Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[caveman1917]

Is the lack of enforced social roles really the same thing as “barely any gender differentiation”?

Since gender is the social roles associated with the sexes, it somewhat is, yes. Or perhaps one should say that there was barely any gender.

I’m willing to guess that societies that allowed men or women in any social role still cared about gender when it came to who they chose for sex partners. I’m also willing to guess that they frowned on someone in one social role insisting on dressing for another.

I'm thinking you're confusing gender with sex here. All societies of homo sapiens have sex differentiation since homo sapiens is sexually dimorphic, and men or women probably did care about sex when it came to who they chose for sex partners. However without gender (the social roles associated with the sexes) there's no such thing as "dressing for another" since there are no gendered behavioural templates (dressing in this case) associated with the sexes in the first place.

This I think I can agree with somewhat. We are (hopefully) near the tail end of a transition from a society with gender specific social roles to one without such gender specific roles.

I don't think that'll be possible under capitalism, best we can hope for is some symbolic tokenism but no real changes in the underlying problem of patriarchy. Somewhat the same like with racism, we can have a black president like Obama (symbolic token) but this president will then just preside over a society which remains just as racist (in terms of the material conditions of black people, such as mass incarceration or general socio-economic exploitation). Same thing with patriarchy, we might have a female president or even a trans one, but it won't change the material conditions and exploitation of females in general in society. Symbolic tokens cost nothing, but removing a general social hierarchy costs everything to those benefiting from that hierarchy.

An interesting, and much more effective, example of undermining patriarchy is the early Soviet Union. Rather than go for symbolic tokenism they went after the material basis of patriarchy, for example providing free universal daycare and things like that.

This does mean that these become interchangeable in all situations. We still need to find sex partners, husbands and wives. We still need to create safe environments for women to change, shower, go to the bathroom etc. We still need to give women the opportunity to participate in sports without the disadvantages of trying to compete against someone with a Y chromosome, etc. As matter of simple convenience we are likely always going to have difference3s in dress and/or comportment where these come into play.
Note that these are (as far as I can see) rooted in biological sex not “gender identity”.

I agree.

 

[cullennz]

Oh great

Now the evil "Patriachy!" word gets thrown in

It was only a matter of time

 

[kellyb]

This is a quantitative claim (capable of demonstration) but I remain skeptical.

Well, I've only seen two people expressing the idea that trans women shouldn't be in the girl's bathroom, but I might have missed some.

How many have you seen?

 

[kellyb]

Since gender is the social roles associated with the sexes, it somewhat is, yes. Or perhaps one should say that there was barely any gender.



I'm thinking you're confusing gender with sex here. All societies of homo sapiens have sex differentiation since homo sapiens is sexually dimorphic, and men or women probably did care about sex when it came to who they chose for sex partners. However without gender (the social roles associated with the sexes) there's no such thing as "dressing for another" since there are no gendered behavioural templates (dressing in this case) associated with the sexes in the first place.



I don't think that'll be possible under capitalism, best we can hope for is some symbolic tokenism but no real changes in the underlying problem of patriarchy. Somewhat the same like with racism, we can have a black president like Obama (symbolic token) but this president will then just preside over a society which remains just as racist (in terms of the material conditions of black people, such as mass incarceration or general socio-economic exploitation). Same thing with patriarchy, we might have a female president or even a trans one, but it won't change the material conditions and exploitation of females in general in society. Symbolic tokens cost nothing, but removing a general social hierarchy costs everything to those benefiting from that hierarchy.

An interesting, and much more effective, example of undermining patriarchy is the early Soviet Union. Rather than go for symbolic tokenism they went after the material basis of patriarchy, for example providing free universal daycare and things like that.



I agree.

This is the most interesting post I've read on here in a while. Thanks.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, I've only seen two people expressing the idea that trans women shouldn't be in the girl's bathroom, but I might have missed some.

How many have you seen?

Dozens, maybe hundreds. But now I realize (in retrospect) we were talking only about people in this thread.

 

[lomiller]

Since gender is the social roles associated with the sexes, it somewhat is, yes. Or perhaps one should say that there was barely any gender.

Good. We seem to be generally on the same page, however I

I'm thinking you're confusing gender with sex here

I think you’d have a great deal of difficulty trying to explain that concept to people from either of the societies in question. Societies with strong sex based social roles would reject it because they are making a “sex” diction only, therefor no “gender” distention exists. Those with no sex based social role would be making either a “sex” distention or a “social role” distention, again no “gender” distinction required.

However without gender (the social roles associated with the sexes) there's no such thing as "dressing for another" since there are no gendered behavioural templates (dressing in this case) associated with the sexes in the first place.

Enforced social roles are largely a thing of the past in most western societies so if you are correct there would be no “gender” for people to associate with. IMO We have detailed expectations of “how a woman should act”, but most of those details arose to identify and fit social and economic roles. we no longer rigidly enforce (even if many still think we should). Our perception of gender is more likely associated with that perception more so than the social role that originally gave rise to it.

This puts us in an in between state which is really the only context were saying something like “gender and sex are different things” makes any sense. Just because we live in a society where we can sort of understand what it “gender is different then sex” means doesn’t mean it’s something we should accept. Doing so ties us to otherwise outdated concepts of how women/men should look and act.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think the gender/sex distinction is being kept vague and fluid on purpose so it can be invoked one way in certain situations and another way or not at all in other situations.

