What would be an example of denying biology?

believing that there are no sex differences and that apparent differences are due to socialization alone.

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying here. My description here works with whatever hypothesis you want to propose. I'm talking about the social fact belonging to gender and sex.

Regardless of the specific biological or environmental causes, any one who thinks, for example, that having penis makes them male, is constituted by a certain social fact.

If they had, for example, instead been taught/imagined that having a penis meant they were not male, then their experience would be a lot different. They wouldn't think they needed to become male. If the had a sense of a body with penis, it would be about becoming that not male body.

My point here are not to explain why people are trans or not, but to point out our identities have been built out of social influence, regardless of any specific causes which make anyone present one identity or another.

The classic "born in the wrong body" idea of a trans person, for example, is built out of our social expectations regrading bodies and gender/sex. If one body's didn't matter to gender/sex, there would be no need for someone to switch identities because of their sense of body. A person with a penis and dysphoria, for example, could go through a body changes, have SRS, yet have no need to become "female."

What is a sex difference and what would it mean to believe there are none?

Google sexual dimorphism in the human species if you are serious.

The vast majority of the wiki article on dimorphism is about difference of kind, not of degree, like the extravagant tail of the peacock, which a peahen does not have. There is a section on humans, but it only really talks about averages for items of degree, not of kind.

When is a difference in height between humans of different sexes a 'sex difference' and when is it not?

Height is a sex difference if no other variable but biology can explain why height differences between sexes occurs. Your question is flawed; there is no line that determines when a sex difference is a sex difference at all- there are only average differences that persists when environment is controlled for.

Why are so many folk so worried about the contents of other people's underwear?

That's as I thought. So if what you mean by sex differences is just differences in the averages of certain metrics, I'm just a bit perplexed at how that relates to the discussion. Has anybody been denying that differences in averages exist?

There are almost an infinite amount of qualifiers one can add to any comparison. Heck, you could even make an apples to apples comparison an apples to oranges comparison. They fell from different trees. They have different weights. One came from the side of the tree that got more sunlight. — Taneras

Yes, which shows that categories, like gender, are always somewhat arbitrary constructions.

At the end of the day its true that for the vast majority of people, their gender, socially constructed or not, matches their biological sex. — Taneras

So you say. But it seems to me that there are rather large movements that disagree.

By definition it has to be only transgendered people. Trans/cisgender is a dichotomy. Your gender identity either matches your biological sex or it doesn't. — Taneras

If your claim is true "by definition", it's also circular.

The problem I generally see with what you've said is that many people who push for more than two genders see gender identity/roles as very rigid. If you're a male you have to like all sports, fast cars, beer, young women, big houses, grilling meat, cigars, fancy watches, etc. If you like all but one of those well sorry you're not actually a male, you're somewhere between the male and female spectrum. Most people do not see gender identities as that rigid. And before you suggest that there aren't any reliable numbers for that just look at the 99.9% of people who are cisgender but don't fit the ken/Barbie doll check list for male and female. — Taneras

Isn't the fact that "most people" (I think we need some serious qualifiers here) think gender roles are not rigid evidence that gender is constructed? Gender roles are obviously shifting. In western countries, they have by and large become much more permissive over the last decades. This would not be possible if they were simply a result of biological changes, since biology does not change that quickly.

If "most people" were truely comfortable with binary gender, why has the notion of gender changed so much?

Yet their innate gender identity is conforming to the binary gender system. I pointed this out in the OP. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how that follows.

If gender is a social construct, then a gender's binary, ternary, decimal, unitary or sexagesimal quality is just another social construct. At any point a citizen of some culture could revolt and claim yet another "gender", but if it's not recognized by the culture, then it isn't what society defines as "gender". In essence, the individual would be non-gendered, or not part of that cultural heterosexual game that heterosexuals play. That isn't to say that they are unequal. — Harry Hindu

No disagreement here. Calling something a "social construct" is not a criticism in and of itself. Constructs can and should be judged on their usefulness and consequences.

