8 Bit Philosophy: Is Gender Real?
- Thread starter 8-Bit Philosophy
- Start date
I realize this is a philosophical conundrum, relating questions of perception and personal identity, but I feel the biology of the matter sort of answers it right off. Humans (and other lifeforms) reproduce with two beings combining their DNA to produce offspring. Humans might debate this, but many animals won't be. Gender kind of outs itself in nature.
Yes, next question.
Certainly the societal roles are typically more rigid than they need to be, and you'll find plenty of exceptions to whichever roles you define. That said, the fact that you'll find differing gender roles among every culture that tend to be some variation of the 'traditional' role suggests that it's more than just a construct.
So sure, the traditional roles can be stripped down plenty and we don't need to be pushing people one way or the other. But there are differences and some form of gender role distinction isn't going to be going away.
And like the guy above is getting at, biology is what it is. Humans can debate shit all they want, at the end of the day you are what you are. Maybe that doesn't need to dictate everything about you, but is has a lot more to do with who you are than just whether you've got an an innie or an outie.
Certainly the societal roles are typically more rigid than they need to be, and you'll find plenty of exceptions to whichever roles you define. That said, the fact that you'll find differing gender roles among every culture that tend to be some variation of the 'traditional' role suggests that it's more than just a construct.
So sure, the traditional roles can be stripped down plenty and we don't need to be pushing people one way or the other. But there are differences and some form of gender role distinction isn't going to be going away.
And like the guy above is getting at, biology is what it is. Humans can debate shit all they want, at the end of the day you are what you are. Maybe that doesn't need to dictate everything about you, but is has a lot more to do with who you are than just whether you've got an an innie or an outie.
People are just who they are, they don't fit into neat little boxes with labels on them, no matter how much "society" wishes they would. Gender is just a bunch of archaic stereotypes and prejudgements based on someone's sex, it doesn't define them as a person, and people shouldn't be encouraged to think that it does.
To a large extent, yes. Gender IS a thing because of biology and hormones, transgenderism is also a thing because of these since hormone imbalances can affect the mind in quite a lot of ways. Just as people do not "choose" to be gay or bi, people do not "choose" to be trans, it's a part of who they are in their biology. And no, 'political lesbians' are not a thing and the people who put forward that idea are the kind who set LGBT rights back by decades.
It actually begins at birth, research has shown that newborns (So no subconscious conditioning) show statistically significant differences in behavior, with boys focusing on mechanical constructs and girls focusing on faces. This means that there are actual biological reasons behind different genders acting differently and that "Gender Roles" imposed by a society may be a falsehood altogether.
Thus, Butler has evidence which supports the counterargument but you provided no evidence to support his arguments aside from anecdotal evidence. This means that his theories must be assumed to be wrong unless properly conducted studies show otherwise.
This is a pretty good documentary on the subject actually:
It actually begins at birth, research has shown that newborns (So no subconscious conditioning) show statistically significant differences in behavior, with boys focusing on mechanical constructs and girls focusing on faces. This means that there are actual biological reasons behind different genders acting differently and that "Gender Roles" imposed by a society may be a falsehood altogether.
Thus, Butler has evidence which supports the counterargument but you provided no evidence to support his arguments aside from anecdotal evidence. This means that his theories must be assumed to be wrong unless properly conducted studies show otherwise.
This is a pretty good documentary on the subject actually:
I'm a big fan of this series, but Judith Butler is also one of my biggest academic influences.
It's quite risky, I think, to confuse "performativity" with "performance", even as a pedagogical tool. The implication tends to sneak in that if gender is a performance, then the possibility exists to stop performing, to stop taking on the "roles" which are assigned to us and to become whoever we are undeneath those roles. But for Butler, there is no authentic self which is not performative. Whatever person we might become by rejecting those roles is in fact another role. "Resistance" to gender is merely another kind of performance of gender itself. The "middle ground" of gender is not a site of resistance which reveals gender to be unreal or a lie, rather, it's indicative of the processes by which gender itself is made. The fact that a person can change gender and exist as a member of a different gender reveals (sometimes uncomfortably) the process by which gender comes into existence through being lived.
Thus, the question of whether gender is real is not a particularly simple one to answer for Butler. To say that gender isn't real would be to imply the possibility of some alternative which is real, a truth against which the falsehood of gender can be seen. What she's saying, and what the video is correct to pick up on, is that gender is more fluid and unstable than we would like to believe, that it's something we create (and can recreate) through the act of living it.
It's quite risky, I think, to confuse "performativity" with "performance", even as a pedagogical tool. The implication tends to sneak in that if gender is a performance, then the possibility exists to stop performing, to stop taking on the "roles" which are assigned to us and to become whoever we are undeneath those roles. But for Butler, there is no authentic self which is not performative. Whatever person we might become by rejecting those roles is in fact another role. "Resistance" to gender is merely another kind of performance of gender itself. The "middle ground" of gender is not a site of resistance which reveals gender to be unreal or a lie, rather, it's indicative of the processes by which gender itself is made. The fact that a person can change gender and exist as a member of a different gender reveals (sometimes uncomfortably) the process by which gender comes into existence through being lived.
