Re: More Than A Quarter Of California Teens Are Gender Nonco
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:55 pm
A number of people have suggested that gender is a social construct. In my view, that's partly true but not wholly true. Some aspects of masculinity and femininity are socially constructed, others are natural/innate and also there are gradations within these characteristics.
Start with the natural characteristics and these tendencies do align closely with biological sex and transcend cultural differences. Examples would include the effects which are linked to evolutionary forces and hormones. These would include such as male aggression, individualism, risk-taking and focusing on/more adept with the systematic. Conversely, females are more inclined to communication, colectivism, safety and focusing on/more adept with the systematic.
The characteristics which are purely social align only with biological sex to the extent that we arbitrarily assign them as such, and they are the product of cultural forces. There are, for example, no biological reasons why a woman shouldn't enjoy fly-fishing, and no reason a man shouldn't wear pink. Because these are cultural creations we are, in theory at least, at liberty to reject them, adopt new ones, or modify existing ones.
As I said, though, there are gradations. For example, a woman is far more likely to wear red lipstick and high heels, and these are certainly largely cultural, but they may also be the remnants of some primeval behaviours and instincts that associate red lips with female fertility, and the tottering on high-heels with frailty and thus sexual availability, so these are partially nartural and partially cultural. In addition to gradations, there are also exceptions. Just as men are on average taller than women, but there are some women who are taller than some men, so men have more naturally masuline characteristics on average, but there are some women who exhibit more of these than some men.
For the most part, I am not convinced by the notion of gender fluidity. Our gender, both natural and cultural, is mostly aligned to our biological sex, and those who deviate from this general rule are the exception. The notion that our gender can somehow change with our mood is also pushing credibility, but the most absurd claim of all is that biological sex is not a real thing. Anyone who believes biological sex is just a cultural phenomenonm, and there are such people, should work on a farm for a while and observe the animals. They'll soon realise that there are male and female cattle, sheep, goats and pigs and each animal knows perfectly well whether he's a guy or she's a gal.
Start with the natural characteristics and these tendencies do align closely with biological sex and transcend cultural differences. Examples would include the effects which are linked to evolutionary forces and hormones. These would include such as male aggression, individualism, risk-taking and focusing on/more adept with the systematic. Conversely, females are more inclined to communication, colectivism, safety and focusing on/more adept with the systematic.
The characteristics which are purely social align only with biological sex to the extent that we arbitrarily assign them as such, and they are the product of cultural forces. There are, for example, no biological reasons why a woman shouldn't enjoy fly-fishing, and no reason a man shouldn't wear pink. Because these are cultural creations we are, in theory at least, at liberty to reject them, adopt new ones, or modify existing ones.
As I said, though, there are gradations. For example, a woman is far more likely to wear red lipstick and high heels, and these are certainly largely cultural, but they may also be the remnants of some primeval behaviours and instincts that associate red lips with female fertility, and the tottering on high-heels with frailty and thus sexual availability, so these are partially nartural and partially cultural. In addition to gradations, there are also exceptions. Just as men are on average taller than women, but there are some women who are taller than some men, so men have more naturally masuline characteristics on average, but there are some women who exhibit more of these than some men.
For the most part, I am not convinced by the notion of gender fluidity. Our gender, both natural and cultural, is mostly aligned to our biological sex, and those who deviate from this general rule are the exception. The notion that our gender can somehow change with our mood is also pushing credibility, but the most absurd claim of all is that biological sex is not a real thing. Anyone who believes biological sex is just a cultural phenomenonm, and there are such people, should work on a farm for a while and observe the animals. They'll soon realise that there are male and female cattle, sheep, goats and pigs and each animal knows perfectly well whether he's a guy or she's a gal.