DiscussionSo does anyone actually understand gender theory?

submitted by bi_otter from self.LGBDropTheT

So a while back I got jumped with the whole "How many genders do you think there are?" thing and gave some half-arsed response about there being two sexes. Predictably that caused an absolute shitstorm and my assertion that "Just because some people are missing limbs doesn't stop humanity being bipedal..." really didn't help matters.

But what with recent events I've been coming back to it, and I seriously don't get the entire thing.

Is gender a social construct?

If it is, that essentially means it's entirely optional. So no one should care how anyone acts/affects etc and that would mean that only sex and sexualities are important. The goal would be to break down preconceived notions of gender until they lose meaning.

That doesn't seem to be a currently politically acceptable line of thought, because without the existence of gender norms you couldn't be non-binary or genderqueer or anything else, because there wouldn't be a binary. Indeed, without the concept of the gender binary, gender reassignment itself makes very little sense.

It also seems to place too much of a weight on physical sex for the purpose of relationships which appears to run counter to the current ideologies.

So what if it isn't? What if gender is an actual reified binary, or a spectrum, or discrete set of categories or whatever? What then?

A fairly important question seems to come up.

What even is gender?

If gender is a set of behaviours, norms, and affects associated with sexual or identitarian role groupings, then what differentiates it from stereotypes? If it's taken as default that gender exists as an idea distinct from but linked to sex, is gendered behaviour a choice, a decision, or some sort of social programming?

What the fuck is going on?

I've tried asking people and watching stuff, and to be honest, I'm more lost than when I started. No one seems to agree or even in most cases be able to coherently explain their own thoughts. Those sources that get pointed to are written as an impenetrable shibboleth that requires immersion in, and acceptance of, decades of prior foundational texts.

Someone help, please.

TL:DR I'm lost, the actual fuck is up with current gender theory?

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]PInkier 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Don't search, you will only be even more confused. To give a demystified answer, gender don't exist and are only a social norm. It is very likely gender dysphoria isn't even a mental illness in itself, but a symptom of actual mental illnesses (most likely depression). That is why most country (first example in mind is France) don't do surgery unless this is a lost cause.

[–]Smolders1Cock is god's greatest gift. 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This.

EDIT: Though, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental illness in itself, depression and anxiety are often described as separate signs of dysphoria rather than said dysphoria deriving from anxiety and depression.

[–]notdelusionalbased faggot 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Gender theory is a complicated approach to deny biology. Its details are a morass of contradictions.

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

I agree with you, but I have seen biologists specialized in the study of the behavioral effects of maternity in some animals buying into that crap, so we have to give them some credit from the con they are being able to pull. I guess it will end like other episodes of stupid philosophies or "scientific" theories.

[–]JulienMayfair 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, even into the 00s, we (generally meaning people aligned in some way with the mainstream feminist ethos) were trying to undermine the power of gender roles and gender stereotypes. Men could be nurses. Women could be CEOs. Look at rock stars of the 70s and all their glorious gender-bending. Then a strange counter-movement arose whereby a new wave of gender theorists started coming up with a whole new set of gender boxes into which to arrange and categorize people.

We were fighting against gender; they are fighting for it. The two efforts are antithetical.

The new gender movement can be traced fairly easily back to Judith Butler's work and its adaptation in a more popular and accessible form by Riki Wilchins, someone who doesn't get enough credit (or blame) for spreading these ideas. Wilchins was involved in the Camp Trans protests against MichFest, is well-connected in tech, and is partly responsible for aligning trans ideology with critical race theory, which is one reason you so often hear "racist and transphobic" these days and rarely hear the word 'homophobic.'

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

Riki Wilchins, someone who doesn't get enough credit (or blame) for spreading these ideas. Wilchins was involved in the Camp Trans protests against MichFest, is well-connected in tech, and is partly responsible for aligning trans ideology with critical race theory, which is one reason you so often hear "racist and transphobic" these days and rarely hear the word 'homophobic.'

Whoa I did not know this. You always know so much forgotten history! I'm glad you made it over here.

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

“We are fighting against gender, they are fighting for it.” That should be our mantra, at least from a feminist perspective.

I think there should be something as easily repeated addressing the homophobia of TRA.

