Originally posted by Silent Master
Gender, no
Gender roles, yes
Agreed.
I don't buy into the "sex's have no defining traits at all" arguments of feminist hardliners, e.g. men can be uniquely violent, women can be uniquely obsessed with kids, and men and women can be attracted to various desirable elements unique to either sex...
... but aside from the fact there's men and women who defy that, it's obvious accepted norms went way too far pigeonholing people into "stay at home mom" and "breadwinner dad"..
I think gender norms are a good thing to have in a society tbh. I think they evolved to reflect the average psychology of men and women, and are thus a good aspect of our culture to have to help a decent number of men and women understand themselves. That being said if somebody wants to deviate from them they should be free to do so.
How can gender roles be little more than societally constructed phenomena when, by and large, these roles have been fairly similar thought-out the majority of cultures. This indicates a powerful force of nature beyond "societal programming" and rather the natural ways in which humans organise themselves.
More to the point, why has women's mental health been in decline since women started competing with men, breaking away from the traditional norm of family related caring, instead of increasing when they have the freedom to do either?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
There's also a very bizarre logical contradiction. They argue against gender stereotypes, against the idea that men and women are the same... and yet somehow someone with a penis can feel like a woman, as if a man could not feel that way and still be a man because apparently being psychologically male or female is legitimate despite their protests that there are no legitimate differences between men and women that could cause the wage gap. What's more is that this is often performed through gender stereotypes. I myself feel like a man I suppose, but I have no experience feeling like a woman, whatever that means, so I have little point of reference aside from the social norms and stereotypes around men and women... which means transgender identification is likely a decision based around accepting and playing into gender stereotypes... which I thought these people were supposed to be against?
I agree, it's definitely a tricky area to navigate. Conversely, an opposing argument is that these roles, transgressive or not, exist in our social fabric. Because of that, it's reasonable for someone to choose this construct if it suits them. As long as we don't assume each role is inextricably linked to your biology, then maybe it's simply a category for a set of traits anyone can exhibit.
Or maybe it just all means nothing and humans are silly.
Originally posted by cdtm
Agreed.I don't buy into the "sex's have no defining traits at all" arguments of feminist hardliners, e.g. men can be uniquely violent, women can be uniquely obsessed with kids, and men and women can be attracted to various desirable elements unique to either sex...
... but aside from the fact there's men and women who defy that, it's obvious accepted norms went way too far pigeonholing people into "stay at home mom" and "breadwinner dad"..
That still leaves plenty of room for difference among the sexes.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think gender norms are a good thing to have in a society tbh. I think they evolved to reflect the average psychology of men and women, and are thus a good aspect of our culture to have to help a decent number of men and women understand themselves. That being said if somebody wants to deviate from them they should be free to do so.
I see what you're saying, but the fact that they must "deviate" indicates the problem before we start. Is there a world where the social expectation can exist and people not get ostracized for being different?
Not ostracized, sure. I'd argue we're at that point already.
Growing up, I remember kids being pretty accepting of gender differences. Sure, there were various "rejects", but gender/sex had nothing to do with it.
It was more about behavior, e.g. socially mal-adjusted, anti-social, or plain weirdness for the sake of attention...
Originally posted by StyleTime
You radical feminist you. vinI agree, it's definitely a tricky area to navigate. Conversely, an opposing argument is that these roles, transgressive or not, exist in our social fabric. Because of that, it's reasonable for someone to choose this construct if it suits them. As long as we don't assume each role is inextricably linked to your biology, then maybe it's simply a category for a set of traits anyone can exhibit.
Or maybe it just all means nothing and humans are silly.
If it's so arbitrary that it's basically meaningless (which for the record I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly the message non-binary gender blender upside down triangles who change their gender every week give off), why not refer to people as male or female based on their biology and let them have the personal freedom to express themselves or dress or get cosmetic surgery in whatever way they see fit?
And that's the thing, social constructs are still socially negotiated. What is considered polite in our society is a social construct and socially negotiated, you can't be a prick to everyone and say "I identify as a polite person and therefore you must refer to me as that" and expect to get away with it.
Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm not following. Why would that help folks understand themselves better than simply trying what suits them?I see what you're saying, but the fact that they must "deviate" indicates the problem before we start. Is there a world where the social expectation can exist and people not get ostracized for being different?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
you can't be a prick to everyone and say "I identify as a polite person and therefore you must refer to me as that" and expect to get away with it.
What if the person say they identify as a polite person but also incarnate everything that is politeness? In that case their request makes sense and is consistent (I'm not saying that makes it valid).
I can see how denying the construct of politeness and then trying to request it comes out as somewhat nonsensical.
Originally posted by Bentley
What if the person say they identify as a polite person but also incarnate everything that is politeness? In that case their request makes sense and is consistent (I'm not saying that makes it valid).I can see how denying the construct of politeness and then trying to request it comes out as somewhat nonsensical.
For a binary transgender person the markers are obvious (male and female gender roles, clothes, appearance, etc.), for someone completely inventing a new category around which there are no deeply culturally ingrained markers or clear conceptualization within society, then that's not socially negotiated as much as you saying "I'm this thing and you have to refer to me as that."