Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ketara wrote:The logic being followed in this thread is atrocious. When you boys and girls were raised, were you 'forced' to be boys and girls? The answer is, yes. Yes you were. The child is no more being forced, inculcated, brainwashed, or anything along those lines, than you were. Gender is nothing more than a social construct. It evolved out of necessity. That necessity is now gone, and so is the requirement for gender differences. Telling someone that by choosing to raise their child in a different way to how you were raised makes those parents bad people smacks of ignorance to me.

I would counter that while it was a 'forced' decision, there is no way for it to NOT be forced, short of keeping the kid in a bubble until he reaches majority age and then asking him to pick his gender. Our decisions are influenced by environmental factors. Even the 'choice' is still forced, there is always an external factor influencing the decision. If I suddenly decided that I was gender neutral or gender female, it would most likely be as a result of me trying to prove you wrong. And I wouldn't say the necessity is gone, those necessities are still very much there, male masculinity and female femininity are supposed to be indicators of a healthy mate, its a natural way to pick a strong breeding partner to pass on your genetic material and continue the healthy survival of the species as a whole. Consciously eliminating or changing those gender roles is going to have a major impact. This link isn't the best, its looking at the mate selection situation from the perspective of hormonal imbalance caused by birth control, but with some basic common sense and logic you can see how changing gender roles will interact with that based on some of the claims made here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576313243579677316.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Joetaco wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:As others have said, there will never be an end to gender.

Gender is a social construct. Society could arguably get rid of it whenever it wants, but i can see that its just too early to begin to tiptoe into those waters.
Saying that gender will never end is like saying that racism and sexism will never end; i'll give you can't change the hearts and minds of everyone, but its not our generations this is being targetted at its the future ones. I can look at my own family and i'm taking aback at even the slight racistly things my parents/ grandparents say; i call them out on it and they say old habits die hard, but they at least acknowledge its wrong unlike my grandparents.
Now you can say racism and sexism are still prevelant, but they are by no means anywhere as bad as they used to be. So sure your children won't be androgenous, but don't be too surprised if your grandchildren look at you as ignorant for buying them "gender biased gifts".

I like to think of myself as an open minded (at least in a to each their own sort of way), but this kinda makes me shudder. So yes I'm defending the idea, arguing against those who oppose it, but wouldn't practice it myself.

The difference between gender and racism/sexism is that there is actually a solidly measurable biological component (more than just hating someone because they have a vajayjay rather than a weewee or because there skin is darker than yours), and there are chemical differences that cause people to behave in a different manner. Its evolutionary in nature, and out of (a very much still present) necessity, and isn't restricted to just humans. There are gender roles prevalent in animal species as well (isn't it funny that in certain species that the 'providers' or 'caretakers' are always of the same gender?).

Here's the thing. I'm a fairly regular kind of guy, I like most regular guy things, like sport and looking at girls. One way I differ from blokey guys is that I know nothing about cars. I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I ought to know about cars, in case I breakdown or something. More to the point, they never mention that to girls .

My fiance has been told many times that she 'should' be able to cook. People are often amazed that I do most of the cooking. It doesn't seem to matter that she's actually a much better cook than I am, it's just that I cook most weeknights because I get home from work first.

These are very minor examples of much greater social pressures that have nothing to do with biological differences. What about the common insistence in society that a guy should play sport? Or the amount of hostility a girl will recieve if she dares to go out in public without spending an hour on make-up beforehand, instead just combing her hair and going out the door like any guy would do?

The point is not to pretend biology doesn't exist, but to continue examining what's biology and what's just society placing roles on people because of gender.

I think you missed the point of the article and the resulting controversy, or maybe I did. Its not about questioning the social constructs associated with gender roles, its about questioning whether or not gender roles should even exist in the first place, and if so should they be determined by choice rather than by biology. Yeah, it says you can't just wish it away, thats not to say that you can't actively change it or attempt to, hence attempts at raising a child in a gender neutral manner (which is often considered to be a 'third gender' by some sociologists/psychologists.

And sure, take the child shopping for clothing and allow them to pick out their own outfits..... Have you ever watched a child when given free reign to dress themselves?

Yeah, little bastards don't have any color coordination at all.

Sure you can, the problem is that you and most other posters in this thread were just disagreeing with what they thought the article title meant, not what it actually meant. As a result, most people in this thread were just arguing about stuff that simply wasn't in the article.