[–]its1342 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’ll try to explain my understanding of gender vs sex. There will be a lot of redundancy but I think it’s necessary when explaining terms that get confused easily:

Sex is biological, male or female. “Male” and “female” are applicable to most species of animals, so to distinguish male and female humans we use the words man and woman.

Gender is like a terrible nickname, but instead of being based on an embarrassing moment, it’s based on your sex. It’s given to you by society the day you are born and once determined, it’s the guiding principle for others on how to treat you. Gender is a sex-based stereotype.

This is the only way sex and gender are linked. Gender is “socially constructed” from your sex (ie, society constructing stereotypes based on your sex).

You, as an individual, can not change gender as a whole. It’s why things are labeled masculine or feminine, the reason baby boys have blue rooms and girls, pink; why men wear suits and women wear heels. Gender is a sex-based stereotype.

Colors are just colors, clothes are just pieces of manufactured materials, these things have no link to biology.

However, because society only categorizes things as either masculine or feminine, things like colors and clothes are stereotyped and arbitrarily placed into these gender boxes. Many people feel they must conform to these “rules” and stay within the restrictions of the gender-box society put them in (women in the feminine box, men in the masculine box).

Those who choose not to conform to society’s rules and ignore the gender boxes can be seen as “gender non-conforming”. However, just because they aren’t listening to society’s stereotypes doesn’t stop them from being a human male (man) or human female (woman).

Realistically, every single person is already gender non-conforming in some way. In an ideal world, gender (sex-based stereotypes) wouldn’t exist at all. There would be no boxes to fit into to.

This is why things like non-binary, transgender, genderfluid, etc. are completely nonsensical. Not fitting into a box doesn’t require an additional box being made, a human male (man) enjoying the feminine box doesn’t turn him into a human female (woman). Liking some things from the masculine box, and some from the feminine box doesn’t require a third box labeled non-binary or genderfluid.

These labels and mental gymnastics do nothing but harm and just reinforce the idea that societal sex-based stereotypes (gender) are necessary and set in stone, rather than eliminating them all together and allowing people to live as themselves.

(As an aside, this is the basis for “gender critical” thinking- rejecting/being critical of the concept of gender and the effects it has on society as a whole.)

[–]snub-nosedmonkey 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

While it's tempting to believe that gendered behaviour and gender stereotypes don't have any biological roots, this is strongly refuted by science. What is disputed is the extent to which society reinforces or exaggerates innate differences that exist on average between the sexes.

[–]its1342 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No it’s not “strongly refuted”. I see your other comment about “male and female brains” this is a myth. There is no proven science behind it, it’s been disproven.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

<Indeed, without the concept of the gender binary, gender reassignment itself makes very little sense.> this is why transmeds hate trenders and all the genderqueer people.

<If gender is a set of behaviours, norms, and affects associated with sexual or identitarian role groupings, then what differentiates it from stereotypes?>

that's part of the problem, they are using stereotypes as not only proof they are the other gender, and simultaneously reinforcing those stereotypes. Is womanhood hair and makeup and dresses? Is maleness suits and facial hair? Are these things biologically driven? If a non binary female doesn't want to be called a woman, how iis that different from a butch lesbian who also doesn't follow women's stereotypes, but calls herself a woman?

[–]neveragain 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've watched the current gender theory evolve over the past decade. I'll try and explain it succinctly.

Gender is a social construct. Traditionally, it is tied to biological sex: if you are male, you are a man; if you are female, you are a woman. Gender manifests as societal expectations on a certain way of behaviour and a certain way of appearance based on your sex. Man: assertive, protector, provider, stoic. Woman: nice, emotional, submissive, requires protection.

So as gender is a social construct, we can technically construct as many genders as we please. The correct answer to the question "How many genders do you think there are?" is "Infinite" or "I don't know". Anyone can come up with a new gender at any time, because under this new gender theory, a gender is essentially an expression of someone's unique personality. And there are endless permutations of personality.

So what's the problem? Do we just have to accept that people are who they say they are?

The problem is this: when someone self-identifies as a particular gender, they are not only defining themselves -- they are defining everyone else. If I am a galaxy-gender and that gender is the feeling of being made of star stuff, then it follows that other genders are not like this. Well, you might think, that's fine, because I'm certainly not going to say that I'm galaxy-gender, so it doesn't matter. Right?

