So I very superficially believe that certain feminists believe that gender is a social construct and should be abolished (postmodern feminists?) And others believe that we should hold onto the definition of feminism to ensure that society can ensure that women are treated equally.
Am I correct in this?
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
cambridge.org
a2larm.cz
workers.org
twitter.com
Yes gender is a social construct, therefore when a person claims to have his/her brain on the wrong body, that person is lying.
Tumblr feminists believe gender is a harmful social construct and at the same time obsess over their gender more than anyone else on the planet.
But there's scientific evidence for it tho
nature.com
Gender roles are a social construct, among other things like "gender presentation/performance", but there are sex differences that include behavior both as a result of physical structure and hormone profile.
Yeah pretty much.
I hate this shit. The only difference from a dichotomy is that it allows for variation, but it's still variation between (and defined by) two poles. Both of these are "androgynous" presentation but they're very fucking different.
Gender is a social construct.
No that's completely wrong. Other studies show it clearly is sexuality not gender identity that makes a brain more like the male or female average.
The word gender was coined by Dr. Money in his Auschwitz-level experiments on the Reimer brothers which failed to prove his theory of nurture over nature,
Gender ROLES are social constructs but they are social constructs usually built off of sexual differences. Women are undeniably physically weaker than men on a daily basis. They are also more emotionally open and have differences in hormones which give them different behaviour patterns, mostly caused because of the biological need to care for children properly. When you identify as another gender that means 1 of 3 things
A) You're faking it and being a transtrender like Riley
B) You have a hormonal imbalance or some other issue that causes your brain to think you are another sex and in its attempts to remedy the unfitting body and thus causes them to imitate the behaviour
C) You were born with a genetic defect that causes you to basically have the mind of a woman in the body of a man or vice versa.
A) is the most common we see in mass-media along side B)
C) are more rare and are the true trans-sexuals. Their mind and body do not match up, thus change of body is 100% justified.
Excerpt From: Sheila Jeffreys. “Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism.”
correlation doesn't equal causation. some brain abnormality is obviously present, that still doesn't make the "i'm x trapped in y's body" statement logically sound
which are also a part of gender as a social construct, since they stem from nurture. Physical structure alone doesn't equal gender.
Gender itself is a postmodernist liberal concept (as in gender as a separate element from sex). It's metaphysical in nature with no real scientific backing, other than the bourgeoisie apologia of their per-concieved axioms. It is a clear attack on the biological identity of the worker, another tool to keep him docile and dysfunctional while waving "progressive" ideologies and modern pseudo-marxism away from class struggle, exploitation and imperialism.
The funniest thing is that it's blatantly (oxy)moronic. If you identify gender as the biological sex, it becomes obvious that dysphoria stemming from the obsessive idea of being the opposite sex is pathological. No matter what drugs or surgery a person with gender dysphoria takes, he/she will never change his DNA. If you identify gender as a separate entity (like most postmodernist liberals do), you are essentially approving of social stereotypes and roles that stem from the upbringing in a neoliberal society. While I can understand a liberal thinking these stereotypes and roles are a-ok, a so called "leftist" like a smashie espousing them under the very liberal blanket notions of individualism and individual rights shows how smashies and liberals go hand-in-hand
What are you even trying to say here? The former does not necessarily lead to the latter. "Gender" is per definition socially constructed, it is a term that denotes how we view ourselves in regards to sex. If you believe that that is inherently tied to sex, you would not use the term in the first place.
"Gender dysphoria", that is when your perceived and actual sex clash, is a proven medical condition that can be traced back to well before neoliberal capitalism was a thing. The treatment is usually psychotherapy, followed by reassignment if that doesn't work. By the time that you are "trans", you have most likely already proven that you are actually dysphoric and would be better off with reassignment (in a few early cases, it turned out they were actually hermaphrodites). Furthermore the idea of legal and physical sex being different also has historical roots. One example that I can recall are the Albanian"sworn virgins" - women who are socially and legally considered men, provided they take a vow of celibacy. The reasoning for this has less to do with dysphoria and more to do with fulfilling family obligations in a patriarchal society (say, an elder sister taking care of the household after the father dies), and the practice is far from "progressive", but it clearly demonstrates the difference in perceived-, social-, and physical sex even in conservative societies.
