Remember the gender unicorn? This is it but actually accurate. And answering the question before someone asks - yes, the creator of this piece was harrased by TRA's and so called "enbies" for creating this.

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BenderRodriguez 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Man & woman = gender.

No, man and woman are sexed terms to refer to adult human males and adult human females.

The socially constructed traits of being a 'man' and a 'woman' = masculinity & femininity.

This is also known as gender.

All adult human males are men and all adult human females are women.

Yes because "man" and "woman" are sexed terms.

Gender and sex are inextricable.

No because gender is masculinity and femininity.

A man can dress and behave and don the characteristics of a woman and still be a man.

Yes, because "man" refers to sex.

A woman can dress and behave and don the characteristics of a man and still be a woman.

Yes, because "woman" refers to sex.

Other languages and cultures readily adopt multiple 'genders' as terms of describing people, such as in India, with hijra (intersexed people), kothi (feminine males who 'receive').

A male person becomes a "hijra" because of socially constructed ideas of masculinity and femininity - if a man is too feminine or gay, they get shunned and forced to live life as a "hijra". It's a gender role. Same with "kothi". Without these artificial and patriarchally imposed restrictions on what being a "man" is, "hijra" would still be men because they're adult human males. They're only considered "non-men" because people conflate masculinity with maleness/manhood and femininity with femaleness/womanhood. This conflation needs to be abolished.

English and Western culture are both a bit more simplistic in that regard--we see males and call them men, we see women and call them women. We get a bit confused when we come across intersexed people and we usually try to categorise them as 'men' or 'women' or they self-categorise. It's a failing on our cultural and linguistic versatility.\ We also don't differentiate between gay men who 'give' or 'receive' (beyond calling them tops, bottoms or versatile)--we don't label them as a different gender, but as a different sexuality which is far more accurate and nuanced.

It's not a failure to recognize an adult human male as a man regardless of how they present or behave, that's a good thing. Same goes for women. When people tell gay men they're not "real men" because they're effeminate or tell lesbians they're "manly" because they're butch, that is regressive and needs to go.

[–]BiHorror 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

To 99% of the population (western) gender and sex are the same thing. Either way tho, isn't it kinds hypocritical to be trying to differentiate gender and sex but go rabid when TRAs try to change the definitions of woman/man? :/

[–]BenderRodriguez 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Either way tho, isn't it kinds hypocritical to be trying to differentiate gender and sex but go rabid when TRAs try to change the definitions of woman/man? :/

Well one, no one is going "rabid" and two, maybe read up on some radfem history? De Beauvoir, Firestone, Wittig, Dworkin, McKinnon, etc - all describe women as being a "sex class" upon which gender is something that is imposed on them.

Separating sex and gender from a radfem POV doesn't change the definition of "woman", it simply separates from the group already known as "women" the societally imposed baggage known as "femininity". The reason why the TRA version of separating sex and gender is hated on is because it erases women as a sex class, and because it is direct conflict with gay rights for LGB people.

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

Yeah... No, I'm not into RadFem. I'm just into normal feminism. Not gender theory or close to falling into misandry (which is the majority of "RadFem" I have encountered). Especially not ideologies that were wholly/partially backed by the likes of John Money. It's still hypocritical to be against one changing of a definition then support another type. One that especially has been the same for years and recognized by 99% western population. It's like trying to say race and race stereotypes are the same thing. Race is the skin tone (whereabouts gender is sex) and race stereotypes and roles are the things attached to it by society (gender roles and stereotypes). You shouldn't just put two definitions/concepts under one name.

You can't tell me that there isn't some (obviously not all) who aren't rabid here when it comes to these specific topics. Especially when this isn't supposed to be GC 2.0.

[–]BenderRodriguez 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's like trying to say race and race stereotypes are the same thing. Race is the skin tone (whereabouts gender is sex) and race stereotypes and roles are the things attached to it by society (gender roles and stereotypes). You shouldn't just put two definitions/concepts under one name.

You do realize race isn't biological right? Humans didn't categorize each other as "white people", "black people", etc until the European colonial era. It was invented as a post-hoc justification for slavery and as a form of population control. And race doesn't equal skin tone, either. There are black people who are lighter skinned than some non-black people, and albino black people are still black. Colorism is also a form of discrimination that is considered to be separate from racism.

Like, maybe learn a thing or two about how racism and sexism operate before making these uninformed comparisons.

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

Race isn't biological in a sense of how the concept was created, but phenotypes and genetics DO play a role in people's appearances. I was using it as an example to show the differentiation instead of merging of race (which is based on phenotypes aka skin color because that's how we judge people. Based on how we looked. The justification of slavery was because blacks and natives looked different to Europeans. Obviously you have other things like cultures clashing, but that's where "assimilation" came into the picture, but even when non whites did "assimilate" aka become "civilized" they were still mistreated due to their skin color) and race stereotypes as one like we currently are doing with gender. You're talking as if I, a non-white woman, don't know this or actually experienced this but whatever.

Majority of "light skinned" blacks are actually mixed race, especially in the Americas due to historical rape. The reason why they're still considered "black" is due to the whole one drop rule. It's another unfortunate reason why they and black Africans clash.