What behaviors are sourced from sex and which ones are sourced from gender/gender expression? Where does the line begin/end? All historical, differing cultural expressions of gender have been overstated I'm afraid. I'm having a hard time accepting that all sex is is just our body's physical characteristics. We have instinctual behaviors. If I decide to like the color pink and wear it everyday, I still look at the world from a male point of view, because my body forces me to, not gender norms. I used to think a world composed of androgynous humans would be a great thing, but now I think we would all be fucking dead because instinctual sex based behavior is vital to our survival and so undeniably central to how we treat the opposite sex as well as our own. Please argue against this. I welcome it and am open to changing my mind.
no, I think the sociologists, gender / queer theoreticians, philosophers, and so on are all wrong and copingeven atheists grew up in societies where the belief that humans are special spiritual beings was mainstream, and today instead of believing that they were created by god they believe they were created by society. These philosophers like butler will essentially claim that any material phenomenon like sex or race is a social construct because they are social creationists who have no interest in the actual biology and neurology they're discussing. humans are just animals made of meat and chemicals, little better than other mammals. People are mostly instinct. Constructivism was put into practice decades ago by john money, and we know how well that worked. There's a lot less free will than people think, and human biological nature influences society far more than society influences human nature.
You spent a lot of time writing this post and you're not going to get the engagement you deserve.>What behaviors are sourced from sex and which ones are sourced from gender/gender expression? Where does the line begin/end?We don't know. I'm answering for everyone to save time.
>>45202144unlike god we can demonstrate that human beings in a social climate exist, but go off?
>>45202556I already changed my mind. People are persons, not computers, and that's that.
yeah in sociology 101 they told us that most sociologists don't think it's ALL nurture and that there's nature mixed in. from my pov, modes (visual vs contextual) of sexual attraction are definitely nature. gender dysphoria seems like nature but i can't be entirely sure. physical sexual dimorphism is also nature although there is some nurture in the amount and type of physical activity that can influence physical characteristics.
Imo a majority of sexed behaviors are social, potentially all of them, but we have no feasible way of ever knowing since it's impossible to raise someone in a world with zero social gender roles. It's entirely possible that if we were able to do a study on it, we'd find that men are slightly disposed to taking more risks than women are (i.e. that that trait is biologically caused in some way).I'm inclined to agree that I would still act like a man even in absence of social effects, but for all I know, me thinking that could just be due to those same social pressures
>>45202091the fluidity you describe in the gender roles and expressions, which we in our individual lifetimes imprint HARD into our brains in ways that interface deeply with the more pre-hardwired sex-specific stuff, are a source of control and torment that we thrash and rail against in all our mystical and spiritual pursuits from alchemy to our divine creations being sexless or many-sexed and in the other hand wield against each other to do harm and keep each other in line with our tribal historysexual dimorphism is a curse
>>45202091It confuses me too. I was brought up homeschooled and sheltered, bathed in femininity like a dress-up doll, surrounded by women, and still ended up acting like a man to the point where I was beaten. I wish my physical sex had done its job.
As a kid I used to think boys and girls had the exact same potential to have "masculine" or "feminine" traits, and that these were more retroactively defined, but the more exposure I get to the world, and conversations I have on sites like these, I realize how completely mislead I was. I don't know if it's physical, or environmental, or psychological, but there are inherent differences between sexes that would never be replicated the same way without the exact same circumstances.
>>45202571society exists but it seems to me like social constructivists throw out all the biology and neurology and just do theory without practice. It's very much in the philosophical school of "it made sense in my head", but in real life very many things are materially true that even very smart scientists thought didn't make sense at the time. like when I hear sociologists and queer theorists talking about butler's theories of performativism or whatever they talk about it like they're talking about the theory of relativity, as if it's actually backed up by literally any experimental evidence. personally I have a minor degree in philosophy and a major in life science, so I took a lot of courses in philosophy and I also took a lot of courses in subjects like human reproductive endocrinology and the biology of human sex and sexuality. And what I learned was that a very large part of the human behavior that we take for granted, or that many philosophers describe as constructs in some way, do in fact have a neurological, endocrinological, evolutionary basis. And I just don't think philosophy is equipped to solve these problems in a serious way, because it's completely divorced from anything experimental. For instance, butler often extends her theory on gender constructivism to sex, arguing that sex is also constructed essentially because sex traits are given meaning and categorization by humans in society. And while this is true, I feel like what she's actually claiming is just that words and definitions are socially constructed. I see this as a microcosm for a very large part of social constructivism, that they misuse language to conflate a material thing with the word or definition of a thing, to argue that the thing itself is socially constructed.
>>45206841>>45202571frankly, the fundamental problem here is that the terminology we use around "gender identity" was created by people who did believe that all identity was socially constructed and none of it was innate, and this language was solidified in academia for decades before it turned out that actually the david reimer experiment didn't work out, and oops you can't just raise a kid as the opposite sex and have them actually adopt the corresponding gender identity. All the experimental evidence is in favor of "gender" identity being innate and neurological, which is the actual scientific consensus. But the sociologists and queer theoreticians and philosophers and marxists and whoever else have no interest in experimental evidence, they would rather ignore all that messy stuff and focus on building a perfectly logical and morally comfortable model of humanity in their heads and pass that off as a Real Theory. This is what makes them social creationists. They totally reject the uncomfortably realities of animal existence, of being made of meat and chemicals and having billions of years of evolutionary instinct, and act as if the human mind is a pure tabula rasa born out of society and totally unlike every other living mammal whose behaviors are 99% natural instinct and 1% socially learned.