Thus, the question of whether gender is real is not a particularly simple one to answer for Butler. To say that gender isn't real would be to imply the possibility of some alternative which is real, a truth against which the falsehood of gender can be seen. What she's saying, and what the video is correct to pick up on, is that gender is more fluid and unstable than we would like to believe, that it's something we create (and can recreate) through the act of living it.
There's very little concrete evidence of these things, and much of the evidence which does exist tends to contradict itself. What would you say is the biological mechanism which produces that outcome?vallorn said:
You've just raised the possibility that a woman can exclusively have sexual intercourse with women, can identify as a lesbian and yet somehow is actually not a lesbian because of invisible, undetectable quirk of their assumed "biology".vallorn said:
I don't really see where the authorization to make that judgement comes from.
At birth, a newborn infant cannot demonstrably recognize objects.. including faces. They develop the ability to recognize faces about a day or two after being born, so it is one of the first things humans are able to do but it's still not even clear how babies learn to recognize faces at all. In short, I'd really like to see that research because it sounds unbelievably suspect.vallorn said:
And how do we know what genitals someone has?Siesta45 said:
Uh, yes? Obviously? Gender, being your genetic sex? So Male/Female. Yes, those are real concepts.
Even the social constructs of feminine/masculine are real. The very idea that I can point to them shows that I have something to point at.
Now should gender roles be fluid and changeable is an interesting question. That's a debate question.
But asking if gender is real is like asking are churches real. It's missing the larger questions allowed.
Even the social constructs of feminine/masculine are real. The very idea that I can point to them shows that I have something to point at.
Now should gender roles be fluid and changeable is an interesting question. That's a debate question.
But asking if gender is real is like asking are churches real. It's missing the larger questions allowed.
I think this person means that genders are essentially sexes/sexual roles for an organism, IE, men/males are the ones to do the spermy things with their naughty bits and women/females do the eggy things with theirs. Of course there are tons of problems with defining things that way as well.Dynast Brass said:
And of course gender and genitalia have different etymology/word origin so putting emphasis on GEN doesn't make your argument anymore compelling.
Genders are scientifically real.
Gender Roles are BS.
And choosing a Gender based on Gender Roles is kind of sexist.
On the other hand
I'm more comfortable being a Khajiit than I am being human.
Gender Roles are BS.
And choosing a Gender based on Gender Roles is kind of sexist.
On the other hand
I'm more comfortable being a Khajiit than I am being human.
It's always been a convoluted term. Kind of inevitable when you bend a word that has nothing to do with sex or biology (or even living things) and force it into a role where people can suddenly interpret it as a synonym for 'sex'.Dalrien said:
gender started as a word that only had meaning in linguistics.
Originally, words could have a gender, people could not. That would have been nonsense.
How and when that changed is hard to follow, but although that change did happen perhaps as far back as 150 years ago, gender was still a word that was rarely used in relation to people until a feminist academic took it and explicitly used it to define the difference between the social role and the biology. (eg. It is because of that academic, and the influence of their work that we have the definition that gender = social role, and sex = biology)
People like to think this distinction doesn't exist, or is new, but the fact is, 'gender' was hardly ever used to describe a person, until AFTER it had a distinct meaning from 'sex'. And it is this distinct meaning that is the main reason we even use the word to describe anything about a person on a regular basis.
Watch some old films for a moment and see if anyone ever goes around talking about 'gender'. No. You'll probably hear things like 'the fairer sex' (or, perhaps, the weaker sex, the female sex, or the like. Nobody back then would use 'gender' in any context that would involve a person)
Words. They don't always mean what a person might expect.
8 bit philosophy seems to like taking hot button issues. Identifying a shill for their own platform and vaguely concealing their own agenda while they push it. You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
I think that's going a bit far. Consider what the evolutionary psychologist in the documentary you posted said about the hormones being controlled by the brain. It's really hard to separate the human brain from the human mind, as well as hard to separate the single human mind from the grouped human mind as seen in social contexts. I don't think it's so much that "Gender Roles" could be a falsehood as their reasons for existing and their modern relevance (or lack thereof) may not be what is commonly believed.vallorn said:
You've correctly pointed out that the "gen" in both those words came from the same original meaning (some word in sanskrit if I remember correctly), but it's worth noting that the words "kin" and "kind" came from that origin as well. In the evolution of the words, "genitals" came from more the "kin" side of the meaning, while "gender" literally is just a synonym for "kind".Siesta45 said:
Regarding your last statement, I'm not sure what implication that would have for people who have an external shape for their genitals that doesn't match the internal organs linking to them (as is often the case if the sex chromosomes end up lacking information).