# Republicans' war on transgender people: Omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 3, 2022, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609 "2022-06-03T02:20:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 81
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1601 "2023-09-18T15:04:46Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Trans people don’t need to be taught to be trans, that’s where YOUR analogy breaks down. You have just repeatedly precisely what I said. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1602 "2023-09-18T15:07:23Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > e.g. Humans with male genitalia through puberty generally have higher testosterone and therefore higher aggression, on average. Society can direct that aggression into “Rape and pillage neighbouring kingdom” or “Kick ass on the football field” but it doesn’t invent male physicality entirely. > So I wouldn’t say it is outright wrong to say that the gender constructs have _some_ degree of mapping to nature. Certainly, _some_ of the traits have their basis in biological traits. After all, these societies didn’t form in a vacuum. We’ve had societies (in the sense of systems that govern our behavior with regards to each other) for far longer than we’ve been human - almost all primates are highly social animals. Lemur, baboon, and chimp societies all form the way they do in part due to physical traits. Bonobos and chimps are different both in social structure - male chimps aggressively fight over groups of females, while bonobos are more egalitarian. This has driven the physical evolution of both species, giving chimps more sexual dimorphism and larger teeth (which in turn reinforces the social structure, with the large male chimps able to use their size aggressively). Human society, with all its ugliness and hatred, didn’t form in a vacuum. Certainly, our biology guided its path. But we no longer need to let nature run its course. We can open our eyes, understand how we got to where we are, and decide on a path forward through reason rather than inertia. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1603 "2023-09-18T15:08:12Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > You have just repeatedly precisely what I said. Except that you appear to think that what you said supports the idea of gender not being a social construct. Which is very wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1604 "2023-09-18T15:10:49Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Society constructs gender norms. It invents “Man” and “Woman” as concepts that encompasses how male and female humans ought to behave. And in the process, that oversimplified binary massively flattens out the diversity of biological reality. And not just by ignoring the existence of anatomically and/or chromosomally intersex people. If, for example, childbearing capability is the determining characteristic of “female gender”, then why are prepubescent girls and postmenopausal/infertile women put in the same gender category as fertile women? (Answer: they haven’t always been, as in various Indo-European languages where words meaning “maiden” or “virgin” or just “young girl” have historically had neuter grammatical gender.) Some languages, e.g., in India, have historically treated neuter grammatical gender as a whole separate third category for human gender identity too. It applies to the hijra or napuňsaka individuals who are considered neither fully male nor fully female, although they may be anatomically similar to fully-male or fully-female individuals at birth. So, although penises and testes and vaginas and ovaries are definitely real physical characteristics, the binary-gender system that human societies have constructed is neither fully determined by them nor totally consistent with them. That’s how social constructs work. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1605 "2023-09-18T15:29:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Does that mean that the surname Svenson has a “genetic component”? The way you stated it the cause and effect relationship of genotype to surname within the culture is not really clear, so it’s hard to say. So consider a hypothetical culture where it is clearer. Suppose that the method of assigning surnames is based on eye color, with a rule that “blue eyed babies are called Svenson”. Then yes - you have a genetic predisposition to have that surname _if you are born into that cultural environment_. Genetics is literally meaningless unless you specify an environment. In a different cultural environment, the name Svenson might not exist, or the cultural practice for assigning surnames might be different, so obviously the same genotype would not generate the “Svenson” phenotype. But that’s no different from saying that in a different environment the nutrition that contains the chemical precursors required to make blue eyes might not exist, in which case the same genotype would not generate blue eyes. The fact that in environment B something different would happen does not imply that there is no genetic contribution to the determination of a phenotype in environment A. ( To suggest that the same genotype produces the exact same phenotype in all _possible_ relevant environments is genetic determin_ism_. ) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1606 "2023-09-18T15:34:12Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Except that you appear to think that what you said supports the idea of gender not being a social construct. It’s probably more useful if we forget about discussing this using the term social construct, since the only dispute here seems to be about what the term means. I think what I said supports the fact that gender _identity_ (not gender expression) almost certainly has non-social causal factors (in addition, of course, to many social factors). That by early in life, and probably already at birth, we are not a blank slate with respect to gender identity. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1607 "2023-09-18T15:57:51Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Then yes - you have a genetic predisposition to have that surname _if you are born into that cultural environment_. @iiandyiii And I should add that if there were also some fitness advantage to having the surname Svenson in that cultural environment (Svensons are a prrivileged group who have more children), then Darwinian natural selection would operate on the Svenson genotype/phentoype, in just the same manner as it would operate on any other genotype/phenotype. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1608 "2023-09-18T15:59:33Z")
You’re missing my point – my point is that because these are culturally determined factors, genes are irrelevant. By chance or whatever, some groups are going to be slightly more genetically similar than others, but this is irrelevant; cultural constructs are not genetic constructs. Conflating the two can only cause confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1609 "2023-09-18T16:02:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’re missing my point – my point is that because these are culturally determined factors, genes are irrelevant. I’m not missing your point, I’m saying you are wrong. The fact that the existence of the “category” Svenson (i.e. the possible phenotype) is entirely culturally determined does not imply that there can be no genetic predisposition to _fall into_ that category when born into that environment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1610 "2023-09-18T16:04:11Z")