Does anyone ever actually talk about the issues in the article around here

I gave up trying months ago. Only a few people bother (props to those who try).

Why? It's four months old, and it isn't denying the child's gender, it's just not telling other people yet, so they don't start treating it certain ways. There's nothing stopping the child's natural preferences coming to the fore.

Read the articles about them from a few months ago. They are referring to the child as 'it.' I find that rather dehumanizing and they seem to have no intention to ever refer to their child otherwise.

Plus I just don't like them. The parents are clearly doing this to show boat at the kids expense which is fairly obvious in their self-righteous attitudes in interviews.

A similar thing has happened in Sweeden, where there is an entire school that does the same thing, though that one actually seemed to be heavily focused on deconstructing just the female gender and applying it to both sexes which has its own issues.

It isn't a great title, because it's relying on a use of the word 'gender' to mean something very different than it's common use (gender in gender relation studies means the socially enforced part of gender, not as a synonym for sex as it is used in common language). The result has been a lot of people sounding off about an idea they really don't like, an idea that wasn't mentioned in the article.

The use of gender was specified in the first few paragraphs, but I don't think that's the real problem for the title. The problem is the word "End" because the article isn't really about ending gender, just redefining it. Even people who read it will go into it remembering the authors title as a framework for the information.

P.S. Remember people. Titles matter

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Well, there was that one involving John Money and the Reimer family... And not only was John Money('s hypothesis about gender being exclusively a social construct and that gender can be taught, allowing a child to be raised as any gender) proven horribly, horribly wrong (a point which he failed to admit, even until his death), but it also ruined several lives.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:The logic being followed in this thread is atrocious. When you boys and girls were raised, were you 'forced' to be boys and girls? The answer is, yes. Yes you were. The child is no more being forced, inculcated, brainwashed, or anything along those lines, than you were. Gender is nothing more than a social construct. It evolved out of necessity. That necessity is now gone, and so is the requirement for gender differences. Telling someone that by choosing to raise their child in a different way to how you were raised makes those parents bad people smacks of ignorance to me.

I would counter that while it was a 'forced' decision, there is no way for it to NOT be forced, short of keeping the kid in a bubble until he reaches majority age and then asking him to pick his gender.

I disagree. If it is possible to identify what elements of environmental influence force gender, than it is possible to deliberately withhold those influences from the subject. In other words, not buying the little girl the embroidery kit, and the little boy the transformers. Not focusing on a little girls appearance anymore than you would a boy. Dressing them in skirts and trousers alike. And so on.

I actually happen to know a person who claims gender neutrality. We've had several conversations over the topic, and what it essentially boils down to is that she was raised in an isolated area, and her parents treated her in a very similar way to the way they treated her brothers. The result of course, is that when she entered a different societal setting, all of a sudden she was being judged on how she dressed and behaved, and so on, because she was just acting the way she always had done, which was not how a 'woman' is supposed to act.

If I suddenly decided that I was gender neutral or gender female, it would most likely be as a result of me trying to prove you wrong.

Would you really be gender neutral or gender female then? It's not something you can just 'decide' on, anymore than you can just 'decide' to be homosexual.

And I wouldn't say the necessity is gone, those necessities are still very much there, male masculinity and female femininity are supposed to be indicators of a healthy mate, its a natural way to pick a strong breeding partner to pass on your genetic material and continue the healthy survival of the species as a whole.

Male dominance of society grew out of a male's physical strength. In modern society, this advantage is now irrelevant. We no longer hunt for our dinners. What we look for as indicators as to a healthy mate have little to do with telling a little girl she should wear a skirt. An attractive woman is an attractive woman regardless of what she's wearing, or whether or not she's climbing trees and playing with GI Joe figures.

this thread....is getting on my nerves....


im just pissed that humans seem to need to mess with everything. gender i always thought of as the sex of the person,not whether they dress as a guy or girl.although its more than that, still,i think gender neutrality is bad. calling a baby it so no one treats it a certain way,seriously? its gonna get found out and treated a certain way eventually. and it just wont work. a girl or guy that acts the opposite is just not right. the line has been there for a long time for a reason,lets not rub it out and re draw it.or just leave no line.