Gender, as understood now, is a mix of genetic/epigenetic behavior tendencies plus a whole shit ton of social (constructed) roles and behavior attributed to sexes.
Sex is, of course, what is dictated by your chromosomes. XX, XY. There exists some special cases that are neither.
Society can often expect of you to exaggerate your gender. For males it's usually something having to do with power and virility.
In general, breaking expectations can lead to society shaming you. This is true with whatever, not the dominant religion, drugs, cheating on partner, not marrying after a certain age, etc. It is also true with gender roles.
Most people don't express their gender completely, but take some components of the opposite gender. Mostly staying within what is acceptable with society at the time.
Some men are born very feminine (probably (epi)genetic), but otherwise are cis and straight. Same with tomgirls. These people are usually in the border of what is acceptable by society (ie. get bullied, teased, forced to act a certain way by parents, etc).
Some men adopt feminine gender expressions, through group dynamics, fitting in, stereotypes of society, perception of attractiveness, rebelliousness, etc. This, in my subjective experience, happens with people who are gay, where they might adopt feminine gender expressions to fit in with the group. I've also seen this with straight men that hang out with females that are very clique-y, for example.
It is very important to note that gender expectations change very dramatically over the years and are very different among cultures.
As far as we can tell, there is something in the brain that can compel you to act the gender that is opposite of your sex. This could be that you truly do not feel the gender you were assigned, or you would feel happier passing as the opposite gender, or plenty of other shit, but we have no idea how this shit works. Experience shows that this is not binary either. As with sexual orientation were it isn't just gay/straight, it seems to be the similar with transsexualism. It is more a spectrum than an on/off switch, and probably not one dimensional. For example, a trans-tomboy, where the gender identity is female, yet borrows gender expression from the male gender. It is also important to note that "science facts" discovered by scientists honestly trying to be objective, have proven all kinds of shit that is now considered shit science. Especially today when big money has such a tight hold on academia, one should be wary of taking science as objective and timeless truth.
To answer your question OP, gender is not only a social construct, it is more complicated than that. But either way, it shouldn't matter because the lived experience of most people is much more complex and multi-dimensional. Basically always going against societal expectations, to varying degrees. How much one can transgress societal expectations has been increasing in the west. Everyone benefits from this, since people repress less their desires to take on gender roles that in their society, at some time, were restricted to the opposite gender. Transsexualism is the ultimate gender defying societal transgression. Once all forms of transsexualism are fully accepted by society, people will be free to express themselves however they feel is appropriate to them and the concept of gender will be mostly meaningless.
Reminder all forms of oppression need to be exorcised from all societies, including homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc.
Reminder that although these forms of oppression still exist very strongly in even the most progressive societies, poverty, wage slavery, actual slavery, police brutality, gang/cartel violence are even worse and is a more horrific form of oppression and an affront to humanity than calling someone jokingly a fag.
Mostly agree with pic related.
Feminism is a gateway liberal view of the worst kind. It's a bad movement, a clusterfuck of misinformation and hypocrisy that isn't very well done by any aspect, but which attempts to compensate for its weaknesses by accusing anyone who disagrees with its blatantly anti-male agenda of being a misogynist pig. The normal user can see this as the shit it is, and may enjoy it, hate it or be indifferent to it, but all the while recognizing that feminism itself, regardless of their opinion, is plain bad.