A comparative example would be the identity of "uncle". "Uncle" can refer to the biological relationship between a male and his sibling's offspring, or could refer to the socially constructed idea of a male mentor, or role model, for a young person. If a male doesn't engage in the act of the socially constructed version, does he reserve the right to redefine "uncle" for his own purposes and declare that the term needs to be redefined to suit his own subjective idea? No. Of course not. In essence, they would be a non-uncle, or non-participants in that cultural construction. — Harry Hindu

Being a nonparticipant in a social construct carries consequences though. Which is why non-uncles may have legitimate reasons to campaign for amendments to the construct of an uncle.

The alternative hypothesis that I presented is far more parsimonious and is able to explain why even transgenders exist. — Walter Pound

You are going to have to explain why "sex realism", for lack of a better word, requires fewer assumptions than sex as an assigned category.

Needless to say there was hardly any gender identification before gay pride took over — kill jepetto

No gender identification, no gender rules before gay liberation? Not so. "Appropriate sex roles" for men and women have been in place and 'policed' for quite a long time. The language changes over time, that's all.

I don't know how old you are, but I was on the scene when "gay pride took over" (granted, in the backwater of Minneapolis).

You've heard of Christine Jorgensen? -- first (famous American anyway) transsexual -- that was in 1951. Transsexual surgery was enough of a thing before 1951 for him to have heard about it before he became her at a hospital in Denmark. In the late 1940s homosexuals were quietly struggling to be merely tolerated, if they were doing anything political. Pride was a ways off.

There have been what were/are called 'gender-benders' in the homosexual community -- drag queens, basically. That was so in the late 1800s, early 1900s homosexual community in Chicago, for instance. It's still the case.

There were a few transsexuals around when gay pride took over in 1969-70. Where else would a transsexual hang out if not at gay bars? They were not tolerated in most places. So, they were absorbed into the gay movement, whether they really belonged there or not. Maybe transsexuals are just drag queens taken to the logical extreme.

Gay liberation is a piece of social change; I wouldn't claim too much credit for it -- or blame either -- for the social changes that have occurred in the last 50 or 60 years. There are too many other changes in process. Women's liberation, black liberation, (and various other ethnic liberations), huge economic changes, and so on. If one takes a Marxist view, economic and technical changes are the foundation for social change. The Pill is a prime example. A new drug enabled huge changes in sexual behavior, because fertility became more easily managed.

Geographical mobility and omnipresent media are two other economic, technical changes that have brought about many changes -- some foreseen, many not, some desired, many greatly regretted, Look how cell phones have changed social behavior.

:up: Yep.

:up: Yep.

The classic "born in the wrong body" idea of a trans person, for example, is built out of our social expectations regrading bodies and gender/sex. If one body's didn't matter to gender/sex, there would be no need for someone to switch identities because of their sense of body. A person with a penis and dysphoria, for example, could go through a body changes, have SRS, yet have no need to become "female." — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is why I think the discussion is important. I have a feeling that a lot of sex changes, surgeries etc. comes down to social constructs and norms about "what is normal". Even today, even in the most progressive nations of the world, the woman/male norm of identity is still so strict within the collective mind that even if all laws about your gender identity says that you can be whatever you want and judging you is considered close to hate speech, the individual who's confused about their gender will still be confused.

Laws and general public acceptance of people who view themselves like this are not enough to welcome people into the norm of society. And when media keep trying to include them as a normal part of society, it airs much more like broadcasted freakshows than inclusion. Like the parent with outdated norms who try to act normal when meeting their son's new boyfriend.

The last 20 years have been a great push to improve societies inclusion in order to make better norms that respect everyone. But there's been a backlash in the form of conservatives fighting back. It's as it is always when political movements move faster than expected; the backfire is more complicated because the norms of society move slower. I don't think that there's any question that the fast progressive movement of many nations around the world due to internet and social media has caused a large backlash from conservative views and that's why we've had growing populist, racist, anti-LGBT and hate crime problems.

It's also not healthy that we have an entire narcissistic selfie-generation who goes so far as to do plastic surgery in order to look like a snapchat-filter (true case). This focus on the body, perfection (according to media and porn preferences) is seriously damaging on kids, teens and especially those with a confusion of their gender.

