Is Gender a Social Construct?

Harry Hindu

This is not a rehash of any previous gender thread. This thread is meant to specifically question the theory (an assumption for many it seems) that gender is a social construct. It will deal with the logic of the theory and any case studies that either provide evidence for or against the theory that gender is a social construct. As a logical debate, logical fallacies should be kept to a minimum (no ad hominems because then you'd just be trolling).

Let's first start with where this theory originated. Dr. John Money was a sexologist and is recognized for developing the theory. Dr. Money tried to show that gender was a social construction in his (in)famous John/Joan experiment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/david-reimer-and-john-money-gender-reassignment-controversy-johnjoan-case

As you can see, the experiment ended tragically for David Reimer and his brother, not to mention Dr. Money's theory. David exhibited male traits despite Money's forced transition on him, both physically with hormone treatment and psychologically as raising him as a girl. And this doesn't say anything about the questionable things that Dr. Money had the brothers do to each other as part of his experiment, which is nothing short of sexual abuse.

So how did Money's definition come to be used today? Money introduced the terminology in 1955 and it wasn't until the feminist movement embraced it in the 1970s that it started to become more widespread. So, the motivation to propagate this theory was political, but not scientifically sound, as Money's tragic experiment showed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Some other flaws with the theory are the inconsistent way in which it is defined and how transgenders use the term. How can someone like a transgender claim gender to be innate if gender is a social construction?

Well, you might ask, if not for pink over blue, how does a person determine their gender? If gender is a social construct, then the only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture.

And if gender is a social construct, then does that not mean that transgender is a social construct?

Here is some scientific research that shows that gender is not just a social construct.
https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/

Based on this is it logical to assume the idea that gender is a social construct?

Terrapin Station

Psychological and social, yes. Different from biological sex.

There's nothing to debate, really. People can feel they are different than their biological sex says they are, especially in relation to the social norms that become associated with biological sex. It's handy to have a term for that. The term we use for it is "gender."

Terrapin Station

So in response to this:

"How can someone like a transgender claim gender to be innate if gender is a social construction?"

Re what I just wrote:

"Claim gender to be innate" = feel they are different than their biological sex says they are

"If gender is a social construction" = especially in relation to the social norms that become associated with biological sex.

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

It's obvious that you didn't read the OP or any of the articles therein. Another rule in this thread is read the entire post before responding, and try to respond in a thoughtful, not rushed, manner.

Terrapin Station

You can claim all the rules you want.

The fact that you'd expect anyone to abide by them just because you claimed them is comical.

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

and to think that you'd get a response is just a waste of your own time.

Terrapin Station

I don't post in order to get a response. I post because I have something I want to say. It's up to you if you're interested and want to respond. I couldn't care less if any particular person is interested.

And if someone is going to respond like a jerk, I'd much rather they didn't respond at all.

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

and what you said is cherry-picking and incoherent, so I'm not interested.

Terrapin Station

↪Harry Hindu

Okay. You should probably keep responding to me then.

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

The OP is the response to your claims. Because you didn't read it you don't get that. I would simply suggest that readers go back and read the OP in its entirety after reading your posts as that is how I would respond. Your contention is addressed in the OP.

Terrapin Station

What part of your initial post do you believe addresses anything I said?

Judaka

↪Harry Hindu

My understanding is that transgender people don't all have the same understanding. Some think they were born the wrong sex (relative to their brain) while others think they experience gender dysphoria for other reasons and believe transitioning was the best option which would make them happy.

Some people call themselves non-binary and genderfluid. So I guess those guys think gender is socially constructed and they can swap as they want.

Gender is clearly NOT a social construct, I think far, far less is socially constructed than many people assume.
I agree that the incentive for socially constructed gender was philosophical and people would be drawn to it whether science was with them or not.

Terrapin Station

↪Judaka

If there's no social norm element to it, it's not clear how anyone would feel that they're different than their biological sex, because however they feel would be an upshot of what their biological sex happens to be.

kill jepetto

No.

It's penis/vagina logic; because homosexuals exist doesn't abolish the reproductive status quo.

Homosexuality is the abstract case, I don't care how sugar coated the topic is for their social security.

Penis's/vagina's are opposites that work in harmony, and this is gender.

Baden

So, this is going about as well as expected.

kill jepetto

↪Baden

Being honest, Baden, it's a stupid topic.

Artemis

↪Baden

:lol:

↪Judaka

↪Harry Hindu

Gender is by definition a social construct. Sex is biology. There may be some behaviors that are related to sex, but by and large everything we socially identify with gender is just constructed. Like skirts. Men in other cultures anf throughout history have worn skirts (kilts, togas, etc.). The color for boys used to be pink/red cause it symbolizes power and strength.

The social experiment you link to is interesting, but it's just one case and thus not really proof of anything. It's impossible to tell what of his problems were due to the experiment itself, the tension of the experiment in relation to societal expectations, or just his own brain malfunctioning indepently of all that.

fdrake

You're making the same arguments you were in the previous thread.

Echarmion

↪Harry Hindu

Claiming that gender is a social construct doesn't imply that individual gender identity is not based at least partially on biological factors. It just means that the traditional binary distinction between genders doesn't accurately reflect biological factors.