Biological "sex" is not the only factor you would be working against, but it is a major one. How do you explain to a "gender neutral" child why they are physically different from another?
How would you deal with a "male" childs first erection?
A female childs budding curves?
Consider taking the child swiming... What kind of swim wear would you provide? Or do you allow the child to swim naked? (this could create a situation with pedophiles and/or child services)
Raising a child to not recognise gender is a difficult and uphill battle. There are too many things you would have to explain as the child grows and their bodies mature.
These thing are biological differences in the sexes, yes, but they also feed into the deciding of gender.

Gender "roles" are something else entirely, but some of the basic ground work is encoded in their bodies already.
Consider this... there are more male Chefs than female, even though "cooking" is considered a "female role". Similarly, there are nearly as many female Truck drivers as male, a classically "male role".

Those people that make the choice to take on a role typically attributted to the opposite sex (male nurse, female football coach), do so after receiving as much information as possible, but still face ridicule, (Meet the Parents is a great example of this social behavior)

Ketara wrote:
Male dominance of society grew out of a male's physical strength. In modern society, this advantage is now irrelevant.

Male dominance in society grew out of the idea of masculine dominance that's engrained into our biology. Physical strength was a useful tool back in the days of hunting and gathering, but how do you explain how our business-based society is governed mostly by men?

Men are simply naturally more aggressive and desire to be more dominant. It's a trait engrained into us.

We no longer hunt for our dinners.

But the importance of resource earning potential is still there. In hunter-gatherer societies, women prefer men who are able to effectively hunt. In monetary societies, women prefer men who have money. Same system, different medium.

What we look for as indicators as to a healthy mate have little to do with telling a little girl she should wear a skirt.

One way women compete for mates is to wear outfits that are appealing to the opposite sex. Men rely very much on visual stimuli for their mate selection.

An attractive woman is an attractive woman regardless of what she's wearing, or whether or not she's climbing trees and playing with GI Joe figures.

See above.

See, I consider myself to not be extremely butch.
I listen to Lady Gaga and I think black hair is fashionable.
In some ways I'm actually a lot like Cannerus.

But that's because I chose to do it for myself.
I hear of these parents that want to raise their children to be androgynous like this and it's sickening.
I myself am not gay, transgendered or any other thing that would make me not straight but I understand that it's a very personal thing.
So when people decide that they want their children or other people to remove themselves from their gender identity it pisses me off.
It's a person. It has genitals.

Fafnir wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Well, there was that one involving John Money and the Reimer family... And not only was John Money('s hypothesis about gender being exclusively a social construct and that gender can be taught, allowing a child to be raised as any gender) proven horribly, horribly wrong (a point which he failed to admit, even until his death), but it also ruined several lives.

I know all about that 'study' but that only helps further reinforce my point, but that actually supports my argument rather than the 'other side'...

I disagree. If it is possible to identify what elements of environmental influence force gender, than it is possible to deliberately withhold those influences from the subject. In other words, not buying the little girl the embroidery kit, and the little boy the transformers. Not focusing on a little girls appearance anymore than you would a boy. Dressing them in skirts and trousers alike. And so on.

The only way for this to work is to remove the parents from an equation as well. Replace them with androgynous robots or some such. We learn by observing our parents. At an early age a child will be able to realize that there are differences between a male and a female, the child will usually be able to determine its own sex in relation to its parents, and will emulate the behavior of whichever parent happens to align with its own sex. So, unless the parents are also gender neutral, its a failed endeavor. Things actually do get complicated in single parent/same sex couple situation, but in those cases an external role model will usually fill the void, as of yet I've not read any studies on what happens to a male child raised by a tribe of Amazons or somesuch, and until that occurs its anyones guess what happens in that situation.

I actually happen to know a person who claims gender neutrality. We've had several conversations over the topic, and what it essentially boils down to is that she was raised in an isolated area, and her parents treated her in a very similar way to the way they treated her brothers. The result of course, is that when she entered a different societal setting, all of a sudden she was being judged on how she dressed and behaved, and so on, because she was just acting the way she always had done, which was not how a 'woman' is supposed to act.

Wouldn't that make her a tomboy/masculine rather than gender neutral??

Would you really be gender neutral or gender female then? It's not something you can just 'decide' on, anymore than you can just 'decide' to be homosexual.