I don't think there's any point to debate whether or not these things and issues exist, they do. The question is what to do about them, how to improve society in order to keep mental health issues down. Because those issues are on the rise due to all this pressure everyone has on them and especially if you don't "normally" fit in with societies norms, you are in serious risk of depression and harm.

I think this conflates genetics with brain structure. — Walter Pound

No one is saying that gender and biological sex are the same thing. The whole point is that they're not the same thing. They can differ. You can feel differently than what your biological sex is.

I am not arguing gender is 100% biologically informed. I am saying people don't gender themselves based on whether they played with trucks or ponies as a child. — Judaka

Sure, but if social norms don't factor into it at all, why wouldn't any way you feel simply be what your biological sex is like?

If gender is socially constructed then that means it's a learned behaviour which means you can unlearn it. — Judaka

You are conflating social construction with personal choice.

Here's the definition of social construct per Merriam Webster:

an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct

Wikipedia says:
Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual.

Maybe, but I'm not interested in the ad hoc "just so stories" of evo psych preachers here. You don't go to the Flat Earther for an account of Earth in 3-dimensions.

I'm interested in people who are studying the subject in question, gender and sex, in relation to individuals, identities an society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is no "maybe" about it. The claim that sex is a social construct undermines centuries of scientific knowledge (and I was lambasted for questioning the status quo).

It seems to me that in order to keep defending this position, you have to get even more extreme. But lets deal with the logic of your argument.

If sex is a social construct too, then what is the difference between "sex" and "gender"? The distinction that was made between "sex" and "gender" was that "gender" was a social construct and "sex" is biological.

If sex is a social construct, then what about species? What is your benchmark for deciding what parts of reality are socially constructed and what parts are socially-independent (or what some might call "natural")? The difference between humans and apes could be socially constructed.

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. — Echarmion

Yet their innate gender identity is conforming to the binary gender system. I pointed this out in the OP:
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. — Harry Hindu — Harry Hindu

I don't see how that follows. — Echarmion

You said that transgender people feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity. I pointed out that they do adopt either role - the one opposite their "innate" one. They end up reinforcing the gender stereotype with their behavior, even to the point of changing their sex so that they feel more comfortable engaging in those socially constructed roles (their bodies (which TheWillowOfDarkness now claims is just another social construction)).

No disagreement here. Calling something a "social construct" is not a criticism in and of itself. Constructs can and should be judged on their usefulness and consequences. — Echarmion

Wouldn't you say that it would be useful for cisgenders to be able to recognize each other without having to look down people's pants (before getting to the bedroom) - maybe even more so now that we have this sexual/gender flux?

Being a nonparticipant in a social construct carries consequences though. Which is why non-uncles may have legitimate reasons to campaign for amendments to the construct of an uncle. — Echarmion

Being a non-uncle has no consequences apart from your own choice to not participate, which is why I chose that as an example of how we should view non-gendered people, which was the whole point of my argument.

I'm not going to go into a debate about the details of the study. Suffice to say that you should be open to changing your mind when presented with facts or at least indications that you may be wrong or at least misguided. Maybe you are, but you're coming off as simply stubborn.

In any case, even if your criticisms of the study are valid, it doesn't change my actual point: biology is not destiny. Just because most males have the potential to be stronger than most women, doesn't mean lifestyle (influenced by societal pressures) can't override that. Example: If a guy just spends all his days all day playing on his computer and never exercises or moves much, he's just not going to be as strong as an athletic girl who works out regularly.

gender simply refers to categories of genetalia and not form, but identity (females do, for the most part, look different to males); not 'gender identity'.

for ex. some gay people don't feel attraction to the female, because she looks like a female and males look preferable.

females are in different gender category to males, get with the picture and momentum.

You don't say the "alpha male lion, or is it a male, the female gets on top the female and there is sex".

you really wanna flair up this category then fine but I see it's stupid.

