Gender

[Darcy88]

Is it any longer meaningful to posit an essential difference between men and women beyond the merely anatomical? The past couple hours I've been reading Judith Butler and going over other people's interpretations of her. She basically argues that gender is non-essential, that rather than being feminine or masculine we actually only "act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman," and consequently "there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results." These gender performances are said to be the result of socially and culturally reinforced habits, rather than a reflection of any innate individual identity.

I've always taken a firm stance against such ideas before, but when I think really hard about what distinguishes men from women all the differences seem quite superficial. I can't rationally say that a man or woman ought to act in this or that particular way simply because they happen to be a man or a woman. There isn't a single psychological or behavioural generalization we can make according to gender which holds true for each and every individual, and we must ask that of those which do hold true in most cases, how many if any at all are the result of a static natural gender "essence," and which are merely the product of socially and culturally enforced norms? It shouldn't be considered some error, some mistake every time I cry at a movie, take great delight in clothes shopping, or wear the colour pink.

What do you make of this?

[JuniperWoolf]

I've always chose to completely ignore any notion of gender, I'd rather see others and myself as individuals. First of all, because this is true:

These gender performances are said to be the result of socially and culturally reinforced habits, rather than a reflection of any innate individual identity.

It would be difficult to argue against that, but I'm sure someone here will try. For now I'll just say that on a more selfish level, pigeonholing people's personalities according to socially-prescribed notions of "female" and "male" is a recipe for boredom. The people who think like that must be bored, because talking to them certainly is.

It's a self-sustaining illusion, those who heavily believe in gendered personality dichotomy are the ones that are influencing people to portray those traits. How can anyone believe that personality is dependant on a couple of minor endocrine secretions and the shape of one's genitals, as opposed to, oh I don't know, the extremely complicated and widely variable human brain? Well, say you're the type to sort humanity according to gender. You're the kind who, while talking to people, tends to make one or two gendered comments, like for example "typical woman, eh?" or "men, amiright?" or maybe you cleverly spit out a few "take my wife, please" jokes, all of that head-smashingly-boring, heard-it-a-thousand-times drivel. Even if the person you're talking to doesn't possess the stereotypical traits (according to culture and society) of their biological gender, they'll often start to act "masculine" or "feminine" because they'll want to behave according to your expectations (women are afraid of being considered butch, and men are even more afraid of looking effeminate). What's more, if you're a man talking to another man and you pull out a "women, can't live with 'em, can't live wiblahblahkillme," they'll usually go with it, because to do otherwise would be going against solidarity; the same would happen if you're a woman talking to another woman and bring out the "men are dogs" crap. You won't have many interesting conversations because all you see is just "women" and "men," not people. Your observations, which you had a large part in bringing about, have confirmed that this is the way of the world. Anyone who doesn't fit the bill must be looking for attention, or (and here's the old standby) gay.

So yeah, my primary beef against using gender to judge people's personalities is that doing so makes you, and your interactions and experiences with other people, extremely dull and blinds you to the truth of their character. I have more reasons, but I'll leave it there for now.

[qimissung]

I don't mind to continue recognizing someone as male or female, but I do so only along with lots of other information about their person and character. I think you're right, Juniper, in the points you've made. I've seen myself doing that concerning men. "Men!" But I've come to realize it's a matter of trust-that I lack trust in myself. It doesn't really have anything to do with them.

I'm all for people choosing their own gender, also. Because we just are-creatures who have a sentient existence.It's not any problem at all for a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy, or even a mixture of the two. Because we're already a mixture of the two. I don't think there's anything that defines what it is to be a woman or what it is to be a man. I do think there is something that defines us as decent or humane or otherwise, although that's largely cultural, also.

[WyattGwyon]

It is likely there are innate gender differences expressed as statistical tendencies toward certain behaviors or traits over large populations. I also think it likely these innate differences are far overshadowed by the effects of socialization, learned role playing, and the conscious choices of individuals. Most important, however, any such innate differences should have nothing to do with how we act toward individuals since any trait or behavior one chooses—perilously—to gender type, will be found with great frequency among persons of both genders. Bottom line for living in the real world: Treat people as individuals and make no assumptions about them based on gender.

[cafolini]

Gender is male or female. It's a biological thing and it could be heterosexual or gay. That's all there is to it. The problem of gender arises from the utter stupidity of assigning it to God.

[Charles Darnay]

I don't think male and female have to be seen as the exact same, even as a category of designation. I don't think there is anything wrong wanting to embody aspects of either. Here I pause to mention that gender (cultural definition) is separate from sex (biological) - so if a biological male wants to be a (gender) female, that's fine.