Actually, it very much is. I read a rather interesting article about two weeks ago (I'm having difficulty finding it, I'll post it as soon as I can) about a man that went through most of his life as a homosexual. Not the closet kind either, but the kind that pushed for it to be culturally accepted/the norm, etc. One day, the guy decided that he was no longer homosexual, started going to church, etc. and became straight, is happily married (or engaged?) etc. and trying to put his past behind him. The son of a close family friend is a similar case, but in reverse. He was married, but miserable, and somehow he ended up sleeping with another guy, decided that the other guy made him happier than his wife, got a divorce and the two have been living together (and more) for the past 9 years very happily. Granted, its not a decision that can be made at the drop of the hat, there have to be certain factors at play that make such a decision possible, but we get right back to my original point, there are always external factors at play.

Male dominance of society grew out of a male's physical strength. In modern society, this advantage is now irrelevant. We no longer hunt for our dinners. What we look for as indicators as to a healthy mate have little to do with telling a little girl she should wear a skirt. An attractive woman is an attractive woman regardless of what she's wearing, or whether or not she's climbing trees and playing with GI Joe figures.

Not in a world that has abandoned gender roles entirely and physical attractiveness is determined by how androgynous they appear. The clothing itself isn't an indicator of masculinity or femininity, the clothing is designed to accentuate certain signs of a healthy mate, such as a healthy bosom or her hourglass shape, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Really? Doesn't matter what countless scientific studies have found, because you have an opinion?

What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Well, there was that one involving John Money and the Reimer family... And not only was John Money('s hypothesis about gender being exclusively a social construct and that gender can be taught, allowing a child to be raised as any gender) proven horribly, horribly wrong (a point which he failed to admit, even until his death), but it also ruined several lives.

I know all about that 'study' but that only helps further reinforce my point, but that actually supports my argument rather than the 'other side'...

I think you're confusing my reference to that study as going against your argument. I was actually supporting your point against Ketara.

Reimer always failed to fit in with feminine norms, and ended up completely rejecting the female upbringing that was forced upon him. When puberty hit, he identified as a male, despite the fact that he was raised as a girl.

Fafnir wrote:Gender is not a social construct.

As has been explained multiple times in this thread, in gender studies they use 'sex' to refer to biological differences, and 'gender' to refer to social concepts of gender.

There are societal factors involved, but the biology reigns supreme. You could try to raise a boy as a girl (see David Reimer and intersexed individuals),

If you read the article, you'd see the same thing was acknowledged. Well, except your little bit about which is more dominant, that's far too subjective for anyone actually who's actually studied the issue to speculate on.

but the child will ultimately end up identifying as the gender that their biology prescribes to them.

Plainly, that isn't always true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Does anyone ever actually talk about the issues in the article around here

I gave up trying months ago. Only a few people bother (props to those who try).

I figure if I keep haranguing people when they make a comment that shows they didn't read the article, maybe that'll change. It hasn't worked out too well, so far.

Read the articles about them from a few months ago. They are referring to the child as 'it.' I find that rather dehumanizing and they seem to have no intention to ever refer to their child otherwise.

Plus I just don't like them. The parents are clearly doing this to show boat at the kids expense which is fairly obvious in their self-righteous attitudes in interviews.

Okay, those people are just being silly. Happy to agree with you there.

The use of gender was specified in the first few paragraphs, but I don't think that's the real problem for the title. The problem is the word "End" because the article isn't really about ending gender, just redefining it.

Yeah, kind of. It's really about getting rid of the harmful elements of the social component, while accepting the positive parts and the unavoidable biological elements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:What scientific studies? What have they found? Show me them. And yes, an opinion, I'm entitled to them, aren't I?

Studies have found that a lot of people who express the desire to change gender have a very strong tendency towards having brain patterns strongly associated with their desired gender. That is, men who wish to be women are typically found under analysis to have female brains. It is a physiological condition.

And why would anyone consider 'an opinion' relevant or even worth discussing, when one can consider what is actually true?

I think you missed the point of the article and the resulting controversy, or maybe I did. Its not about questioning the social constructs associated with gender roles, its about questioning whether or not gender roles should even exist in the first place, and if so should they be determined by choice rather than by biology.

No, you missed the point of the article.

"Could we be heading toward the end of gender? And by "gender" we mean, according to Merriam-Webster, "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex." In other words, the cultural expectations that go along with saying that someone is a boy or a girl. In other other words, not someone's sex — the person's gender."
"Sex differences are real and some are probably present at birth, but then social factors magnify them. So if we, as a society, feel that gender divisions do more harm than good, it would be valuable to break them down."

Yeah, little bastards don't have any color coordination at all.

