all 8 comments

[–]SushimiSushi 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

According to their logic, every LGB person is transgender because their behaviour is considered atypical for their gender. Every tomboy is transgender, every man who likes makeup is transgender, etc.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The response you received just reinforced your assertion, that "gender" exists as a set of socially-determined roles, i.e. stereotypes. I don't doubt that, considered collectively, these roles and characteristics follow a roughly bimodal distribution, the peaks (heh) of which can be labeled "female" and "male". So, as such, "gender" exists, but only as one of an infinite number of possible configurations in that space of characteristics and roles. I don't have a problem with any biological man or woman finding themselves near a peak that is labeled the opposite of their biological sex. "I'm a man but I like a lot of girly things." That's awesome. But that doesn't make you a biological woman, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the womanhood of any biological female who likes "manly" stuff.

[–]LoganBlade[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My main issue with it is that people who arent on those peaks (heh) get told they are gender non conforming and whatnot and that there is something wrong with them

[–]IridescentAnaconda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I totally agree. Which is why I affirm the ngc behavior of any individual as, explicitly, non-gender-conforming (not on the sex-aligned peak).

Still has nothing to do with some undefinable metaphysical pseudo-spiritual concept of "gender" that supposedly has nothing to do with sex but still requires you to undergo extreme medical alterations to give a very superficial appearance of the opposite sex (but have I told you gender has nothing to do with sex?)

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

You could test what society considers appropriate for men and women. You could sit them down and do a survey. And indeed, people have done this. We do in fact have different expectations about when men and women should be like. That's gender in the sense of norms and social positions. Actually most GC feminists will tell you these are very real and shape our lives in negative ways, serving to naturalise and justify sex based oppression. The other way gender is used is 'gender identity'; an innate sense of being a woman or man, which is either circular or empty.

[–]sisterinsomnia 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have spotted a change in such conversations. What the OP described used to be the case, but now it's possible to come across trans activists who argue that biological sex does not exist (bye bye women's rights..) but that gender (=sexist stereotypes and retrogressive sex roles) identity is innate and can never be changed. That the concept of an inner abstract identity can never be verified or falsified by anyone else while biological sex can is of zero importance to them or even in general, it seems. And we are sliding toward the gender identity definition of 'woman' in the West. So I will be something else, I guess, as I don't seem to have that identity thingy.

[–]Calliope 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I actually don't mind sex and gender being considered separate concepts, but conflating the two and denying biological sex concerns me.

[–]LasagnaRossa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Basically, gender roles.