However, these very aspects that try to smear over the shit of its core make it a breeding ground for wannabe lesbians, irresponsible young women who engage in every kind of debauchery both online and in the real world. The way they blame men for everything instead of accepting responsibility for their own lives, the shaming, the patriarchy conspiracy theories, the whole “check your privilege” SJW faggotry and everything about the feminist movement fuels their victim complex, while the pity-party man-bashing, emphasis on revenge, the constant complaints about violence against women while men go out to war and die fighting for the freedoms of these very same supposedly “Oppressed” women, and overall preachy-ness of the movement make it fit just right with the irrational drives of your average immature bitch and her sense of unwarranted self-importance towards the world. Exactly the kind of crap that makes sluts and drama-queens eat this shit right the fuck up.
Feminism is basically THE movement to attract the most hated type of woman on the planet, which is why, regardless of individual opinions, it is the responsibility of every user to troll the fuck out of feminism and every bitch who claims to be one, and ensure that no feminism threads ever encourage the newfriends to show their faces here.
Most "feminists" just look at some gender stats in a biased way with no counter examples then define their whole life around it. Less female CEOs is "oppression" but the vast majority of hard labor being done by men or the homeless ratio isn't. Fast and easy purpose in life and support for greater cause achieved.
Yes, you've recognized two schools of feminist thought. The former is true-er, and the latter is mostly held by TERFs and reactionaries.
Gender =/= sex buddy, please at least know the basic facts before trying to contribute your warped opinion
No it wasn't holy shit
Also
That entire study is flawed and shouldnt be used to argue ANY point
This is the problem i have with male leftist interpretations of feminism, because you're completely right as are quite a few people itt and on the board, but you're all so close to being there. You guys are throwing out a serious sociological school of thought - often enough coming alongside with marxism post 60's - because you're only looking at the reactionaries and attention seekers.
At its very core, feminism is an anti-oppression movement
Communists looking at "man hating SJW's" and calling it feminism is like liberals looking at Venezuela and calling it "communism".
You're an edgy teen looking at an almost non-existent extreme that is not accepted by the very movement you categorize it under.
I've never met a SJW woman. I've only seen pictures on Zig Forums Zig Forums and other niche places on the internet, like a mythical creature that only exists in stories about it. Oh and edgy compilations on YouTube.
Based on identity groups and not universal causes. This dumb comic
is correct.
I've met a few, they were invariably all petit-bourg or better trust fund kiddies; some of them were particularly egregious and couldn't even have a regular conversation without sperging about identity politics, it was like it consumed their entire lives. The particularly bad ones even get called out their peers though and they are very clearly not a majority in any meaningful sense; it's just that a lot of people within their own circles don't have the courage to call them out and will enable toxic behaviour, which in conjunction with their domineering attitudes allows them a certain modicum of dominance, even if only through the silence of others.
I disagree highly
can you elaborate? Saying "I disagree" is poor way to debate something.
The entire premise is misguided because it takes the stance of "muh identity politics" rather than recognizing the inherent patriarchal - and ethical but thats another discussion - nature of capitalism.
What is "nature" of capitalism and how is it "patriarchal"?
yes there's nothing wrong about capitalism! let's kill all the super rich CEO's and replace them with female CEO's!
Because as we all know…women are NEVER corrupt.
That supporting postmodernist gender theory is reactionary
Gender only took this meaning since the postmodernists of the 90s in the US appropriated it. It used to be interchangeable with sex.
There is no such thing as "perceived" sex, that is a metaphysical concept and a delusion. As for it being a medical condition, it's a disorder to be more precise. And like all psychiatric disorders, the diagnostic criteria are solely based on symptoms, with a lack of actual methodology of concrete diagnosis on a molecular level and any type of physiological model of this so called disease that could explain it's pathophysiology. This is how bourgeoisie psychiatry and psychology functions, so trying to justify a metaphysical position with the authority of bourgeoisie academia has no point.
Both of which are extremely unscientific in their methodology, the first one for obvious reasons and the second for essentially indulging the delusions as if that will alleviate the underlying problem (and it doesn't, check depression and suicide statistics in post-op patients).
