where did the whole woman/man are a social construct thing come from?I was never taught that this is the case nor has anyone ever implied to me that it is, i've only seen this presented in queeroid spaces,not my fault girl shaped people were called girls and boy shaped people were called boys throughout my life.how is anyone to infer that this is a social construct pointing to what someone is identifying as and not to the resulting biasing sum of their physiological confluences? I believe womanly/manly activities are correlatory. I also never thought of my physiology as part of my identity, that doesn't mean i'm non binary.I saw a post the other day of someone wanting to play doom eternal and getting demoralized because that's a ''manly'' game? is this just how this manifests and you compulsively label everything manly or womanly and force yourself to fit into stereotypes?again, to me man and woman are just the two labels you get when the weighted sum biases far enough toward one side of the scale, so you can be a man with a vagina and vice verse etceterererere, even if it is a numerically an uphill battle.What does this have to do with identity though?
>>44444959Girl what
>>44444959i think the point is that it gets really fuzzy around the edgeseverybody says XY makes you male but everybody also agrees a woman with CAIS is a woman so explain that? if you're not willing to define it as "well most of them have functioning vaginas/XX chromosomes/etc." because that word "most" is really sticky, woman gets really difficult to define and basically everything you can come up with will have an exceptionand that's even if you think trannies are mentally ill... but we think we can be considered women based on the same logic as all these other exceptions
You will never be a woman
>>44444959that girl-shape and boy-shape are given particular weight, as opposed to some other body shapes that fit bimodal sex. for instance hip dips are not considered girl-shape by most despite a fair number of women having them. i think the truth is that you're just more principled when it comes to addressing social constructs. social constructs are not what we identify as they are how we perceive things. you dont ask an orange how you should taxonomize its subspecies. and yes most queeroid spaces are very bad at presenting a stable logical base for their ideas and when they are commies extremely bad at sticking to materialism. what they probably mean is that their goal is for the widespread construct to just be directly based on identity. rather difficult to implement...
>>44445006We can basically just say "woman/man is just what you're seen as" because that's really all we have to go off of.
>>44445006I think the problem is no one has bothered to officially define the scales not that it gets "fuzzy", you just don't have a proper way to measure it (I don't either)>everybody thinksyes but the masses are largely uninformed, I used to think xy=male too instead of it being just 1 biasing element, but I didn't know much about physiology thenas for someone with cais I think that's just a defect and trying to fit such a person into a binary label is retarded, even if the layout "would've been" male it clearly isn't, the designation stops making sense when pointed at the whole, it's like looking at a trinary bit and having a meltdown over whether it's a 1 or 0 and it's literally neither.>everything you can come up with will have an exceptionmy model doesn't have this problem, but I get what you meanHowever I do think it's at least pathological because it's irrational to compulsively base your behavior in an abstract socially imposed concept, but that doesn't make me treat you any differently
philosophy etc.
>>44445145>I think you're just more principledmaybe, unfortunately>what they probably mean is that their goal is for the widespread construct to just be directly based on identity. rather difficult to implement..difficult indeed, and if that is the case I hope that never comes to fruition, it's not like the construct as is has no use, if you reduce it to hearsay it just becomes another larp, might as well abandon it by that pointI dont have more to add but I appreciate your input>>44445479(you)
>>44444959sociology and gender studies are basically philosophy pretending to be a scienceand there's nothing wrong with philosophy, but when philosophy is put into practice, it's usually in law, politics, religion, and admits that it is just a philosophy. Philosophy is a really cool subject, but everyone understands that philosophy doesn't make testable claims. It's just ideas, not truth. The last time a philosopher discovered something that was really agreed upon as true by pretty much everyone was the cogito ergo sum, like 400 years ago.This is what sociology and gender studies is like. They have ideas for how things are, or why things are, but they're essentially impossible to test, and most of the field is made up of jargon for jargon's sake (looking at you, butler), rehashing the same papers over and over for decades, and thinly veiled political opinions. But unlike philosophy the institutions and "researchers" involved in these fields purport themselves to be a science, and try to make truth claims about how or why things are.
The "gender is a social construct", "gender isn't sex" thing is particularly unfortunate because it's purely a linguistic conflict. The word "gender" technically just means "kind" or "sort". Which has been used for about 200 years as a euphamism for sex. The trick is that gender theory believes that the use of gender as a euphemism is sufficient to say that gender is a totally different concept, as people are sometimes wrong about the actual sex of others. Note that this is also a common sociological claim about race - that race is not a biological concept because people are occasionally unable to correctly recognize it in society. This is the continuum fallacy, where the difference between two averages or extremes is denied due to there being no clear dividing line in the middle. So the fact that occasionally in society people guess ones sex to be different than it is is used to justify a whole other system of categorization which is accurate to how people guess ones sex to be. And because english already had two built in words for sex, the one that was softer and more commonly used was chosen to mean "the thing people refer to when they're wrong about someone's sex". Ultimately there's no inherent problem with this idea. But the first problem comes up when it's promoted as a True Scientific Fact, and not like an opinion or perspective or way of thinking. It's taught as if it's material reality that how someone is in society is a completely different topic from how someone is physically. Which is silly. The second problem is that linguistically, gender doesn't only refer to social gender roles, which can correctly be described as a social construct, but also to "gender identity", which is not a social construct despite what the people who coined the term thought. The term "gender identity" was originally invented by robert stoller, who wrote:
>The condition is pathological....If these boys are the adult transsexuals of future years, with their demands for sex transformation procedures and the reportedly hopeless prognosis for psychiatric treatment, then the time to help them is in childhood, when their gender identity is still forming....The goal of treatment should be to make the child feel that he is a male and wants to be a masculine boy....The first step in treatment is to establish that one is in fact dealing with a childhood transsexual. Next one must start treatment immediately. If one waits until five or six or seven, the undoing is more difficult.The use of gender identity was later popularized most by john money, who as we all know had similar beliefs. So the early understanding of gender identity was that gender identity was an aspect of social gender, something that was determined through ones interactions with society, and definitely not innate biology. Of course now we know differently, and psychology is a more scientific field that sociology, so pretty much all modern psychologists accept that "gender identity" is not actually in the realms of gender (social), but is sex (physical). But the terminology is set and sociologists are loathe to give up on such an important part of a topic that they really like, just because they were wrong or something. Referring back to the problems with sociology and gender studies, they don't really care about if something is actually right or actually wrong like science, they care about if they can justify something within their academic framework, like philosophy. Sociology and gender studies have such a strong grasp on the trans community that being trans is now solely defined by social identity, to the point where mainstream spaces do not accept any physical qualifier for being trans or not trans.
Of course the reality is that "gender identity" should actually be called brain sex, neurosex, or whatever other specific neurological terminology. Because we know that in reality "gender identity" is not socialized, as even the people who originally believed that proved otherwise. But if the trans community were to accept this, it would mean that millions of cissex people who are considered socially trans would have a line drawn separating them from trans people who have gender dypshoria (also not social despite the word gender hmm) and medically transition due to an innate sex condition in the brain which is known as gender identity. Or in other words it would draw a line between people who think gender identity is social, and people who think gender identity is innate (regardless of the fact that the social gender identity was disproven decades ago, sociologists don't care). And as cissex people determine the narrative of not just mainstream trans communities but gender theory in general, there's no reason for them to admit that their idea of gender identity was a mistake made by conversion therapists and child molestors from the last century.
>>44445016They'll try anything for "adult afab" to turn into "whatever um I shoot estrogen"
