fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3829 ]

"It's all social construct surrounding a biological response, much like gender."
No it's not. Because gender has very little to do with biology. And nonbinary genders, to me, don't exist. Genderfluidity doesn't exist. Feel free to disagree, but personally, that doesn't change things for me.

I mean you're welcome to believe they don't exist. You're welcome to believe that gravity doesn't exist, or that the Earth isn't round, or that vaccines are a big government conspiracy by Big Pharma to cause people to be sicker and more obedient. You'll just need to accept that most people are going to think you're a little silly.

Still false equivalents. The things you mentioned? Facts. Gender based on vague ~feelings~ deeply rooted in stereotypes and "not like the other girls/boys" issues? Not facts. And I'm pretty sure that the people making up genders just to be different or special are the ones looking silly.

NAYRT but like. This seems like an extraordinarily strong and weird position to take. Because the ground-level fact is that there are actually existing people who identify as non-binary or fluid with respect to gender. So, in an extremely basic first-order sense, gender-fluidity and non-binary are real in the sense that people take them seriously and define and interpret their own identities in terms of those categories, in the same way as one does with other socially constructed categories. They do have some kind of existence.

So the question then becomes, in what sense over and above the phenomenal can it be said that genderfluidity and non-binary genders are not real? It could be that people who identify are lying or otherwise insincere. But at least in my experience, this does not seem generally to be the case. People who claim to identify this way seem reasonably sincere and committed to the idea and its implications.

The other main possibility as far as I can tell is that there's something fundamentally incoherent or impossible in the idea of non-binary/fluid genders. But I don't really see how that's the case. Gender is a social construct that's deep, and complicated, and that we tend to socially construct around two massive poles, masculinity and femininity. So we interpret and make sense of our own gender identities in some kind of relation to that bipolar schema. For some people, that means negotiating some more or less complicated understanding of your own relationship to one of those poles. For other people, it means rejecting the dichotomy entirely, or taking an even more complex identity that doesn't fall into either pole. And that seems pretty reasonable and not intrinsically incoherent.

A lot of this seems to come back to your belief that gender isn't real, and particularly that gender is just gender stereotypes. I just really don't agree with this. Gender goes beyond, you know, boys like sports and girls like cooking. These are deep, deep, complex social structures that impinge on us from birth onwards in a thousand different ways. You don't have to believe that those roles have an independent, essentialist, necessary existence to acknowledge that they meaningfully impinge on our self-conception and our actions and perceptions in deep ways. Even if it's something that we're trained in, rather than something that we're born with, it still is a deeply-internalized kind of training.

Second, the idea that gender does not exist or is just stereotypes seems particularly confusing when applied to people who do identify as masculine or feminine. If gender is just stereotypes, what are we to make of people who choose to incorporate those things into their identity? Especially people who do so with a critical understanding of those categories? If it's true that gender is just stereotypes, isn't this even more radically nonsensical than being non-binary or genderfluid? Your critique seems like it should apply even more to people who align with traditional genders, if anything.

Some people believe in God. Does that mean God is totally irrefutably real? They are, of course free to believe so, but anyone else is free not to believe in it as well. It's the same with gender. People are free to make up genders however much they like. Other people are free to think it's bullshit.

I think there are two sexes. Male or female. (Anomalies are not a third biological sex.) How you choose to express yourself is up to you. But in my eyes, no kind of self expression makes you something "other". Transsexual people are a special case because their dysphoria is based in physical issues first and foremost.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Some people believe in God. Does that mean God is totally irrefutably real? They are, of course free to believe so, but anyone else is free not to believe in it as well. It's the same with gender. People are free to make up genders however much they like. Other people are free to think it's bullshit.

It seems to me that your position is much more akin to saying that religion is not real than that God is not real.

I think there are two sexes. Male or female. (Anomalies are not a third biological sex.) How you choose to express yourself is up to you. But in my eyes, no kind of self expression makes you something "other". Transsexual people are a special case because their dysphoria is based in physical issues first and foremost.

So would it be fair to characterize your view as being that there is no such thing as gender and the only thing that's real is biological sex? And so men and women aren't really identifying as men or women, so much as they simply are biological male and female? Question to understand.

It seems to me that your position is much more akin to saying that religion is not real than that God is not real.

Which is what an atheist would do. And this whole thread is about opinions. I didn't write "imo" in front of every sentence because I thought this was obvious.

And basically yes, that, to your question.

Couple further questions, I guess, if you don't mind

First, how - just generally in your mind - do you see biological sex influencing behavior and identity? To what extent, if at all, is it a factor there?

Second, what kind of relationship, if any, do you think exists between the kind of gender stereotypes you've been talking about, and biological sex?

Yes, to some extent. It generally varies, but certain behaviour is very obviously influenced by biological sex. Not to the same extent in every single person. But the vast majority of cultures all over the world and throughout history have/had certain structures that have always been connected to biological sex (generally higher muscle mass in male bodies means they are generally fighters etc.).

The relationship between gender stereotypes and biological sex is, in my opinion, a matter of certain biologically influenced characteristics being generalised on a very simplistic level. A lot of stereotypes have their basis in plain old sexism though.

The relationship between gender stereotypes and biological sex is, in my opinion, a matter of certain biologically influenced characteristics being generalised on a very simplistic level. A lot of stereotypes have their basis in plain old sexism though.

To the extent that those stereotypes are founded in biologically influenced characteristics, would you view them as legitimate?

Only inasfar as there might be a small bit of truth at the bottom of it, but most stereotypes are too generalised to be entirely legitimate.

[ SECRET POST #3829 ]

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender

Re: Gender