It wasn't so long ago that would have been seen as an inherently male trait

sebster wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Gender is not a social construct.

As has been explained multiple times in this thread, in gender studies they use 'sex' to refer to biological differences, and 'gender' to refer to social concepts of gender.

But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

but the child will ultimately end up identifying as the gender that their biology prescribes to them.

Plainly, that isn't always true.

Mind, I'm talking in general terms. There are always exceptions.

Fafnir wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

Sure, but there's no point pretending we don't layer social expectations on top of that. In studying that, people use the word 'gender' to focus on the social components, and 'sex' to focus on the biological differences.

No-one is trying to get rid of the two different sexes. Do you understand that?

I'm just saying that trying to treat gender as an entirely social construct is futile. It's more complicated than that. Just because 'gender' focuses more on social components does not mean that the biological factors that influence it can be ignored, as it tends to be by people who don't understand that the differences between the sexes run far deeper than simple cosmetics and morphology.

Studies have found that a lot of people who express the desire to change gender have a very strong tendency towards having brain patterns strongly associated with their desired gender. That is, men who wish to be women are typically found under analysis to have female brains. It is a physiological condition.

I would argue that this is not the norm, and as you said, it is a 'condition'. There are biological factors that may be (I would say are, but without some sort of valid analysis to confirm this, I'm just guessing here) associated with this. Look up concepts such as XX male, XXY, XYY, etc.

I give the kid till the age of 7 years old before it gets made fun of by other children to the point where it types in Google's search engine: "What sex am I?" and "How can I tell if I have a penis or not?".

Lord Scythican wrote:I give the kid till the age of 7 years old before it gets made fun of by other children to the point where it types in Google's search engine: "What sex am I?" and "How can I tell if I have a penis or not?".

Then he'll probably commit suicide under the rolling waves of "go awai troll"

Hmm , now lemme see

gender will end about the same time as race , religion , politics, love hate and war

..... i think its called a clone brood circa 3500AD

LordofHats wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:I give the kid till the age of 7 years old before it gets made fun of by other children to the point where it types in Google's search engine: "What sex am I?" and "How can I tell if I have a penis or not?".

Then he'll probably commit suicide under the rolling waves of "go awai troll"

How pleasant.

The saddest part is that it probably would happen at some point to someone. Dare I say stranger things have happened.

Fafnir wrote:I'm just saying that trying to treat gender as an entirely social construct is futile. It's more complicated than that.

No-one is saying otherwise. Read the article, it says exactly the same thing itself.

Just because 'gender' focuses more on social components does not mean that the biological factors that influence it can be ignored, as it tends to be by people who don't understand that the differences between the sexes run far deeper than simple cosmetics and morphology.

The very point of using gender in that sense was to seperate the two components, recognise that there is a social element and a biological element.

And no-one in the article, or in this thread, is pretending there isn't a biological component. This thread started with an article saying 'we should examine the sociological elements of gender, and look remove the harmful ones' and it's attracted a lot of replies consisting of 'nuh uh, there is too such a thing as differences in the sexes.' Which is crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:I would argue that this is not the norm, and as you said, it is a 'condition'. There are biological factors that may be (I would say are, but without some sort of valid analysis to confirm this, I'm just guessing here) associated with this. Look up concepts such as XX male, XXY, XYY, etc.

I know about the various chromosones that sometimes line up strangely. That's kind of the point, forming a new human being is a complex thing, and sometimes it goes astray. What matters is dealing with the person created, and building a society that doesn't reject them for an accident of birth.

Saying that a person who is born a man but wants to be a woman, or vice versa, is bs is really not a good way of addressing the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:Biological "sex" is not the only factor you would be working against, but it is a major one. How do you explain to a "gender neutral" child why they are physically different from another?
How would you deal with a "male" childs first erection?
A female childs budding curves?

Is anyone saying that a child should be called it for the rest of its life? Is anyone suggesting that we aggressively deny all forms of biological difference?

Why are you arguing against fiction? Are there so few problems in the world that you have to protest against made up ones?

Seriously, read the fething article. You will quickly learn what people are actually talking about, and realise that everything you've posted above is complete nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:Male dominance in society grew out of the idea of masculine dominance that's engrained into our biology. Physical strength was a useful tool back in the days of hunting and gathering, but how do you explain how our business-based society is governed mostly by men?

Because in our very recent history it was still considered the role men to work, and women to stay in the house. As we have removed that expectation, we've seen society move to a much more equitable split in power.

