Is gender a binary or a spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm being deliberately acute, hence my rejection of your substitution of "gender" for "gender".



But these things are not the same thing as human genders, i.e. those assigned to human beings. The deliberate conflation of terms actually flies in the face of the sociological framework it's built upon. Your argument remains semantic fluff.

Furthermore, what the term "gender" describes predates language. The word assignment may be arbitrary (we'll avoid the obvious onomatopoeia sidebar), but that doesn't mean we get to arbitrarily ignore existing meanings.



Products of human beings =/= human beings, except in one very specific instance.



And "fa***t" still refers to a bundle of sticks. That's doesn't eliminate it's newer, derogatory meaning. Gender has been used to refer to biological sex for centuries in English.



But not an example of a human gender.



Whether or not I "like it", it's still a semantic conflation.



Products of human beings are still not human beings.



I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.



But what you're failing to recognise is that you must also use the correct version of gender according to context, hence your confusion between "human gender" and "human gender".



Grammatically, yes. In human beings, not so much.



Needlessly aggressive? Perhaps you've got your contrast or gamma turned up too high. What you choose to infer from my posts beyond my actual intent is entirely your own responsibility. Considering how swiftly you resorted to making personal attacks, I'm content to presume that this is projection on your part.



On that we can agree, with the additional disclaimer that human sexes number two, except for some notable aberrations.



Gender encompasses biological sex, regardless of what feminist theory or certain social sciences have to say on the matter. The two concepts are also informed by one another, and therefore not cleanly separable.

I don't think gender is something that occurs naturally. Yes, there is biological sex, but gender is another layer add to it, socially constructed. So gender can be a binary or a spectrum, as it's something artificially created so the definition will conform to what people want it to be.

but


historically in western society and for the majority of people currently gender is a binary, deny it and pretend that it's a natural spectrum and all people who "fit" in the binary genders are some equally privileged class it's quite unfair.

I believe in a combination of the two ideas. Gender comes in male, female and everything inbetween (hence the term nonbinary). It can be divided into identity, which is predominant, and expression, which is less so. A butch woman, for example, would have a female identity but a masculine expression. A femme man would be the reverse. I am a nonbinary person who leans masculine. My brain is masculine but I have never really cared about gender roles and expectations due to AS.

The designations, binary and non-binary, assume, in advance, that there are already two, fixed points, on the spectrum.

I believe gender (if you mean male or female) is binary, and that peoples' identities are a spectrum.

If the way you're using the word "gender" means "masculine" or "feminine", then I feel that's a spectrum.

As for how I feel about people who identify as non-binary: I don't like it, unless they give me a pronoun to use----if they give me a pronoun, they can identify as a tree, for all I care.

May I just make the point that none of this debate about gender would be happening if everyone adopted a live and let live point of view.

Scratch that, every single part of human society would be better if we all adopted a strict live and let live point of view.

Should everyone be able to identify as what they want and expect society to accept that?

Not necessarily accept them, simply not despise them or make light of their choice. I said myself earlier that trans people should look like their preferred gender if they ever wish to be accepted by society.

Should that only apply to gender though, and if so, why? If a male wants to identify as a female and expects that decision to generally be accepted. Why not be able to identify as anything? Where is the line drawn?

Because, as mentioned earlier, it is a spectrum of masculinity versus femininity, and if the person feels that where they stand on that spectrum does not correspond with their sex, then that's where gender identity and trans people come in. They would not be able to identify as anything not on that spectrum, so possible identity is quite limited. You wouldn't be able to tell someone that your gender identity is, say, an attack helicopter, and expect anyone to take you seriously.

But what about, say, race? Should a white person be able to say they identify as a black a person and accept to be accepted as black? They could make the exact same arguments based on how they feel and there is no way to prove they don't feel that way.

Then, using my logic earlier, they would have to look like a black person in order to be as accepted as one. And insofar as I know there isn't any affordable way to do that. If they felt like they identified with black culture, then they could simply act more "black" just as a man can act more "feminine." However, its also important to note that gender identity likely takes root from hormonal and other genetic factors from birth, while the same cannot be said for race identity, its really just skin deep.

I identify as "agender."

I don't particularly care what pronouns one wants to refer to me as, and I generally just laugh at people who stomp their feet and demand I pick one. I'm not going to go down a list of what's supposedly "masculine," and what's supposedly "feminine," and break my brain trying to figure out which one I identify with more.

Gender's a spectrum. Liking pink or blue isn't genetic. Whether your hair is long or short doesn't have anything to do with biology. Accept it or not, a large bulk of "gender" is, in fact, cultural, and those can be safely kicked to the curb at will by those of us for who those concepts do absolutely nothing.

[MOD]

This is a personal topic, but personal attacks are absolutely not allowed.

Please keep it civil.

Thanks.

[/MOD]

I could easily dismiss this as naive idealism, but I'm intrigued to know whose feet you lay the blame at for failing to "live and let live" in this particular case. So that instead, but in the form of a question.



This is the problem with the whole unscientific house of cards upon which gender studies is built. Imprecision, nebulousness and obfuscation are not useful tools to describe things (nor to find solutions to problems), especially if you're claiming to be an authority on a hypothetical, unfalsifiable framework built by ideologues.

Campin_Cat had the right of it a couple of posts back. What is being posited as gender is, in fact, subjective experiential self-identification. The gender-spectrum activist phenomenon is analogous to that one kid playing a tabletop RPG who insists everyone accepts the new race and class he's invented, with its own special rules and perks, etc. It's an out of control improv LARPing session, and it's gone far beyond a joke.



Like so many others, you're using that catechism without supporting the premise.

I'll raise you (and anyone else using it) with "sociology is a social construct", and sit back to enjoy the infinite regression.



Possibly, possibly not. There are definitely examples of instinctive colour preferences elsewhere in the animal kingdom. However, that's irrelevant when you consider the studies done into the effects of prenatal hormone exposure. For example, girls with CAH are more likely to prefer "boy-typical" toys. There have been numerous studies done on toy preferences in other primates, too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ Lots of info and links to further reading here.

On point, liking pink or blue is most likely the result of socialisation, but I don't believe colour preference is a gender signifier in and of itself.



Nor is non-conformity to hair-length traditions an indication of a new gender.



That's parallel to where I'm coming from, if not quite the same path to conclusion. The "gender is a social construct" hypothesis has been twisted far beyond its original context, to the point where there is a debate as to whether a: there are two genders (plus null or agender, if you like) or b: "there are infinite genders and everyone has to use my rules when addressing my elf/dragon/unicorn hybrid sorcerogue, and its preferred pronouns are inexpressible by human vocal cords".

Bill C-16 in Canada would make that a hate crime with hearing on a social justice tribunal, fines, and imprisonment if you refuse to pay the fine. Yes - the world is really getting that bizarre.


Sweden seems to stand in direct opposition to this notion - ie. the more socially and culturally liberal they became about individual gender identity the more masculine men became in their interests and career choices and the more feminine women became in their interests and career choices.


What I'm having trouble with is figuring out which one it is - sex or gender - that's now the subjective rather than objective terminology and, trying to make clear heads or tails of that in this thread so far, I feel like I have to give up. This is reminding me of how non-Asian minorities can't be racist because they don't hold the power, that the term 'bigoted' is okay but if people just start using the term bigoted instead of racist in general I wonder how long that will last. It seems like the shift of definition would only be good for as long as the linguistic Svengali effect desired is still up and running.