Yes, yes. We've already moved past that part. This is the assumption that the OP challenges. It is now up to you to move the ball forward with a new argument that addresses the logical inconsistencies that such a definition entails. — Harry Hindu

You're not reading carefully. My point is that there is no logical inconsistency, but that people need to carefully differentiate between biological sex and constructed gender. When you do that, there is no logical inconsistency.

Wow. Just, wow. If I had posted anything like this about transgenders, my posts would be deleted and I'd be called a "bigot". You can take David Reimer's word for it if you'd like. He specifically blames Dr. Money for his problems and his gender dysphoria. Here's the link to the documentary that the BBC article summarizes: — Harry Hindu

I've seen the documentary, thanks though.
And save your indignation. You can flag me if you want, but somehow I don't think any moderator is going to delete my post for questioning whether we can take a single person's word as THE TRUTH without serious inquiry.
David Reimer can blame anyone he wants for his mental issues, that doesn't mean he's right about the source of them.

So where is the consistent benchmark that we use for determining the validity of someone's feelings and claims as evidence for the gender or their confusion as to what their gender is? Is a transgender's brain malfunctioning? — Harry Hindu

I don't think you CAN feel a certain gender. You can like certain ways of talking, acting, and looking more. But that's not a "feeling" in the sense of identity. Like, if I dye my hair, it's not cause I "feel" like a brunette, it's cause I like to look that way.

I don't think all trans people have mental issues, but I do think the whole concept is metaphysically confused. Saying that gender is a social construct actually frees me to say that they can perform whatever gender or mix of genders they want to and it doesn't matter.

Also, I think some do have mental issues that they then attribute to their sex/gender.

believing that there are no sex differences and that apparent differences are due to socialization alone. — Walter Pound

No one (at least in the broader, conventional conversation in society) is claiming that. The whole idea is that gender is distinct from biological sex.

My point is that there is no logical inconsistency, but that people need to carefully differentiate between biological sex and constructed gender. When you do that, there is no logical inconsistency. — NKBJ

No one (at least in the broader, conventional conversation in society) is claiming that. The whole idea is that gender is distinct from biological sex. — Terrapin Station

TheWillowOfDarkness claims that sex is just another social construct.

The logical inconsistency is in how you are conflating social construct and some personal preference. I provided the definition of social construct above. Another inconsistency is the transgender's preference to participate in those stereotypes. If gender is a social construct and a stereotype, then abolishing those stereotypes effectively abolishes gender. Gender would then be a non-existent thing.

I don't think you CAN feel a certain gender. You can like certain ways of talking, acting, and looking more. But that's not a "feeling" in the sense of identity. Like, if I dye my hair, it's not cause I "feel" like a brunette, it's cause I like to look that way. — NKBJ

Liking something is a preference and a feeling. Your preferences are part of what define you.

TheWillowOfDarkness claims that sex is just another social construct. — Harry Hindu

Hence why I wrote "(at least in the broader, conventional conversation in society)"

The logical inconsistency is in how you are conflating social construct and some personal preference. — Harry Hindu

Where am I doing anything like that? What I said was "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."

That's not a conflation of the two. It simply mentions a relation between the two.

If gender is a social construct and a stereotype, then abolishing those stereotypes effectively abolishes gender. Gender would then be a non-existent thing. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, I've commented a few times in the thread now, in response to people who seemed to be denying the social aspects, that the idea of gender (re a way that someone feels) wouldn't make much sense if there weren't social norms about behavior in relation to this stuff.

David Reimer can blame anyone he wants for his mental issues, that doesn't mean he's right about the source of them. — NKBJ

Okay, so you can claim anything that you want but that doesn't mean you are right. Isn't that why we have things like evidence? Doesn't David provide that? Where's yours?

Hence why I wrote "(at least in the broader, conventional conversation in society)" — Terrapin Station

So, does that mean that you disagree with TheWIllowOfDarkness?

So, does that mean that you disagree with TheWIllowOfDarkness? — Harry Hindu

I haven't read any of Willow's posts in this thread. I'd have to go back and read them. But I'd at least disagree with the idea that biological sex is a social construct, if that's something that Willow is claiming.