But who cares? There might be a genetic component, on average, to residing in Pittsburgh (and chances are that people in Pittsburgh are more closely related to each other than to non-Pittsburghese). But living in Pittsburgh is irrelevant to genetics. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1611 "2023-09-18T16:09:55Z")
I mean whether you care or not is up to you. I don’t know what you’re talking about with Pittsburgh, but the point is that you can have a genetically determined predisposition to a certain gender identity within a given society, even if the way gender is manifest in that society is entirely cultural, and even if in a different society with different cultural practices your gender identity might be different. To say that something has a genetic basis is not genetic determin_ism_, it does not imply that the phenotype would be identical in _all_ environments. It’s a very widespread fallacy among social scientists, and I think a major contributor to why some social scientists are so resistant to anything having _any_ genetic basis. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1612 "2023-09-18T16:25:02Z")
Okay. It might have a genetic basis. That seems as far as we could go based on the data. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1613 "2023-09-18T16:28:03Z")
This Pit thread has gone on far too long without any real profanity or abuse. So fuck all y’all. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1614 "2023-09-18T16:29:49Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > To say that something has a genetic basis is not genetic determin_ism_, it does not imply that the phenotype would be identical in _all_ environments. No one is denying that people feel more aligned to one of the two societally constructed genders based on their inherent traits, some of which are geneticlly determined. No one has argued against this idea. No one at all. I’ve never seen anyone make that assertion, here on the Dope or elsewhere. > [@Riemann](#): > > It’s a very widespread fallacy among social scientists, and I think a major contributor to why some social scientists are so resistant to anything having _any_ genetic basis I’ve never seen a social scientist say that inherent traits with a genetic components have no impact on which gender someone feels they belong to. I’d love a cite for this claim. It seems to me like you’re still misunderstanding what social scientists mean when they say that something is a social construct. You are arguing against a stance that only exists in your head. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1615 "2023-09-18T16:33:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If, for example, childbearing capability is the determining characteristic of “female gender”, then why are prepubescent girls and postmenopausal/infertile women put in the same gender category as fertile women? (Answer: they haven’t always been, as in various Indo-European languages where words meaning “maiden” or “virgin” or just “young girl” have historically had neuter grammatical gender.) > > Some languages, e.g., in India, have historically treated neuter grammatical gender as a whole separate third category for human gender identity too. It applies to the hijra or napuňsaka individuals who are considered neither fully male nor fully female, although they may be anatomically similar to fully-male or fully-female individuals at birth. This is all fascinating. The way that language constructs our understanding of the world is absolutely mind-blowing to me. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1616 "2023-09-18T16:51:28Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I’ve never seen a social scientist say that inherent traits with a genetic components have no impact on which gender someone feels they belong to. I’d love a cite for this claim. > > It seems to me like you’re still misunderstanding what social scientists mean when they say that something is a social construct. You are arguing against a stance that only exists in your head. If your definition of a social construct _can_ include innate determinants, what exactly are you excluding with the expression “ARE completely socially constructed” here? > [@Babale](#): > > By pointing out the fact that ALL gender norms ARE completely socially constructed, we reveal that there _cannot_ be a natural or unnatural way to be a man or woman… (I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the statement, I’m just questioning your definitions.) ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1617 "2023-09-18T16:59:48Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If your definition of a social construct _can_ include innate determinants, what exactly are you excluding with the expression “ARE completely socially constructed” here? …what? I honestly don’t understand your question. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1618 "2023-09-18T17:05:55Z")
It’s a straightforward question. What do you mean by “ARE completely socially constructed” in that post? As opposed to what? What are you excluding with “completely”? What (to you) is the difference between something that is completely socially constructed and something that is _not_ completely socially constructed? What does the latter have that the former does not? ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1619 "2023-09-18T17:08:56Z")
The hardness of this rock I’m holding is not socially constructed. Neither is the fact that I have a uterus. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2023, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609/1620 "2023-09-18T17:14:59Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > what exactly are you excluding with the expression “ARE completely socially constructed” here? […] > > What do you mean by “ARE completely socially constructed” in that post? As opposed to what? What are you excluding with “completely”? I’ve been trying to understand since your post #1582 why you keep stressing this theme of exclusion as though it identified some kind of logical flaw in Babale’s or MrDibble’s arguments, and I’m still puzzled about it: > [@Riemann](#): > > If your definition of a social construct can include innate determinants, then what on earth is the purpose of the term? It is completely meaningless, since it includes literally everything in a society. Where are you getting the notion that the concept of “social construct” is only meaningful if it excludes a lot of things in a society? ISTM that precisely the reverse is true. The whole point of the idea of a “social construct” is to emphasize that humans in societies organize their perceptions of the world in accordance with categories that we collaboratively make up. The way we structure the world is not as a transparently objective reflection of physical reality, but in accordance with classification schemes invented through human thinking. So yes, race is a social construct, and gender is a social construct. “Garbage” is also a social construct (what determines how old and/or rejected a food item must be to qualify as “garbage”?), as is “adulthood” and “bed” and “fruit”, even though all of them are closely related to real physical objects and characteristics. The point is not to isolate a special class of exceptional phenomena called “social constructs”, but to point out the ubiquity of social construction of human ideas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609.md?page=80) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-war-on-transgender-people-omnibus-thread/965609.md?page=82)