QT/trans: What would be the worst things to happen if the concept of gender did not exist?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

No its not that gender stereotypes are instinctual but that some humans possess an instinct to conceive of themselves as belonging to the same group as people whom share some of their observable sex traits. Its not about stereotypes but identification.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People are grouping with other people sho are sharing same traits not because they are sharing same traits but because they have same experience from having same traits (not just sex traits). Grouping is coming from sharing similar experiences, not from sharing characteristics themselves. Sharing characteristics only makes people assume that other person most likely had similar experience based on that.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

ZveroboyAlina, I don't think what you are saying is applicable to very young children. Children recognize similarities of characteristics and put things/people into groups long before they understand the concepts of "experience" and time/history. One of the first things young children do is recognize the differences and similarities between shapes, colors, and all sorts of various objects and animals - then group like with like. A child who arranges all his stuffed animals together in one place and lines up all his toy cars and trucks in an entirely different spot doesn't do so coz he thinks stuffed animals have different experiences to his toy vehicles - it's coz he sees them as different based on them having different characteristics he observes through his powers of vision, touch and smell.

Young children recognize the physical differences between the two sexes in humans - and often in many other animals too - long before they come to understand that males and females have life experiences different to one another, and that within each of the two sexes many individuals have some similar experiences.

Moreover, I don't think it's accurate to say that when humans older than very young children group together or divide based on sex or other visually observed physical traits, it's because they all assume everyone who shares physical characteristics "most likely (has) had similar experience based on that." That's conjecture that cannot be assumed to be the case for all people in all situations. In fact, a lot of people would argue that this is not the case for a majority of people in most situations.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was not speaking about very young children, thought. Very young children mostly have experience only with the closest surroundings, and it could be opposite to societal standarts. My brother's son was thinking up to around 6-7 years old that only women are bringing money to home and hard working and that men are cleaning house and washing dishes, for example.

In fact, a lot of people would argue that this is not the case for a majority of people in most situations.

What they say is not necessarily what they do, but people are not hive mind, indeed.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, still gonna disagree with you that on the whole people assume others who share physical traits also share common experiences. For example, when I meet other women my own age & race I assume that because of being female we've had some common experiences, but only to a limited extent. I wouldn't assume we all have similar educational & work backgrounds, family backgrounds, socioeconomic status, relationship history, marital status, sexual orientation, childbearing (or not) history, politics, social attitudes, views on religion, health history, levels of loss & bereavement, behavior patterns, histories of drink & drug use, have traveled the same extent and to the same places, have similar hobbies & interests and so on. Life would be very boring if everyone who shared common physical characteristics all had similar life experiences. What would be the incentive to socialize if it just means meeting more versions of yourself?

Very young children mostly have experience only with the closest surroundings

Don't think this is true. Kids go to play groups, "Mommy & Me," have playdates, attend birthday parties, etc from early on, & accompany their moms & dads to all sorts of social gatherings in other people's homes & other settings where they play with other kids & see lots of different adults. Little kids have sleepovers at relatives and friends houses.

Lots of kids go to pre-school, nursery school, programs like HeadStart. Me & my siblings did in the 1950s & 60s, our kids all did in the 80s & 90. Same goes for all the kids & grandkids of most everyone I know. In the US prior to COVID, more than 50% of 3 year-olds, nearly 70% of 4 year-olds and nearly 90% of 5 year-olds were in preschool.

Though it is true, as you say, that the generalizations that kids make about the sexes and different groups of people is based mostly on what they see at home.

Also, it's always been the case that families can serve as a conduit for the values & stereotypes of the larger culture, or as a bulwark against them - or as a combo of both. But because of TV, video, movies, the marketing of toys & games & kids fashion, and especially because of the internet and devices like tablets for kids, the home/family is generally no longer the bulwark it might once have been. The dominant culture has tentacles that come into the home at ever turn. Even kids kept sheltered at home, no preschool, and later who are homeschooled are no longer out of reach of the larger culture's influence.