Except that's not true, in the EU at least they are currently pushing for laws to allow even minors to immediately opt for hormonal treatments.
I'm not talking about hermaphrodites or people with legitimate aneuploidies.
>Furthermore the idea of legal and physical sex being different also has historical roots. One example that I can recall are the Albanian"sworn virgins" - women who are socially and legally considered men, provided they take a vow of celibacy
How exactly does this constitute an argument in your head? Since more primitive societies did it, it becomes logical? Does human sacrifice to the mayan gods gain the same bonus points? If nothing else, this is an argument for the reactionary nature of the concept.
Postmodernist gender theory isn't progressive either. It further reaffirms gender roles, to the point of reifying them as laws of nature
Yes they are. Without nurture, you won't differ from a monkey. Look at feral children experiments and encounters to understand how early-age nurture molds your synapses.
you make it sound as if they're arbitrary categories, and not physically observable material ones
This is what bourgeoisie psychiatry does, by indulging people with debilitating delusions with mutilations and chemical castration. The issue of gender dysphoria is far too complex for the undialectical analytical methodology of bourgeoisie psychiatry to handle
Nurture is responsible for 99.9% of human behavior.
This is a characteristic of the reactionary nature of liberalism. It cannot be changed unless the system is radically changes through revolution
Again, you reify gender stereotypes as tied to sex. The only thing that ties them to sex is the current system, sex isn't a behavioral point of reference by default.
Again, behavioral stereotypes being associated with and referenced against sex is a reactionary concept. Your paradigm of binarity (or lack thereof) is reactionary by nature, since it uses sex as a reference to behavior.
It most definitely is. Even what you wrote above argues for it being a social construct
This means literally nothing. You cannot say "it's more complex than that" without providing your scientifically (and dialectically) derived categorization.
Except it's the exact opposite. Transgenderism simply reifies capitalist gender roles as laws of nature, by making the axiom that one can be born into the "wrong gender". The truly revolutionary position is one that denies gender all-together, by denying the categorization of behavioral models based on sex (or race or anything other than class). By saying you identify with the opposite "gender", you simply reify the metaphysical and non-scientific concept of a metaphysical gender that exists outside the material reality of sex. It's analogous to thinking that identifying as a different race is progressive, even though by saying so you'd be reifying the unscientific reactionary concept of race.
Your grasp of revolutionary theory is liberal neo-"marxist" tier. Please take some time to study theory
I have, and they were all either self-proclaimed socdems or smashie petty-bourg pseuds (the majority was the latter)
While you question begs the poster to embarras themselves in showing ahistorical unmaterialistic understanding of history and capitalism, you should just go all out and point out to them their mistake.
Something along the lines of:
Capitalism being patriarchal is a historical remnant of all previous systems of wealth extraction and economic exploitation. Back in history, women died of childbirth a lot, even ruling class women. In order to perpetuate these systems, the ones having the social relationship to private property had to be men. Each member of the ruling class entrenched their position using any means they could. While there might have been women as slave owners, as the organization of economic exploitation progressed in history, patterns that proved to be most stable in facilitating the economic exploitation prevailed.
Since women no longer die during childbirth at such rates like before in history, the sex ratio of positions of power held by the propertied class seems arbitrary if you ignore this historical development. And that is why they notice the patriarchy and not the economic exploitation and slavery to the capital.
Just one question.
Why try to reform bourgeois institutions from their sexist and racist ways when implementing dual power and superseding them with actual pro-people governance would prove much effective in combating racism, sexism and prejudice against minorities? All those isms go against material interests of working class people, and people are instead divided by them, badgered into having false consciousness through 24/7 neoliberal, everyone-temporarily-embarrased-millionaire propaganda that is pushed from corporate owned media.