Now, when you start using the distinction between male and female for your own absurd gain, such as: paying women less money for the same job, excluding women from certain positions they are extremely qualified for - then there is a problem. But these problems, and others, don't need to be fixed by eliminating the idea of male and female. Gender neutrality is not the answer.

[Volya]

I don't quite understand how if you are biologically a man you can call yourself a woman? It doesn't really make much sense to me... :s

[cafolini]

I don't quite understand how if you are biologically a man you can call yourself a woman? It doesn't really make much sense to me... :s

Biologically, a male could be heterosexual or gay, and so can a female. I don't think you understand the word "biological." You need to grow up to it.

[YesNo]

Is it any longer meaningful to posit an essential difference between men and women beyond the merely anatomical?

I don't know if anatomical includes neurological differences or not, but Larry Young and Brian Alexander's, The Chemistry Between Us (http://www.thechemistrybetweenus.com/index.html) suggests that our behavior as male or female and even our sexual orientation is constructed by our brain organization and is not a cultural product. That means one can't turn a gay man straight by cultural conditioning. It also means one can't turn a boy into a girl by giving him dolls to play with as an infant.

[Volya]

Biologically, a male could be heterosexual or gay, and so can a female. I don't think you understand the word "biological." You need to grow up to it.

...When did I say men and women can't be gay?

[OrphanPip]

Gender is the association of social expectations, roles, and behaviors that society attaches to sex. Sex is biological.

Now I'm just going to highlight a key misunderstanding of the construction of gender. Saying that gender is constructed out of a network of signification and social understandings is not to say gender is completely divorced from biology. Nor would anyone who advocates this position think that gender neutrality is the goal of understanding the social construction of gender.

I don't care to use theory to defend the rights of transgender people, the issue there is simply basic human decency and understanding of other people's autonomous right to self-identification.

[Aylinn]

Finding someone to be 'a typical woman' or 'a typical man' seems to me a sign of intellectual laziness. Such people would like to have a simple answer for something that is more complicated. They are no different from people who lived, for example, two thousands years ago and who when they saw a flash of lighting, thought that it was some god's doing. A simple answer for a complicated phenomenon.

[cafolini]

Finding someone to be 'a typical woman' or 'a typical man' seems to me a sign of intellectual laziness. Such people would like to have a simple answer for something that is more complicated. They are no different from people who lived, for example, two thousands years ago and who when they saw a flash of lighting, thought that it was some god's doing. A simple answer for a complicated phenomenon.

I don't disagree completely. However, I think it was far worse than intellectual laziness. It was a game of malice as I see it. But it's true that some were victims of intellectual laziness. It is not that complicated in the final analysis. Gender is male or female. It's a biological thing and it could be heterosexual or gay. That's all there is to it. The problem of gender arises from the utter stupidity of assigning it to God.

[Calidore]

I believe one forum poster, who's only been sporadic lately, has said she's transgender. If she sees this and cares to discuss it, I think her input on the physical and psychological aspects of before and after such a change would be fascinating.

And just to put everyone on the same page and forestall semantic disagreements, Merriam-Webster has the following:

Sex:
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Gender:
2 a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So could it safely be said that gender itself is biological, but gender roles would be cultural and psychological?

[The Atheist]

Note that I am not arguing that people should be identified by their gender status, but I will argue that there are differences beyond the genitals.

There isn't a single psychological or behavioural generalization we can make according to gender which holds true for each and every individual, and we must ask that of those which do hold true in most cases, how many if any at all are the result of a static natural gender "essence," and which are merely the product of socially and culturally enforced norms?

As Pip has already noted, just because there are no universal behaviours doesn't mean that there is no biological imperative.

One of the things which has fascinated me as a parent is the realisation that boys are generally attracted to certain behaviour/play and girls are attracted to others, and our house is and has always been highly gender-neutral. There is much more than learned behaviour.

How can anyone believe that personality is dependant on a couple of minor endocrine secretions and the shape of one's genitals, as opposed to, oh I don't know, the extremely complicated and widely variable human brain?

It would be fairly disingenuous to claim that there are "a couple of minor endocrine secretions" when we know that there are some huge differences in those secretions.

I'm all for people choosing their own gender, also.

That's a dangerous statement, because people don't choose their genders, they are chosen for them, and it's a quirk of fate that some of the time their chromosomes don't match their gender. One of the first tenets of LGBT life is that you cannot pick your gender.