 

[kellyb]

I think the gender/sex distinction is being kept vague and fluid on purpose so it can be invoked one way in certain situations and another way or not at all in other situations.

Yeah. I'm not sure Orwell would mind "gender" being added to this list of essentially meaningless words:

https://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/Politics_and_the_English_Language-1.pdf

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be
reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality

 

[d4m10n]

I think the gender/sex distinction is being kept vague and fluid on purpose so it can be invoked one way in certain situations and another way or not at all in other situations.

That strikes me as overly cynical. There are plenty of good faith attempts to explain the differences between gender identity, gender expression, and physical sexual characteristics. I even linked to one of the better efforts upthread.

 

[theprestige]

I think the gender/sex distinction is being kept vague and fluid on purpose so it can be invoked one way in certain situations and another way or not at all in other situations.

That's a little too conspiracy-theoretical for me.

 

[kellyb]

That strikes me as overly cynical. There are plenty of good faith attempts to explain the differences between gender identity, gender expression, and physical sexual characteristics. I even linked to one of the better efforts upthread.

I don't think people are doing it on purpose - it's a subconscious confusion thing.

My problem with the genderbread person meme is that it doesn't define feminine or masculine, etc.

It doesn't tease out gender vs gender roles.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That strikes me as overly cynical.

That's a little too conspiracy-theoretical for me.

Fair enough but the functional level of it in this thread is boarding a little closesly on some variation of "A gender difference only I am allowed to invoke" a little too often.

I do respect that this is an esoteric, to put it lightly, topic to say the least and the wording is... difficult across the board.

 

[d4m10n]

My problem with the genderbread person meme is that it doesn't define feminine or masculine, etc.

https://www.google.com/search?q="Th...r,+through+your+actions,+dress,+and+demeanor"

Granted, what is considered feminine or masculine (in terms of actions, demeanor, dress, etc.) is bound to vary from culture to culture and over time, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what the norms are here and now, in the anglophone world.

It doesn't tease out gender vs gender roles.

I'm guessing that you mean the distinction between gender identity and gender roles? If so, I'm having trouble with that one myself, presumably because I've never experienced gender dysphoria. I just feel like a person in a dudebro sleeve.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And this requires you to assign men and women specific traits. I do not do this.

You assign certain "mindsets" and "behaviors" to the genders. I do not.

Rather than telling me what you think gender isn't, try explaining what the concept in this particular word-concept association means to you.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[kellyb]

https://www.google.com/search?q="Th...r,+through+your+actions,+dress,+and+demeanor"

Granted, what is considered feminine or masculine (in terms of actions, demeanor, dress, etc.) is bound to vary from culture to culture and over time, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what the norms are here and now, in the anglophone world.



I'm guessing that you mean the distinction between gender identity and gender roles? If so, I'm having trouble with that one myself, presumably because I've never experienced gender dysphoria. I just feel like a person in a dudebro sleeve.

I guess I'm wondering if gender means anything at all outside of "traditional gender stereotypes" and "gender roles". It appears that it does not.
It's apparently all just a bunch of crap, from my perspective, at least.

But I strongly idenitfy my gender as female even though I do literally nothing to "signal" or "present" my gender in terms of my "actions, dress, and demeanor." I wear t shirts and pajama pants or fisherman pants and, like, knockoff crocs, and I don't think I have a stereotypical "feminine" demeanor, whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Rather than telling me what you think gender isn't, try explaining what the concept in this particular word-concept association means to you.

What?

Why do people keep asking me to explain what they are talking about to them?

 

[Mycroft]

Nobody has even attempted outside of a kneejerk "Transphobia!" to explain how an emotional reaction to a woman seeing a man in their restroom and a man seeing a woman who "identifies as a man" in their restroom is supposed to be any different.

This has never happened to me, has it happened to you?

 

[Mycroft]

Would people please just stop repeating some variation on "It's complicated" and never expanding on that?

There's an individual in front of me that has a penis and male chromosomal setup.

What, that isn't a purely invented societal standard, can make him more or less "male?"

How is masculinity/femininity functionally different from male/female in a way that is A) some statistically insignificant rare medical occurrence or B) something that's a not just a made up societal convention someone is trying to subvert?

How would you know they have a penis and male chromosomes?

 

[Mycroft]

In all circumstances, it's more of a general observation.

I'm told that I should refer to all transwomen as women, even those that haven't had the surgery or the hormones, out of respect for their feelings. No one seems to worry about the feelings of biological women in general who are supposed to be analogous to a person with a penis.

Has this ever happened that you were introduced to a man in a dress and asked to call them a woman?

To me it seems like a hypothetical that gets bandied about, but that rarely happens in real life.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This has never happened to me, has it happened to you?

Has this ever happened that you were introduced to a man in a dress and asked to call them a woman?

To me it seems like a hypothetical that gets bandied about, but that rarely happens in real life.

Well Jesus goddamn Christ if it never happens what are we arguing about?

How would you know they have a penis and male chromosomes?

What difference does that make?

What are you even arguing at this point?