Here as example, in 1948 when Communist took power, they made it in law that man and woman had equal rights in marriage. Something that appeared in western countries in late 70's. From the interview with book's author, there is an account of how two university educate women who emigrated in 1968 were baffled on not being able to sign a contract with employer or bank without husband's permission. And that was western germany. Put source through google translate a2larm.cz
Eastern Bloc countries did a lot when it comes to women's liberation. Because the government tasked themselves with improving the lives of ordinary people. In bourgeois democracies, all gains are just concessions to stave off the social pressures. Improving lives of ordinary people was never the primary motivation in representative democracies under capitalism, because that usually has negative impacts on profits.
The list goes on, maternity leave, child benefits, kindergarten care, guaranteed return to work after maternity leave, loans to newlywed couples that did not have to be paid off. All policies clearly aimed at making family life easier.
The woman's issue is inherently a class issue. Bell Hooks Feminist THeory from margin to centre, where she clearly outlines the difference between liberal bourgeois feminism and radical feminism that does not shy away from marxism. But one could guess which strain receives more funding, grants and gets published in journals. But if you are clear in wording that only the radical feminism is against opression, then no problem there.
It is hard to go against one's own material and class interests.
Unironicly sjw are either an anglo phenomena or people who have one extreme opinion and people think that they support all crazy shit
Tbh i know some sjw exist but only on the internet
Also sjw is the most overused term in the history of mankind
I'm greek, and due to the plethora of smashies in my country (especially in athens), there are several real-life an-fem groups here.
Ρε μαλακα με αναρχικους κανεις παρεα
In english , while i know some weird anfem groups exist
I only know them from weird posts tbh
exei tixei. exw dei kai afises apo kamia kamia 5aria diaforetikes kolektives sta eksarxia
Nai exo dei kai ego afises kai kati roz grafiti alla pote apo konta
Ksero anarxikous alla anfems oxi
Socdems dont exist in greece btw
Yes I know you tard, and that's what I said. However despite this he is celebrated as the guy who helped prove how "gender is a completely social construct"
hakuna your tatas cunt, I was partially wrong it wasn't "gender" it was "gender identities". Easy mistake.
I'm not him, as I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn't say that this is quite right. It's probably something more in terms of capacities and capabilities to form habits. Humans tend toward certain sets of actions and habits (from which we form ideas of personality) depending on the environment at large. That is, they may be "blank" slates, yet these slates are more receptive to certain impressions and less to others based on inherent factors in the material (i.e. genetic/biological predispositions) as well as the specific conditions around which impress upon them.
What are you even trying to argue? You claim that gender as something seperate to sex is a product of neoliberal capitalism. I showed you a clear historical example of how your claim is wrong, and you proceed to ignore it because… what? You don't agree with it?
I'm sorry that actual , working medical practice isn't "scientific" enough for you, but considering you're perfectly happy to ignore facts when they're inconvenient for you i don't think you're in any position to talk about "science".
Obviously there are inclinations that vary between people, but nurture plays a much much bigger overall role. And what I wrote is true, the feral children that grew up with no human contact had trouble articulating complex sentences even in their 20s, while the majority of the children that were both blind and deaf in the Lomonosov experiments managed to become functional adults
>You claim that gender as something seperate to sex is a product of neoliberal capitalism
Gender as a concept is a product of postmodernist gender theory, this isn't something I claim but the truth. Examples that would fit that categorization exist, but the categorization itself is a recent phenomenon. Current gender roles are a product of historical conditions as well as the current role sex plays in neoliberal society
What you are ignoring (which is my whole point really) is that the relation between sex and behavioral models is reactionary in nature. The example you provided was one that only affirms this, women had to take the "role" of the opposite sex exactly because these roles were products of the relations of production of that period. Gender roles stem from oppression that existed due to historical circumstances. Hence any relation of behavior to sex is inherently reactionary.
You literally ignored everything i wrote and focused on the fact that gender roles existed previously. You completely ignored my argument for gender theory being reactionary, essentially the whole point of my post.
to mpasok kai o syriza ti einai?
