Wachowski Brothers, Nope, Sisters

[Errol]

All gender is socially constructed.

No it isn't.

[LC1]

No it isn't.

I was being a bit provocative perhaps, but yes it is

Biological sex is of course biologically determined, and sex hormones etc determine certain physiological differences between the sexes. Everything else (gender identity etc) is the collective norms and attitudes we have developed around these biological traits, and are by definition socially constructed.

[SarahBell]

Swedish Girl Shows Idiocy of Trans-Everythingism

I think the usual thing to say is

"You don't look like your dating profile says"

It's a good video. But one I feel uncomfortable posting on my FB wall for the outrage it will cause.

[Frank Hovis]

I was being a bit provocative perhaps, but yes it is

Biological sex is of course biologically determined, and sex hormones etc determine certain physiological differences between the sexes. Everything else (gender identity etc) is the collective norms and attitudes we have developed around these biological traits, and are by definition socially constructed.

Yes, it's the old QI type definition question.

Like name three kinds of nut where they rely upon the techncial scientific definition of 'nut' rather than its accepted usage.

So sex differences are all the biological ones and gender differences are everything else.

Although it's arguable IMO that the brain's biological features go a long way to determining gender. I doubt anybody would argue that there are no intrinsic but non-biological differences between men and women.

[Hail the Tripod]

I was being a bit provocative perhaps, but yes it is

Biological sex is of course biologically determined, and sex hormones etc determine certain physiological differences between the sexes. Everything else (gender identity etc) is the collective norms and attitudes we have developed around these biological traits, and are by definition socially constructed.

If you're just talking about the most superficial conventions like: "pink is for girls" then yes, that is clearly socially constructed.

You already agreed that the primary responsibilities of nurturing young for women and hunting and fighting for men are principally biological. So the real question is how much is biological, and how much is socially driven. I would say that the broadly similar conventions about gender roles, common to all known human societies suggest that quite a lot is biological, and relatively little is socially determined. If you looked at the rights and responsibilities and the daily activity lists of men and women in: Japan, Uganda, Papua New Guinnea, Imperial Russia, pre-Roman Britain, High Aztec, medieval Icelandic etc ad infinitum, you would have no difficulty in determining which was the biological women's role, and which was the biological men's.

Have you any evidence that supports the assertion that almost all gender role conventions are purely social?

[LC1]

So sex differences are all the biological ones and gender differences are everything else.

Exactly. People often confuse/conflate the terms, but they mean different things. They are of course very closely correlated, because 99.9% of us are incredibly well socialised and assume that these things are 'natural' (i.e. biologically determined) in the same way that we have either a ***** or a vagina. Agreed that sex hormones etc probably do have quite a strong influence on a range of mental as well as physical attributes/propensities.

[Bloo Loo]

I was being a bit provocative perhaps, but yes it is

Biological sex is of course biologically determined, and sex hormones etc determine certain physiological differences between the sexes. Everything else (gender identity etc) is the collective norms and attitudes we have developed around these biological traits, and are by definition socially constructed.

I agree. What I disagree with the current Lefty campaigns, is that everyone else, living in their norms, are forced to accept a pink haired, tattoed crossdresser as readily as a man or lady in conventional clothing for a position in workplace society.

I mean, look at the double standards when those self same social justice lefties moan about Trumps Orange hair...total hypocrasy

[LC1]

Have you any evidence that supports the assertion that almost all gender role conventions are purely social?

No, not just the superficial ones. When you say the biological men's role and the biological women's role, all I can assume that you mean is that men are typically the hunters/protectors/providers while women are the childbearers/nurturers/homemakers? And yes, that is pretty universal, for obvious reasons.

What I'm really talking about is the more subtle taken for granted gender roles & assumptions. It is even implicit in your question quoted above - you call them conventions, which is what they are, and so they are inevitably social in origin. Not so long ago it was unquestioningly accepted by almost everybody that a woman's place was in the home, and that if she should have a job (part time) then it should be something like a typist, or a shop assistant. These assumptions were assumed to be natural and biologically determined (women aren't capable of doing a man's job).

Anthropological studies show quite a wide variation in what men's work is and women's work is (ie notions of gender attributes) - women are often in charge of economic activity (bartering with other villages etc) and/or are the keepers of the family finances for example, which is antithetical to the Western tradition. When you strip all our assumptions back, then you realise that very little is biologically determined beyond the almost universal facts that men tend to fight the wars and women tend to raise the children.

Longer than I intended, but hopefully not too much of a ramble

[Bloo Loo]

Its extremely easy to overanalyse....so much so you take a position and find in a trice it is nonsense.

We are humans.. we are all different.

We dont NEED different toilets.

Thats a social construct. Decency too is a social construct, as is politeness. Ones own space is not a construct, it is a barrier to intimacy you dont want...tranny toilets break all these issues because you dont want a perve looking (or worse) at your bits and pieces, because it is indecent.