Some other flaws with the theory are the inconsistent way in which it is defined and how transgenders use the term. How can someone like a transgender claim gender to be innate if gender is a social construction? — Harry Hindu

The phrase "gender is a social construct" refers to the binary gender system. The criticism is that it excludes transgender people, who feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity.

And if gender is a social construct, then does that not mean that transgender is a social construct? — Harry Hindu

No, since transgender is a term for people not properly represented by a binary gender system. It's not an independent system.

Taneras

↪Terrapin Station

It's handy to have a term for that. The term we use for it is "gender." — Terrapin Station

Or "individual", assuming there are literally an infinite amount of genders that people can identify as. At that point you might as well acknowledge that if you categorize and quality literally everything that no two people are exactly alike and we can just see everyone as individuals and throw away all of the nomenclature I've seen thrown around over the last half decade integrating anything from temperature to animals into gender terms and phrases. At that point, at least to me, it's getting out of hand and quite frankly silly.

All of the above can be ignored if we're going to stick to two, or at most, a few different types of gender.

Taneras

It just means that the traditional binary distinction between genders doesn't accurately reflect biological factors. — Echarmion

Neither does the claim that people have 10 toes, because some people are born with less or more. There's almost always exceptions to rules relating to this sort of thing, I don't see why this case is any different.

For the vast majority of people the genders do accurately reflect biological factors, most men and most women are wired differently.

bert1

Gender is by definition a social construct. — NKBJ

What does 'gender' mean then? And can you give some examples of it?

I think gender roles, or gender stereotypes, are at least partly socially constructed. But I don't think what gender people feel they are is predominantly socially constructed. What one feels oneself to be and the roles one adopts in society are logically distinct things.

Echarmion

Neither does the claim that people have 10 toes, because some people are born with less or more. There's almost always exceptions to rules relating to this sort of thing, I don't see why this case is any different. — Taneras

Sure, all categories are ultimately constructed. But whether or not I am a human with 10 toes does not carry many consequences, being considered male or female does.

For the vast majority of people the genders do accurately reflect biological factors, most men and most women are wired differently. — Taneras

I think you're overstating your case a bit, in the absence of any reliable numbers. Sure many people get along with two genders just fine. But it's not just transgender people that get pigeonholed by gender roles. You can probably find people who don't fit into common gender roles in every classroom.

BC

↪Harry Hindu

We have some reasons to minimize genetic influence: being controlled by genes (mere molecules) gets in the way of our determination to be whatever we want to be, however and wherever. Social construction is just egotism: I can be anything I want to be! Children are told that they can grow up to be president of the United States. (During a persons life between 25 years and 85 years of age, at the most 15 people can be president. 299,999.985 out of 300 million are not going to be president. But hey, it could be you, little Hillary, Elizabeth, Amy, Betsy, William, Richard, George, Ronald...)

I'm somewhat persuaded (not going overboard) that our behavior is largely genetically directed. Since we have apparently exhibited cultural traits for a very long time, I think we can safely say that "some sort of culture" is a biological trait. The detailed expression of culture, though, is learned and can be innovated. Use of language is ancient and genetic; book publishing is a mere 700 year old innovation.

Genetically directed sex-role behavior is ancient; the ink hasn't dried yet on the up-to-the-minute cultural innovations in gender theory. The various "gender categories" (numbering in the dozens) suggests that a lot of the ink of gender thinking is not only still wet, but that a lot of it is also malarky. Yes, with hormones, costuming, and surgery a man or a woman can carry role playing to an extreme.

Technology, business practices, trade, corporate power, and so forth have lowered the economic value of individual human beings. As individual value has decreased, irrelevance has increased. The unpleasant fact is, that whether one is a male human or a female human is just less important than it used to be. Outside of being consumers, a lot of people have no economic utility at all. It just doesn't matter much which "gender" they want to play at. They are free insofar as they as they serve an economic function.

Biology plays a long-run game. The details of culture are just daily news. Oliver is now Olivia. George is gender fluid. Amelia wants to be a Navy Seal. It turns out that the serial killer called the Cannibal King is Emma Johnson.

bert1

Social construction is just egotism: I can be anything I want to be! — Bitter Crank

That's not social construction.

Nor are people with genuine gender disphoria, as far as I understand, in a position to freely choose what gender to identify with, any more than gay people choose to be gay.

Artemis

↪bert1

I already gave some examples. Others might be who cooks, cleans, and likes pretty things versus watching sports, working outside of the house, etc.

Gender doesn't feeeeel like anything. And neither does biological sex. That's like describing what it feels like to have blue eyes or brown hair or ten fingers.

bert1

Others might be who cooks, cleans, and likes pretty things versus watching sports, working outside of the house, etc. — NKBJ

These are activities, not genders.

bert1

Gender doesn't feeeeel like anything. And neither does biological sex. — NKBJ

This seems absurd to me.

Artemis

↪bert1

No duh. And they are associated with gender roles. Hence the entire case for calling gender a social construction and sex biological.

bert1

Are we talking about genders or gender roles? They are different.

Artemis

↪bert1

Well, "absurd" isn't really a counterargument. I'll be here when you've got some explanation as to what gender "feels" like rather than just a knee-jerk dismissal.

Is Gender a Social Construct?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions