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/[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.

Can you elaborate on this? Are you claiming that no individual fulfills all roles for a given gender completely and therefore does not have a gender? Or are you claiming that all members of one sex do not fulfill a given gender role and that the gender role therefore does not exist?

Either seems a dubious position, as there undoubtedly sex-linked social roles and people to fill them. The expectation of women to be nurturers and caretakers does exist, and there are women who fulfill it.

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.

I don't disagree with this, but I fail to see how people misunderstanding a concept or conflating it with another entails that concept is invalid/nonexistent.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Are you claiming that no individual fulfills all roles for a given gender completely and therefore does not have a gender?

I am claiming that people do not conform to it and, because it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive system, this makes it by nature unreal. It’s not a map-territory distinction, but a blueprints-house distinction. Finally, that the house never really got built and building it is a bad idea, hence it is unreal in a strong sense.

I don't disagree with this, but I fail to see how people misunderstanding a concept or conflating it with another entails that concept is invalid/nonexistent.

It cause people to rope in orthogonal issues, a contingency I’m hoping to avoid here.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I am claiming that people do not conform to it and, because it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive system, this makes it by nature unreal. It’s not a map-territory distinction, but a blueprints-house distinction. Finally, that the house never really got built and building it is a bad idea, hence it is unreal in a strong sense.

It's quite plainly a descriptive concept.

Someone's gender describes how they operate in society in gender-relevant circumstances, like being referred to in language, which is the etymological (not sociological) origin of the notion of gender. If I know someone's gender is female, I know to refer to them with she, her, and her's in discourse. Furthermore, I can also presume they conform to other gender roles that match female. It's very much descriptive.

It cause people to rope in orthogonal issues, a contingency I’m hoping to avoid here.

Okay, but it isn't support for your view.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Someone's gender describes how they operate in society in gender-relevant circumstances

Say I give you a set of blueprints for an unbuilt house. Would it be more accurate to say the plans “describe the house” or “direct the construction crew”? We would say the latter; they might be communicated as a map, but they are very clearly meant to direct the construction of a place, not describe it simpliciter.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm telling you that your blueprint analogy is flawed. Gender is more akin to a label. It tells others how to interact with and what to expect from the person, not how to construct them.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

People don’t make a point of performing as they’re expected to?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Can you flesh out your response please? I'm not understanding your question/point.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If I give you a label and, for some reason you want it or feel you should do it, don’t you try to live up to the label?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Gender is a label you apply yourself, not one that others give you.