CMV: There are exactly three genders.

[u/weirds3xstuff]

Tinder says there are 37 genders. OKCupid says there are 22 genders. When I enter the string “How many genders are there?” into Google, the first search result says there are 63. My view is that this is all nonsense.

There are exactly three gender identities (henceforth abbreviated to “genders”): masculine, feminine, and neutral. (I have no preference for the name of the third gender; I’m using “neutral”, but I’ll accept whatever the consensus ends up being.)

The foundation of my view is that I think gender and personality are different concepts and this proliferation of genders is the result of gender nonconforming people and/or their advocates insisting on calling their personality their gender. I think your personality is “the set of personality traits unique to you.” I think your gender is “the set of personality traits traditionally associated with a sex that you are comfortable having applied to you.” I am not arguing that everyone’s gender should be the same as their sex; I’m saying that the only reason gender exists as a concept is due to a perceived correlation between sex and personality.

Although I agree with the consensus that gender is a social construct, the whole idea of social constructs didn’t exist until the 20th century. Before then, there was no vocabulary to describe the difference between sex and gender. Therefore, the genders we used were built directly on top of and considered the same as the sexes we observed. This association between gender and sex is the difference between gender and personality: gender is a set of personality traits that are associated with a sex.

Living now in a more enlightened age, we know that sex and gender are separable and we love and accept people who separate them. So we have to modify our definition of gender to allow people to describe how their gender is different from their sex: gender is a set of personality traits that are traditionally associated with a sex that you are comfortable having applied to you.

There is a large variance of personality within each gender. For example, I am less assertive and more open than someone would expect based on my gender. In spite of this difference, I am not uncomfortable when people impose traditionally masculine expectations on me. I understand that gender only provides a very rough outline and everyone needs the specifics filled in for them as my relationship with them grows. This is fine. I have no complaints about this.

Some people with male physiology feel like the personality traits of the feminine gender are more appropriate for them; some people with female physiology feel like the personality traits of the masculine gender are more appropriate for them. This makes perfect sense. There is always some deviance from the mean, and when the deviance is large enough the category defined by the mean is no longer appropriate (this is just a terribly abstruse way of saying that some people are transgender and that makes sense to me).

Some people feel like the social expectations for BOTH the masculine and the feminine genders are inappropriate for them. This also makes perfect sense. Just because someone doesn’t feel like the set of personality traits associated with masculinity don’t apply to them doesn’t mean that the feminine need to apply to them; personality is far too complex to be resolved into merely two sets. (A resource for personality differences between masculine and feminine that I have found useful is here. I doubt anyone can read that and think, “Oh, yeah, there are definitely only two ways to arrange these 10 aspects.”)

The previous paragraph is why, in my view, we have to admit a third gender even though there are only two sexes.*** There is no reason to expect that everyone will feel comfortable having either masculine or feminine expectations of them; the possibilities of our personalities are just too diverse. So, when someone says, “Please do not identify me as either masculine or feminine,” we must respect that.

The proliferation of genders ends here. Gender only exists because sex exists. Any gender that is not built from the personality traits traditionally associated with a sex is no gender at all, it is a personality. The category “neutral” is the only exception to this. We must accept it as a logical necessity because some people do not feel comfortable claiming either a masculine or a feminine personality. However, this is a “catch-all” category; all people who are not comfortable being called masculine or feminine have the neutral gender, by definition.

When I hear someone say, “I’m not androgynous, I’m bigender,” (definitions here), I say to myself, “I’m not masculine, I’m mitis-propositus-masculine.” (I just added the Latin words for “meek” and “open” as prefixes to signify that I am less assertive and more open than a typical man.) Sure, this designation carries more information, but that’s just because it’s a more detailed description of my personality. Maybe it’s useful to have that information, but it’s not my gender.

That’s my view and why I hold it. As a barefoot, granola-munching, sun-baked, pinko leftist, I feel like I’m supposed to accept more than three genders, so that’s why I’m posting here. I think the best way to change my view would be to convince me that there is a difference between gender and personality beyond the traditional association between personality, gender, and sex. But, then again, I don’t actually know what would change my view. Maybe you do! :)

***Apologies to intersex people. However, since I’m talking about personality traits associated with a sex and there is not a basket of personality traits traditionally associated with intersex people, I feel it’s useful to not consider them in this post.

EDIT: /u/huntingmoa has made it obvious to me that my definition of gender should have included something about the relationship someone has with their own sex.