[ccc]

There have been a few interesting studies done on 'gender' using primates. I saw one on TV a while back.

The male youngsters go for the very same 'male' type toys to investigate as male humans do. Same for females. The odd exception of course - but it was really very very clear.

Baby burd monkeys went for the wee dolls and picked them up and cuddled them.

Baby bloke monkeys went for the toys that had wheels and things that moved and they could pull apart etc.

If anyone things 'gender' is a purely social construct - they really need to find these programmes on youtube or wherever.

And yes - I know we are not monkeys.

[Bloo Loo]

There have been a few interesting studies done on 'gender' using primates. I saw one on TV a while back. The male youngsters go for the very same 'male' type toys to investigate as male humans do. Same for females. The odd exception of course - but it was really very very clear. Baby burd monkeys went for the wee dolls and picked them up and cuddled them. Baby bloke monkeys went for the toys that had wheels and things that moved and they could pull apart etc. If anyone things 'gender' is a purely social construct - they really need to find these programmes on youtube or wherever. And yes - I know we are not monkeys.

The point is, if the boy wants pink hair and wear a dress, does that make him eligable for a sex change op?

It seems gender dysphoria has a whole host of treatments:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Treatment.aspx

[Hail the Tripod]

Not so long ago it was unquestioningly accepted by almost everybody that a woman's place was in the home, and that if she should have a job (part time) then it should be something like a typist, or a shop assistant. These assumptions were assumed to be natural and biologically determined (women aren't capable of doing a man's job).

I know that is held as fact, in the same way as people say before Columbus everyone "knew" the Earth was flat. Largely ****** afaict.

Plenty of women in just about any endeavour, if they had the status and desire to do so. Yes, most women were stuck in the home, but most men were stuck in the factory, mine, field. The fact is that until recently women did any jobs that weren't too physically demanding, and those were done by men. For those with wealth the better jobs were open to either sex, except the four closed shop "professions" (which is a social construct). There were probably just as many women of note in any given field (excepting the four closed shop professions) throughout the Victorian era as there are now.

Then, just as now, they were over-represented in certain fields such as teaching, writing, cleaning. For all the emancipation from oppression fanfare, women still choose to do much the same as they always chose to do.

Anthropological studies show quite a wide variation in what men's work is and women's work is (ie notions of gender attributes) - women are often in charge of economic activity (bartering with other villages etc) and/or are the keepers of the family finances for example, which is antithetical to the Western tradition.

Again a modern fallacy, fueled by the oppression narrative. From the Homeric epics onward this has always been the province of women.

[Bloo Loo]

I know that is held as fact, in the same way as people say before Columbus everyone "knew" the Earth was flat. Largely ****** afaict.

Plenty of women in just about any endeavour, if they had the status and desire to do so. Yes, most women were stuck in the home, but most men were stuck in the factory, mine, field. The fact is that until recently women did any jobs that weren't too physically demanding, and those were done by men. For those with wealth the better jobs were open to either sex, except the four closed shop "professions" (which is a social construct). There were probably just as many women of note in any given field (excepting the four closed shop professions) throughout the Victorian era as there are now.

Then, just as now, they were over-represented in certain fields such as teaching, writing, cleaning. For all the emancipation from oppression fanfare, women still choose to do much the same as they always chose to do.

Again a modern fallacy, fueled by the oppression narrative. From the Homeric epics onward this has always been the province of women.

Is the narrative a construct, or just a tradition because thats how it actually worked out?

Does the narrative demand resistance because it is really unjust to a few?

[The XYY Man]

Clever girl.

I think we need to cut through all this nonsense and have just three categories:

• men
• women
• a bit weird

Excellent work Francis - Now we're getting somewhere.

I am a member of category 1.

There is no doubt that I am a man as I have a cöck and a pair of balls. There's no social construct there folks, they are real.

By virtue of that physical reality, I am already sat at the top-table in life and cannot fathom why any blurk would want to change that.

You can have as many hormone-injections as you like, put on a frock, call yourself Francine and have both your knackers whipped off with a meat-cleaver - but you will still be able to reverse-park a car, and fully understand the off-side rule...!

The defence rests it's case m'lud...

XYY

[MrPin]

Its extremely easy to overanalyse....so much so you take a position and find in a trice it is nonsense.

We are humans.. we are all different.

We dont NEED different toilets.

Thats a social construct. Decency too is a social construct, as is politeness. Ones own space is not a construct, it is a barrier to intimacy you dont want...tranny toilets break all these issues because you dont want a perve looking (or worse) at your bits and pieces, because it is indecent.

Didn't have that then when I was at Uni. Mixed corridors. No urinals. I believe everyone sh1ts the same, although some make too much noise.