To syriza mpori mono na onomasti proggresive
To mpasok me to gero mporei
Pantos den pistevo na iparxoun polloi aploi anthropoi pou autoapokalounte socdems
Oso gia sjw socdems… Mono i tipisa apo to proxorame mou erxaite sto mialo
pretty much this tbh
Your original point, which is the one I responded to was, and i quote
In other words, your claim is that acknowledging that there is a difference between perceived social and physical sex (which is a historical fact, there is no denying it) means that you approve of current gender roles, and like I said from the beginning, there is no connection between the two. There is a clear difference between perceived social and physical sex which can be observed in multiple societies across different historical periods. Acknowleging this blatantly obvious fact does not make you a reactionary.
Visit Portland OR for literally a day.
Also learn to recognize twists of Pasta
Confirming yet again that this is all a burger/anglo issue. The solution is to nuke every english-speaking country on the northern hemisphere.
For most of it's lifespan, the word "gender" was simply a linguistic term - one that had no relevance to english, mind you. It wasn't really until the 1960's and the work of John William Money, that the idea of gender being a "learned social construct" entered into the academic and social sphere. Long story short, Dr. Money was dangerously incorrect about his theories of human sexuality and its relationship to society. Just look up what happened to David Reimer - someone who was left so psychologically damaged from Dr. Money's experiments on "gender fluidity" he committed suicide. Gender is not real. Sex is the only differentiation that matters, and there's nothing subjective about sex.
Consider yourself exceptionally lucky, m8.
So how do you explain the myriad historical examples of people taking on the social roles of the opposite sex? It is pretty clear, just from a cursory search, that sexual norms and roles are learned behaviours that are not intrinsically tied to sex.
What's to explain? They're biological men who act like biological women (or vice versa).
This is not settled or widely accepted in any fashion. Sexual norms and roles are prevalent in every animal species - as are deviations from those norms. In every other species we accept that these sexual norms come from their innate biology. It isn't until we come to humans that we start imposing all of these external explanations for these same behavioral expressions. Also, consider the fact that innate biological norms could be what created and formed the societal structures around these norms. It's like saying we reproduce because society encourages us to get married and have kids. Partially, that does drive reproductive motivations, but clearly the innate biological drives to reproduce are at the foundation of both the individual's desire to reproduce and society's encouragement of those relationships.
Understand i am not for the reformation of capitalism along feel good lines, but its all out destruction. It simply frustrates me how many leftists fail to recognize the privilege the system gives them, no matter how much they may not feel it
workers.org
This site should be required reading before any leftist comes here espouting shit about gender and sexual orientation.
It concerns me how many "anti idpol" "communists" take that stance to reduce the voices of the female, black or gay proletariat.
It's obvious that class supersedes the other categories, but outright ignoring them is just as idpol as heralding them as the end game without abolishing capitalism.
Nice word salad. Let's see this bit by bit
perceived social sex is nothing more than a social construct. by saying that you were born in the wrong gender (or that someone can be born as the wrong gender), you are reifying the concept that gender roles (or perceived social sex or whatever you want to call it) are something innate, and not a result of historical conditions that has no place in a socialist world. Since gender roles are fundamentally rooted in gender inequality, by reifying them you take a reactionary position
The fact that gender roles existed and were so strongly engraved in society that in order for a woman to do an activity that would have only been allowed for men, she had to identify as one, doesn't reify gender roles as an innate property. If a woman dressed as a man and called herself a man because she wanted to carry a sword, that doesn't mean she wanted to be a man nor does it mean that having her identify as one is an innate characteristic of society as a whole. You try to justify the postmodernist concept of gender through an appeal to tradition. Same goes for the rest of your ramble
It concerns me how americans are so out-of-touch with marxism as a whole.
Are you seriously accusing me of writing word salads? You're one to talk.
That is exactly what I am saying, and according to your quote that makes me a post-modernist liberal. Sex roles should not be defended, and I don't, but refusing to acknowledge that they exist and have real observable effects on people is delusional.