They didn’t get it 3 months ago, they’re not going to get it now. Especially when they play with their own definitions like this:
Where does it say social constructions only have social contributing factors?
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.
In any event, if you agree that early determinants (either genetic or non-social environmental) are likely to be significant contributing causal factors (along with social factors of course) in establishing gender identity, then we have the same view of matters, and we are just arguing over definitions.
So Christianity is a biologically inherent trait, right? If it wasn’t, how come people were willing to persist in their claims to be Christian even though they sometimes lived in societies where they were persecuted or even killed for it?
No, it doesn’t. Gender and sex are obviously related. The people who socially constructed gender were living with sex/the sexes.
Is that a link to your facile explanation of why people are trans, equivocating between proximate and ultimate reasons? That it gives them happiness and fulfillment to be trans? Of course it does, but if they were not trans, then they could achieve happiness and fulfillment by not being trans, couldn’t they. What’s at issue is the causal factors that determine gender identity in the first place. It doesn’t arise by magic.
I’m not trans, but neither am I always happy or fulfilled.
I’m happy with the common one, like Wikipedia uses:
A social construct or construction is the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event.
It’s a useful lens to analyze why different societies treat common phenomena differently. It’s a starting point for deeper dives into the whys of behaviours.
It’s just a tool, though, not the be-all and end-all of explanations.
Naah, I disagree. I think it’s used to refer to particular spheres of human-centered things. Lots of things aren’t social constructs.
See, now, that’s such an obvious goalpost shift - first you are all “must be only social factors”, and now you’re “genetic/environmental factors must be significant” as though there’s no middle ground there.
We don’t have the same view. Gender is largely social. But not entirely such. You only have to look at how it’s handled in some non-Western cultures to see that - if it wasn’t largely social, they’d all have developed the same patters of gender. But they don’t. But they do all develop something. So there’s some cause there too.
The one you clearly had no response to then? Yes, that one.
That’s a completely false assertion. I have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear that both genetic determinism and a “blank slate” model (only social factors) of human nature are equally stupid extremes.
I gave you my response. I’m not disputing that people are happiest when they can live in accord with their identity. Of course they are. But stating this obvious fact is a pretty stupid thing to offer as an “explanation” of why they have that identity in the first place.
I quoted you own fucking words. “only” and “significant” were from you.
There is no post from you replying to mine.
It’s an explanation for why they retain that identity in the face of persecution, which was what you were being so incredulous about.
You seem to think that this is some kind of gotcha, but it just shows that you don’t understand how the interplay of genetics and environment works.
It is entirely possible that a predisposition to Christian belief (which here is very loosely analogous to gender identity), or perhaps more plausibly to religious belief in general, might have a genetic basis.
The fact that the available specific categories of belief in a given society (very loosely analogous to gender expression) are obviously entirely socially constructed does not imply that there can be no genetic predisposition to fall into one of those categories.
But, of course, there are many other reasons that your analogy falls down. Religious believers have frequently been persecuted out of existence. Religion is culturally transmitted, so a pretty effective way of destroying a specific religious belief is to wipe out all believers. Whereas trans people just keep being born however much you persecute them.
Say what?? You know that, for example, people of disprivileged races still exist in societies that persistently persecute them, even though race likewise is a social construct?
I agree with MrDibble that you seem to be not getting the concept of “social construct” here. Race, for example, is a social construct. Not because it’s completely unrelated to physically real biological characteristics, but because those characteristics aren’t what determines how distinctions of “race” are defined and maintained in society.
Sure, but that’s because features like black skin that people claim place people in racial categories do have an objective reality that is not purely a social construct. The (invalid) use of such features to define a category is an purely cultural phenomenon, but some of the features are not.
If a society invents the social construct of a Black race based on skin color, then since people have a genetic predisposition to having a certain skin color, then they have an genetic predisposition to be a member of the Black race as culturally defined, even though that notion of a Black race is purely a social construct.
Can we get back to complaining about Republicans?
Precisely: it doesn’t arise by magic. God didn’t wave his magic wand and create the categories of Masculine and Feminine. Nature and evolution haven’t assigned certain tasks to the worlds of Masculine and Feminine.
Rather, people - lots of people, for the most part unknowingly, over long periods of time - established these norms through use. I’m not a sociologist, but I would guess that some of these norms formed “descriptively” - here is what the majority of men or women were doing at an influential point in hisory - while others are “perscriptive” - here is how society - aka powerful people in society - want people to behave.
If Sex describes the biological reality that most (but not all) humans cluster into one of two form factors when it comes to their reproductive system and that this is usually but not always tied to the human having either XX or XY chromosomes, then Gender describes the social roles that humans of either Sex are expected to fulfill. Obviously, a set of social roles and expectations is entirely socially constructed, by definition. How could it be anything else?
Our society passes moral judgement on those who do not meet its assumptions. We take something socially constructed - like the set of behaviors we associate with "male"ness - and then we declare that the “natural” state of maleness IS those behaviors, and we condemn anyone who violates these norms as “deviant”. 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, because the categories “man” and “woman” are not of nature.
That’s a better way to put what I tried to say, thank you. I should have read ahead!
I don’t think this is accurate, and even if it is perhaps slightly accurate, it’s very misleading. Consider that people with the surname Svenson are, on average, probably more closely genetically related to each other than to people with other surnames. Does that mean that the surname Svenson has a “genetic component”? Not in any useful sense. That surname is entirely determined by social, not genetic factors. Similarly, the “Black race” is entirely determined by social, not genetic factors, even if, on average, 2 “Black” people might be more closely related to each other than they would to a non-“Black” person.
Exactly: and similarly, features like anatomical sex organs, that people claim place people in gender categories, do have an objective reality that is not purely a social construct. The (invalid) use of such features to define a gender category is a purely cultural phenomenon, but some of the features are not.
I thought your post was excellent, I just want to nitpick this last part a little.
Just as there is a “most, but not always” with regards to genitalia, XX / XY chromosomes, there are physical traits that we associate into the gender constructs.
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.
Trans people don’t need to be taught to be trans, that’s where YOUR analogy breaks down.
Society constructs gender norms. It invents “Man” and “Woman” as concepts that encompasses how male and female humans ought to behave. Maybe in part these behavioral schemas are based on biologically determined traits that truly are shared by a large portion of members of the correlated sex; in other parts, it has more to do with society’s needs - for men to fight and die, for women to bear children, and for everyone to toil in the field.
Is it any surprise that in every generation people will independently pop up who are born into one sex but who don’t fit the socially constructed gender built up around it?
Now, “trans” is a pretty wide label. People who don’t fit the socially constructed gender that correlates to the sex they were born into might be the sort of trans people who transition socially but aren’t interested in any sort of surgery.
There are also those trans people whose gender dysphoria is more specifically linked to their physical equipment, so to speak. If we lived in a society where none of us had ever heard of “men” and “women” - we were all just people, with different reproductive equipment but absolutely no social baggage to go along with it - these people might still experience dysphoria just as intensely. But this still doesn’t change the fact that gender is a social construct; since this type of dysphoria doesn’t change when gender is taken out of the equation, it doesn’t really have any bearing on gender at all.
As an example of “gender” in a situation that lacks cultural expectations:
We used to have a herd of highly inbred guinea pigs. It’s the guinea pigs that lack cultural expectations. One of our piglets grew up without ever undergoing puberty. He was apparently male, but his testes never got large, and he never chased the females. Even though he grew to full size, the other guinea pigs never treated him as either male or female. In sex-related situations, they totally ignored him, as if he were still a piglet.