hexen made objectively similar posts or worse before IZ...yet didn't get such a response that they should be nice or shut up. I am puzzled by that.

Either way

MS your wanted me to stop adressing you but that gets increasingly different when you ask me questions or refer to me in posts. So:



There is no binary as I have tried to explain to you...NOR does biological sex define your gender. It defines your anatomical structure which we call male/female or intersex. 3 options...which stop making it binary as per definition. We also have a host of other labels for various chromosomal and genetic realities which determine sex and anatomical structures....which are statistically (not to be confused with personal) so insignificant that they rarely occur above a percentage point in the population.

This means you have a dick because of your chromosomes and genes. This exists. It is real. It is not a social definition.

This however does not determine your gender or gender identity. Nor does this equate to you a normative value. It merely defines your anatomical structure. All the rest is either your personal identity or what society says about what they think you are and should be.

The confusion comes from the fact that a division on a biological level (based entirely on anatomically structures) define a host of sex expressions with a host of labels of wich the majority decide along the (prefix)male or (prefix)female as they relate to anatomical expression.

Male/female in biology does not automatically mean man/woman. Where the first set describes anatomical structures....the second set describe gender.

Gender binary does NOT mean the division of biological structures alone BUT the definition of biological structures into the equating gender expressions based on the the male/female devide.

This means that gender binary is this:

Because you are male or female means you are therefore a man or a woman...no exception.

THAT is gender binary.

It is a social construction based on a faulty application of biological sex and the moralization, simplification and generalitization about biological sex.

Biological sex however is NOT binary (as mentioned several times) nor does it determine gender.

This means that while your anatomy is providing you with a dick and balls....this does not make you a man (gender) perse....it CAN depending on whether or not you are. You do NOT identify as a man. But you do have a (prefix)male anatomy.

Now...we can do away with calling that anatomy male or female. We could call it, for example, preto and preta. And we can do away with the prefixes and conceive a host of special names for each of those. That however does NOT change the reality that you have a named anatomical structure that does NOT determine who you feel, think or are and may or may not align with your conception/identity/reality of who you are.

I have no argument against this at all, at least nothing to add because of my limited knowledge of biology. I was pointing out how the point is being misconstrued from the points already brought up. I can't add value here unless I try, so I'm more reading to gain my points which I still don't feel are clear. If I see something I can effectively critique; I'll do so.

[PhoenixAsh]

...well yes...and of course for medical reasons the distinction is real....because certain sex (chromosomal) related issues (like for example XO) seriously influence the kind of treatment necessary for individuals to actually love longer. But that is another level...which does not influence or should not influence the gender reality.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have no argument against this at all, at least nothing to add because of my limited knowledge of biology. I was pointing out how the point is being misconstrued from the points already brought up. I can't add value here unless I try, so I'm more reading to gain my points which I still don't feel are clear. If I see something I can effectively critique; I'll do so.

Feel free to do so.

Go from what Rafiq said.

There is a tendency to confuse biological language with social constructions and social language by adding meaning to it beyond its intended use and equating biological principles designed from a specific purpose with social intents and purpose....because they are linked in some fashion but not the same.

It is also important to remember that while biology plays a significant part in determining aspects it does not determine the whole. Whether somebody has specific chromosomes or predisposition to something does not define the person. There are a huge array of factors that contribute to that....and don't necessarily align themselves.

It is kind of like a lame comparison. ...buy look at it like a coin.

A coin is made of something...Chemical bonds (biology) which determine part of what the coin looks like (phenotype). Another part of the coins appearance is determined by the stamp and mold (environmental and social influences). Neither of these determine the value of the coin, what the coin is and what the coin is worth. That is completely up to social construction....which is either how the individual looks at theirselves (which is largely shapen by society comparable to psychology) or how society views the coin (social factors based on epoch, morality, etc shaped ultimately by the consciousness arising from the material conditions)

Rafiq and I don't and won't agree on the details in this but more or less we are saying the same thing from another perspective.

[consuming negativity]

>I find it kind of weird that both PC, MS and Hexen made objectively similar posts or worse before IZ...yet didn't get such a response that they should be nice or shut up. I am puzzled by that.

maybe i didn't see them and if you did and said nothing, all you're really saying here is that you didn't do your job....

no, can't be, must be that i'm just out to get invader zim because ?????????

---

and you guys STILL don't get the fucking point, that biological traits and the concept of biological sex, ostensibly based on those traits, are not the same thing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Except unless there is some major breach of forum rules a mod can not and should preferably not mod a thread they participate in. I don't consider anything that took place in this thread as such nor as mention worthy.

I am not saying ypu are out to get IZ...I am alluding to position bias.

You don't seem to get that we mentioned that several times already. Except we don't use terms incorrectly. A biological trait is a feature the phenotype is the state of that feature. Which means that sex = trait + phenotype =/= gender. But sex is not phenotype. Nor is phenotype trait. This means that invariably you are (prefix)male, (prefix)female, (prefix)intrasex on a biological level. ....and woman, man, transgender, pangender, bigender, no gender ...or whatever...on the identity level.

[consuming negativity]

right - sex is not phenotype, it is a combination of phenotypes that we've decided constitute a grouping that we call "sex". we've even pushed it onto all the other organisms because we want to think that it's natural. but it only is insofar as nature doesn't exist and so our social reality can be considered natural by default.

there is no difference between biological traits and phenotypes, which are the expressions of genes.

>I am alluding to position bias.

thanks, much appreciated

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/trait_(biology).htm

[Luís Henrique]

Nothing. Biological sex does not determine gender.

Well, no.

And yes.

Biological sex does not "determine" gender, in that you can be biologically male and "genderlogically" female, or the other way round.

But gender is not merely an individual feature; it is a social construct. Typically, biological males will be socialised to be gender males, and biological females will be socialised to be gender females. A minority will somehow grow up in contradiction to this general rule (either by having a social gender opposed to their biological sex, or by rejecting the binary), but - as long as binary stays normative, at least - they will be a minority.

And in that sence, yes, biological sex "determines" the social gender that society will impose into its young members, and that imposition, in the vast majority of cases, "determines" the gender of each individual.

Luís Henrique