Consider the difference between the following two statements:

1) Some men are trans women.

2) Trans women are women.

Over a decade ago, the first statement was the default. This was around the time I first became aware of the trans movement, and actually read several pieces of writing about how gender was a social construct based on biological sex, and how trans people were challenging the bounds of their gender expectations. A trans woman, born male, is a person breaking free of the societal expectations of being a man. That's how the argument for acceptance of trans people was presented. Nowadays, of course, it's transphobic.

Nowadays, the assertion is that a trans woman is a woman. They are not men. They are women because they say they are. They are no longer males, because that's transphobic, but females.

Have you noticed how trans men and women tend to use gender stereotypical appearance markers? Trans men will grow a beard as soon as possible. Trans women will get long hair and put on a dress and make up. This is because stereotypical appearance markers are the easiest way to signify to an observer that they identify a certain way and would like to be treated as such. If you confront a trans person about this use of stereotypes, they will say that well of course not all men have beards and not all women are hyper feminine. And then you walk away and think, well, that's true, so everything's fine.

But let's couple this with everything else. A trans woman, with all of the stereotypical appearance markers and stereotypical behaviour, is a literal woman. Meanwhlie, someone else, born female, is deciding that they don't "feel like a woman" and are nonbinary, and they signify this by dressing in a gender neutral way. So if a female dressing in a gender neutral way is not a woman, and a male dressing in a stereotypically feminine way is a woman, then what is a woman? Instead of expanding the confinements of gender and abolishing them -- i.e. a male human should be allowed to wear dresses and be feminine -- we are shrinking the definition of woman and man back into restrictive stereotypes. Why are so many young girls coming out as trans? Well why wouldn't they, when the only way they can escape the ever restrictive bounds of womanhood and express their unique personalities is to not be a woman?

So there you have it. There certainly can be an infinite number of genders. But it is not doing us much good, and frankly it is fucking stupid.

[–]materialrealityplz 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Trans men will grow a beard as soon as possible. Trans women will get long hair and put on a dress and make up

Sex is a spectrum they say, but it's always transmen are men or transwomen are women as they try to be the opposite sex. They certainly love the binary.

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

There's division within the trans community about this. It used to be a harsher divide -- that is, some trans people were very vocal about "trans trenders" (i.e. nonbinary "enby" and genderqueer, agender etc.) and were all about gatekeeping transition as being from male to female or female to male within the strict binary. These days a lot of these people have softened their views most likely due to pressure and now accept enby identities, except some of them still believe that enbies should "get their own movement" instead of co-opting the trans movement. Blaire White is a good example of a trans woman who has gone through this shift.

There's a lot of contradiction within the ideology (think of self-ID vs "I have a female brain") that believers are not allowed to question.

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

As you allude to, I think 'gender identity' has shifted away from commonly accepted definitions of gender. Gender, by most definitions, is binary, because it's a way of describing 'masculine' and 'feminine' things. These are the only 2 defined parameters. On the other hand, 'gender identity' is now used to just mean 'personal identity', hence the infinite number of genders. Now people who are gender non-conforming are told they might be transgender, or might be non-binary, or an infinite number of identifiers. This doesn't help to fight against gender stereotypes and gender roles, it reinforces them. This is different to gender dysphoria which appears to be a mental condition.

[–]snub-nosedmonkey 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the answer is easiest to understand from a more objective, scientific perspective, which I've attempted to summarise from the best of my knowledge:

While usually described as a social construct, there is also a biological basis to gender. There are 'masculine' and 'feminine' characteristics which relate to physical features. There are clear differences between male and female bodies, for example. On average, there are are also differences between male and female brains, although these differences are very small. There is a huge amount of variation within each sex and there is not really such a thing as a 'typical male' or 'typical female' brain. Nevertheless, on average, there are differences in behaviour between males and females. These differences are innate, but they are also reinforced and sometimes enhanced by society. There is also a ton of evidence for innate gender behaviour differences, on average, in other animals such as primates. The idea that 'gendered behaviour' is purely a result of socialisation and culture is refuted by science.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Kinda similar to what I was thinking:

"If gender is a set of behaviours, norms, and affects associated with sexual or identitarian role groupings, then what differentiates it from stereotypes? If it's taken as default that gender exists as an idea distinct from but linked to sex, is gendered behaviour a choice, a decision, or some sort of social programming?"

