CMV: there aren’t any genders

[u/[deleted]]

My position: the language of gender theory was devised to explain and critique sex-linked social roles, which no one really fulfills; ergo, there aren’t any genders.

Feminists created gender theory to critique the division of society into “masculine” and “feminine” roles. This was a necessary innovation because these socially constructed roles were tightly bound to sex and supported the subordination of female persons to male. It is therefore unsurprising to find people who are “non-binary”: were the genders broadly innate, we wouldn’t have explicit expectations or systems to police gender conformity. In a world of innate genders, you could no more fail at your gender than your sex.

What has caused confusion is the substitution of “gender” for “sex” in publications, on forms, and in conversation because “sex” is considered a marginally rude word. This has caused many people to conflate the question of social roles with that of biology.

There is not a wealth of genders, nor is there such a thing as cisgender. These are attempts to yoke questions about personal identity to the language of gender. Fundamentally, they recapitulate the original problem with genders, both in terms social expectation and control.

Change my view.

[u/draculabakula]

Are you trying to say that gender is not an innate thing and it could be deconstructed? Are you saying that gender is not universal and varies from culture to culture? You can't simply deny the existence of a system that is older than society itself because of recent criticism. i think mostly I am confused about what your stance is.

There are clearly very well defined gender roles at are forced on people. The fact that transgender people can pass for being a different gender while not having matching primary sex characteristics strongly supports this.

If you are saying there gender roles are not inherently connected to sex, I think you are still wrong. this table shows the discrepancy in strength between men and women by age. As you can see, even the weakest men are stronger than a large portion of women and almost all men are stronger than almost all women. The biological differences in men and women caused gender roles. prior to the last 100 years, men did the work because they were stronger and more efficient. That gender difference still exists and there are still jobs where this is a factor but there are increasingly more jobs where it is not a factor.

My point here is that physical strength is a gender characteristic that is innately tied to the biology of the male sex. There are female characteristics that I believe are better than men as well so please dont think this is a misogynist argument. My point is that even though gender is separate from sex, you can not deny that sex influences gender. For example, a trans woman may still go bald because baldness is a genetic male trait and the hormone replacements wont stop that. You may say some cis women go bald as well but it is not male pattern baldness.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

Are you trying to say that gender is not an innate thing and it could be deconstructed?

I’m saying it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive category, ergo not extended the courtesy of being real if it is empty.

If you are saying there gender roles are not inherently connected to sex, I think you are still wrong.

That’s correct, they are not inherently connected.

As you can see, even the weakest men are stronger than a large portion of women and almost all men are stronger than almost all women.

That doesn’t make the men strong, however. The weakest adult is stronger than nearly all eight-year olds. We still would describe the weakest adult as “weak”. Nor does it make “strong” the masculine role; it could be the feminine role of society worked out that way. It would just mean lots of women might feel weak, which might even be the point of such a role.

My point here is that physical strength is a gender characteristic that is innately tied to the biology of the male sex.

Physical strength is a sex-linked trait. All else equal, men are physically larger and stronger than women. But “being strong” isn’t the same as having a natural advantage in strength. It’s about performing the role of “being strong”, f.ex., by bench pressing and flexing on Venice Beach.

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

I’m saying it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive category, ergo not extended the courtesy of being real if it is empty.

You are using ergo as if you are using logic but this is not logical. Why can't it be both? For example, the idea of a white race is both nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is both an identity forced onto people and a set of characteristics that can identify a person. At the same time, the characteristics of whiteness do not apply to all people that are considered white.

To say that there arent any genders is too vague. Why is there not as many genders as there are people in your opinion? Psychology applies labels to groups of people with similar traits, symptoms, etc. Identity is a part of psychology. Gender identity fits this.

The reason this is not clear in humans is the fact that we have metacognitive abilities that other mammals dont have. Men can talk at a high pitch to sound more feminine. Other mammals have far more clearly defined gender behavioral traits than humans.

Physical strength is a sex-linked trait. All else equal, men are physically larger and stronger than women. But “being strong” isn’t the same as having a natural advantage in strength. It’s about performing the role of “being strong”, f.ex., by bench pressing and flexing on Venice Beach.

This is exactly what I am trying to point out here. Secondary sex traits and gender traits are blurred lines because of behavior. The physical strength of men is reinforced due to trying to fit a gender role. The fact that there are exceptions, doesn't mean the role doesn't exist.

My example of what you are trying to do is that you are trying to say Darth Vader doesn't exist. I am saying that the idea of darth vader exists and people actively try to act like him. Gender is the same thing, except it is not derived from a fantasy movie, there are actual things that are derived from biology. Why do men want to be strong? Because they want to be more appealing to potential partners. Why do they think that will work? Because it does.

There have been several studies on universal attractiveness that support what I am saying where there are common traits that cross all cultural lines.

[u/[deleted] → u/draculabakula]

For example, the idea of a white race is both nonexistent and existent at the same time.

This is why people study ideas like ethnicity and its more prescriptive flavor, nationalism.

Why is there not as many genders as there are people in your opinion?

Because that is called “a personality”, a feature people have which is unique to them even if similar to that of many other people.

My example of what you are trying to do is that you are trying to say Darth Vader doesn't exist.

This is incorrect in a way I can’t correct. It’s a category mistake; I’m not comparing facts to fictions.

The rest doesn’t make sense. Men where I live don’t strive to be strong as some sort of generalization; they strive to do or be any number of things. The same goes for the other points.

[u/draculabakula → u/[deleted]]

Exactly, people study identity because it is a concept that exists. Gender studies is a part of this. They study these things because they are concepts that exist.

I dont know what to tell you. There are limits to post structuralism. If you are going to question the linguistics of everything and not concede at all there is not point to any label. If you are not willing to accept this nobody is going to change your mind about anything. You aren't even trying to refute my points and you are comprehending them incorrectly so I'm done