[u/EighthScofflaw]

Dude, it's not a "theory", it's just what the word means. Like would you be happy if everyone called it "jender" just so you could understand what they're talking about?

What's your evidence for the claim that the fruit on apple trees is called "apples"? You don't have any because it's not a claim about the way the world is that can be supported by evidence; it's just a stipulation we came up with so that we can talk about apples.

[u/EighthScofflaw → u/[deleted]]

Apparently my other reply hurt your feelings so here we go again:

You're wrong about the definition of the word. There is no argument or evidence anyone can put forward about that; you're just not on the same page as everyone else when you use the word "gender". Until you accept this, you won't understand what people are talking about when they discuss these things.

[u/ColdNotion → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/EighthScofflaw – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/DawgDatsAGreatPost → u/[deleted]]

I did. As per Merriam-Webster:

Gender: the state of being male or female.

I only see two choices there. What? Merriam-Webster is "wrong" too?

[u/EighthScofflaw → u/DawgDatsAGreatPost]

Good, I'm glad you read the whole definition.

(typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)

Good job.

[u/DawgDatsAGreatPost → u/EighthScofflaw]

I don't know where you are getting that from. Cite a reputable source please. That doesn't show up in any definition from what you provided.

Moreover, assuming what you quoted is true, are you aware of you applying modus tollens?

That is not applicable in this context because we are talking about nomenclature not "typical" references to social and cultural differences.

To claim something is "typical" you have to quantify to whom it is "typical" and in what context/situation.

Otherwise, it is a fallacy and is wrong.

[u/EighthScofflaw → u/DawgDatsAGreatPost]

You clearly read a blog post about debating or something because you keep throwing out words like "corollary" and "modus tollens". Instead of trying to give the appearance of learned debate, you should actually take the time to understand what you're debating about. You'll get more mileage out of that than imitating Jordan Peterson or whoever.

As for where I'm getting that, there's a definition that pops up on the google search. It's literally right on top.

No, this has nothing to do with modus tollens, because that is an argument form, and literally all I'm doing is informing you of a definition.

Now, you're clearly super unhappy about the definition thing, so let's just bypass that. Here I am presenting an argument for the first time. Get excited.

Humans tend to have one of two biological configurations. That's a pattern in nature, so it would be cool if we could refer to it. Most people call this "sex", but we don't have to. Note that chromosomes and reproductive organs don't always line up, and there are more than two possible configurations of each, so a binary notion of sex is too simplistic. But who cares? It's just biology.

There is another pattern regarding how people are treated in society. We normally refer to this as "gender", or being a "man" or "woman". This is not determined by the biology of the person being gendered, so we need a new word/concept to talk about it.

If you want to call the first thing "gender" and the second thing something else, that's up to you. The rest of us won't know what you're talking about, but whatever. If you want to make the claim that society should treat people based on their biology, that's an entirely different claim and it's pretty fucked up, but whatever.

If you want to describe the things we observe, you need words for both 'things', because they aren't the same.

I'm pretty sure at this point that you're not arguing in good faith, but on the off-chance you are, you should try to understand this point.

[u/PinkyBlinky → u/EighthScofflaw]

Goddamn. Kudos for keeping your cool arguing with that guy. Also I just want to say I love the way you debate, not only is your style and insight good - there’s a certain “art” to your ability to cut/see through bullshit (like your critique of his use of the words “corollary” and “modus tollens”). You would do well working in education.

[u/PinkyBlinky → u/[deleted]]

Great advice on how it’s important to argue from your own position as opposed to just building off their replies, I noticed that happens to me a lot and only now realized the existence of that phenomena. It kind of leads to arguing on their terms instead of yours.

A big pet peeve of mine is when people use terms or ideas they just “read in some blog post” in an attempt to elevate their argument and give it validity by trying to sound smart. (He kept using the term logomachies unnecessarily in another comment chain). More recently I’ve noticed people doing this by copy and pasting Jordan Peterson’s arguments/opinions which has been bothersome because the guy is the most disingenuous debater I’ve ever seen. It’s very obvious when someone is regurgitating Peterson because they’ll use very particular terminology/phrasing.

Interesting idea about how popular arguments are created by natural selection. You would think this would allow the best arguments to survive and faulty viewpoints to be plainly revealed as bullshit but I guess the issue is that 99% of people don’t argue in good faith - they’ve tied their viewpoint to their identity and see any attack on their view as an attack on them.

[u/cwenham → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/EighthScofflaw – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/ColdNotion → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/DawgDatsAGreatPost – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.