It's both. It's a choice, social programming, and also there's a biologically intrinsic element to it. I think the intrinsic characteristics showed up first in our evolution, and later on, culture emphasized them with expectations that people either followed consciously or subconsciously. And clearly many people go beyond these expectations by making the their behaviours even more pronounced and making up new things that may not be intrinsic at all.

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

It's made up bullshit so people can feel special. "I'm not like those other girls" = non-binary

[–]112223sps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender is nothing but stereotypes and expectations based on your sex. Masculine or feminine. This shit is entirely a social construct that can change with time and can differ between cultures. The reason it doesn't make sense and requires impressive mental gymnastics to 'understand' is because these people are literally making it up as they go.

[–]zeusdx1118 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Just because some people are missing limbs or have extra doesn't stop humanity being bipedal..."

FTFY

Great point though. Absolutely mirrors the situation.

If it is, that essentially means it's entirely optional. So no one should care how anyone acts/affects etc and that would mean that only sex and sexualities are important. The goal would be to break down preconceived notions of gender until they lose meaning.

EXACTLY!

I'm lost, the actual fuck is up with current gender theory?

You're not lost at all. Everything is wrong with gender theory. You're just seeing it.

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

I always thought of gender as the social expression of sex which is why it is a social construct. I don't use social construct to mean fake or unnecessary as it tends to be used today, I mean the plain definition: an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society. Gender is how we make sense of sex, sexual dynamics, and sex differences.

Current gender theory says that way is confining and there are actually perhaps infinite genders based on how someone views themself. It's usually talked about as something to be explored and something very personal. It sounds a lot like gender navel gazers theorists might have confused gender with personality, but maybe that's unfair of me.

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

It makes no sense because "gender" as a word has been used both as a way to talk about biological sex without saying the word "sex" and as a way to discuss sex-linked social roles. "Gender theory" was always a poorly defined set of post-modern word games that was then filtered through teens on Tumblr and turned into something even less coherent.

What the kids these days seem to think is that "gender" is an actual essence that people feel and that this essence determines whether people are "women," "men," or "non-binary." It's not the same as sex stereotypes, although people often draw on sex-stereotypes to express their identity. For the true believer, they really believe that people have an innate gender identity of "man," "woman," and "non-binary" that has nothing to do with the body. Thus, when they say women can have a penis or a man can have a vagina, they really mean it. Genitals are arbitrary; the inner gender identity is real. True believers also seem to think "women" and "men" have always been used this way and everyone understands what "women" and "men" mean in this context.

Any reading of history or conversation with a non-too-online person would reveal that no, most of us genuinely have no idea what they mean and no, the words have not been used in isolation from biological sex. Unfortunately, social media has made it really easy for people to form echo chambers. Also, groups like Gender Spectrum have provided horrible puberty/sex ed materials that basically miseducate kids about biology and gender. Their content only makes sense if gender = sex stereotypes, but they do a lot of word games to obfuscate that. (They also misrepresent intersex conditions and appropriate intersex language, but intersex activists get regularly harassed for trying to point that out.)

Modern teens are spending so much of their lives interacting in a disembodied way through the Internet that I think the inconsistencies of gender theory are probably much less obvious to them. Many of them will not have experience with embodied desire, or will have negative/traumatic experiences. Puberty will be making their bodies uncomfortable and unfamiliar. I would guess that the idea of remaking their body to express an idealized inner essence would be appealing.

I think the mechanism for adults is probably a little different, but that the attraction of gender theory is similar. Even though I have to believe every adult over 30 knows in their heart of hearts that gender theory makes no sense, it must be a seductive promise. Uncomfortable with sexism? Feel like you're not quite like other girls? Now you get to opt out of being a woman. (Even though, of course, you don't.)

While I do think there are many true believers or people who are willfully putting on blinders, I also think there are many people who are manipulative. If trans activists really believed in gender identity as they express it, there would be no need for medical transition because woman/man/non-binary are completely separate from bodily appearance. We would also see more arguments for adding non-binary categories and spaces (since otherwise, non-binary people will be excluded or misgendered).