Men are simply naturally more aggressive and desire to be more dominant. It's a trait engrained into us.

Clearly you haven't met many men or women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:But that's because I chose to do it for myself.
I hear of these parents that want to raise their children to be androgynous like this and it's sickening.

No-one in the article or in this thread has suggested raising a child to be entirely androgynous, or ignore the basics of biology.

Would people please kindly stop making things up?

I call this to be a fad for a few...

Gender is not a social construct and people raising children as the opposite gender is unnatural.

If you have a Y chromosome and your parents raise you as a girl, you will experience confusion when your body tells you one thing and they are telling you another.

Fafnir wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that gender has roots in our biology.

No-one is denying that there are basic differences between the sexes. No-one.

What I am trying to explain to you is that in gender studies, the word gender refers explicitly to the differences resulting from society, whereas biological differences are refered to using the word 'sex'.

So when people refer to ending gender, they refer only to the ways society treats the two different genders. Do you understand that now?

Mind, I'm talking in general terms. There are always exceptions.

And once accept there are exceptions, you accept that we need to come to a way of seeing sex and gender that doesn't leave these people excluded, unless you're an donkey-cave who wants to exclude people because of how they were born.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:The saddest part is that it probably would happen at some point to someone. Dare I say stranger things have happened.

When we live in a world where girls are killed or left on the doorsteps of orphanages because only boys can bring the family wealth, then I think we have bigger issues to worry about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:I call this to be a fad for a few...

Gender is not a social construct and people raising children as the opposite gender is unnatural.

It literally is a social construct by the definition of the word within gender studies.

Is it so hard to accept that there can be both social and biological elements?

Remember men and women?


They were good, weren't they? I wonder what happened to them...

sebster wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:I call this to be a fad for a few...

Gender is not a social construct and people raising children as the opposite gender is unnatural.

It literally is a social construct by the definition of the word within gender studies.

Is it so hard to accept that there can be both social and biological elements?

Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

Albatross wrote:Remember men and women?


They were good, weren't they? I wonder what happened to them...

Exactly. This is a fad and will pass.

Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

This rather appropriately describes one of the trials science faces. Gender studies is the study of gender roles; social norms and behaviors expected of a particular sex within a given culture (hence a social construct). Example. Raising children is a gender role traditionally directed towards women in most cultures. Working and bread winning is a gender role traditionally attributed to men. Neither are strictly tied to biology, nothing in the biology of men and women prevents one from doing though other, but do have to a degree a biological basis (women give birth to children, at times possibly incapacitating them during pregnancy and afterwards, making it simpler and easier to rely on the male to provide for her and the children. This is an example. No flames please, hats burn easily)

The problem science has is that even when they explain that, most people will still use gender as an interchangeable term with sex to define male and females in strict biological terms.

LordofHats wrote:

Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

This rather appropriately describes one of the trials science faces. Gender studies is the study of gender roles; social norms and behaviors expected of a particular sex within a given culture (hence a social construct). Example. Raising children is a gender role traditionally directed towards women in most cultures. Working and bread winning is a gender role traditionally attributed to men. Neither are strictly tied to biology, nothing in the biology of men and women prevents one from doing though other, but do have to a degree a biological basis (women give birth to children, at times possibly incapacitating them during pregnancy and afterwards, making it simpler and easier to rely on the male to provide for her and the children. This is an example. No flames please, hats burn easily)

The problem science has is that even when they explain that, most people will still use gender as an interchangeable term with sex to define male and females in strict biological terms.

Thank you for clarifying.

Actually... Gender is evolving... Men will be called 'Charlie Sheen' and Women will be called 'Lady GaGa'

Examples:

Behind every good Charlie Sheen, is a good Lady GaGa.

When a Charlie Sheen loves a Lady GaGa...

That Charlie Sheen looks like a Lady GaGa.

Lady GaGa! I don' tol' you t' shut up!

I have to use the Charlie Sheen's room.

I think this about sums it up.

I think too many people are getting too wrapped up in the physical/biological aspect regarding sex/gender. That’s not the purpose of the article.

The article, although quoting some overzealous examples, explores the idea of further equalising societal gender constructs. I don’t see why this is a surprising topic as it’s nothing new considering societal gender roles/expectations are a lot more equalised than they were 50-100 years ago (e.g. male breadwinner, female housewife etc).