Poll: Gender recognition offence

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

I'll tell you this is the best kind of attitude I see on this sort of subject. Too many people are just willing to invalidate the identities of others, just when it comes to trans men and trans women, especially when they don't "pass". I have a friend who now passes far better than they did a couple of years ago, at this point no one questions him on his gender, no one refuses to treat him as a man, because he know "looks the part". I've experienced similar on the opposite end, but it's fuzzier to me, because I transitioned earlier. Still it's not an uncommon a story, some trans folk I know who don't pass still get that treatment too.

The reason "It" is considered so demeaning is because that using "it" is dehumanizing language. Referring to a person as a thing, like an inanimate object, rather than as a person.

But yeah, respect is the rule, the golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated.

 

[Politrukk]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

I'll tell you this is the best kind of attitude I see on this sort of subject. Too many people are just willing to invalidate the identities of others, just when it comes to trans men and trans women, especially when they don't "pass". I have a friend who now passes far better than they did a couple of years ago, at this point no one questions him on his gender, no one refuses to treat him as a man, because he know "looks the part". I've experienced similar on the opposite end, but it's fuzzier to me, because I transitioned earlier. Still it's not an uncommon a story, some trans folk I know who don't pass still get that treatment too.

The reason "It" is considered so demeaning is because that using "it" is dehumanizing language. Referring to a person as a thing, like an inanimate object, rather than as a person.

But yeah, respect is the rule, the golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated.

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

 

[Politrukk]

Transgender identities have been around a lot longer then tumblr.com, and while tumblr tends to mess around with that stuff too much (even a couple trans people I know tire of their "labels") there are still plenty of trans and other gendered types out there, as it as always been. If you need some ideas to deal with a possible awkward situation, that has also been around long before tumblr.com, here you go:

The best way is just ask their name, and to accept whatever name they respond with, within reason. If they look sort of like a man but have what you would think a girls name would be, try your best not to flinch or show any hint of confusion. Imagine if someone reacted when you told them your actual name and they looked at you like "Are you telling the truth?" You would feel like they were rude, regardless of gender.

After a conversation, introduce yourself, and it would be customary for them to introduce themselves. Then you have a name.

Handy tip for customer service: Use "you" in the context of a question, not "Hey You!" (Example: Do you need any help? can I help you? May I get your name for this order?)

While "they" can be clunky in "proper" grammatical structure, feel free to use it when your not completely sure, but once again, don't treat it like some alien thing.

Stay away from "It", it's demeaning. Source: My friend gets called "it" behind her back all the time.

All in all, respect is the name of the game, and the game is life. You give it, you get it, you have a good time. Have fun, and I hope I helped in some way.

I'll tell you this is the best kind of attitude I see on this sort of subject. Too many people are just willing to invalidate the identities of others, just when it comes to trans men and trans women, especially when they don't "pass". I have a friend who now passes far better than they did a couple of years ago, at this point no one questions him on his gender, no one refuses to treat him as a man, because he know "looks the part". I've experienced similar on the opposite end, but it's fuzzier to me, because I transitioned earlier. Still it's not an uncommon a story, some trans folk I know who don't pass still get that treatment too.

The reason "It" is considered so demeaning is because that using "it" is dehumanizing language. Referring to a person as a thing, like an inanimate object, rather than as a person.

But yeah, respect is the rule, the golden rule, treat others as you'd like to be treated.

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

The reason that bending the language bends only one way is because we're talking about a group defining themselves. Personal identity simply isn't a topic for majority debate.

When it comes to using the word "it" to refer to people, it's not just demeaning, using "it" to refer to a person is dehumanizing language no matter how you slice it. The primary reason behind this is because when you refer to something as an "it" you're referring to an inanimate object. This means referring to a person as an "it" is a way of removing agency and removing value from someone as a person. Then you throw into the mix the fact that "it" has continuously been used as a transphobic slur, you end up with a word that when used to refer to a person is a dehumanizing slur. The time for a logical debate on weather it's okay to refer to someone as an "it" was before the word became a slur. Really that's the same argument as to why terms like "negro" and "******" are never okay to use when referring to a person. The word has become too toxic as a reference to another person. This is also the reason you never refer to someone's baby as an "it", because that's referring to the baby as an object, not a human being. So it applies regardless of age and gender identity.

Besides "they/them" has never been a grammatically incorrect singular pronoun, people use it all the time when there is a question as to the gender of the person they're referring too. This also applies to gender when it's non-specified, or specified as other. There is only a problem with using "they/them" as pronoun in the singular when people think they know the gender of the person in question. At best that's a double standard, at worst it's open discrimination, because people are leaning on what they think grammar is correct gender, because they think they know something about the person they're talking to. That's the whole problem, people use the grammar correctly until they think they know something about the person in question, in this case it's the thought that gender automatically changes the use of grammar. In English that isn't true, all gender does is potentially change pronouns, but the factually correct pronouns to use are the ones you're asked to use, not the ones that you personally decide are correct.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

It's fairly well understood how identity works, and there is no place for SJW rhetoric in that debate. The idea that your (biological) gender is a social construct is an activist assumption that has no basis in reality. The real component is still a matter of quite some debate.

Merely the fact that gender dysphoria is itself influence by biological gender with far more man -> woman than woman -> man patients showing up, deals a fatal blow to the idea that it's a social matter instead of a biological one. Brain differences in patients with or without gender dysphoria also debunk the idea of gender as a social construct.

That assumption is much like what solipcism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism] is to our ideas about perception and reality: An extreme assumption that is invalid, but can occasionally be usefull as a method of analysis.

I don't really care what the final word on that matter is, or if such a word will even ever exist, I just resent the use of SJW rhetoric in matters of science. It's like inserting 'race theory' (that nazi stuff) into discussions about physical characteristics, you just don't do it because it only confuses things.

First of all, one bad study in an already shaky field like gender studies doesn't invalidate a hypothesis, or in this case a functional theory about society. When it comes to gender identity however, that's not in the realm of "gender studies", instead it's a subject of neurological science and psychiatric science.

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics. Since you dove into wikipedia for the definition of solipsism, I'll counter with their article on the distinction between sex and gender:

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).

Source:Sex and gender distinction. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction]

 

[Politrukk]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Not picking sides but in response to this argument and wether you may find it ridiculous or not personally :
this thread has proven that yes sir/madam you may consider yourself a god and that is perfectly normal, at least it should be.

That's the stance there is.... apparently.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Yes because taking my quote out of context and ignoring a source with lots of citations is proof of self-justification...

Also with evolutionary biology being directly tied to gender role? Especially complicated gender roles and identities that humans have, while it's debatable more instinct driven animals share such gender identity and role concepts? Citation needed! Well it would be needed if I were going to pay anymore attention to what you post, because you're not citing sources, while demanding others cite sources, and that's a double standard I'm not going to play.

 

[Politrukk]

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

Actually it in and of itself is what refers to an unspecified quantity or identity.

I don't know if you've ever seen this but in Europe we teach verbs (including English in this format :

I -verb-
You -verb-
He/She/It -verb
They(plural) -verb-
We -verb-

example:

in this pronoun setup of verbs and pronouns they has always meant the plural unknown quantity whilst it refers to the singular unknown quantity.

 

[Politrukk]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Yes because taking my quote out of context and ignoring a source with lots of citations is proof of self-justification...

Also with evolutionary biology being directly tied to gender role? Especially complicated gender roles and identities that humans have, while it's debatable more instinct driven animals share such gender identity and role concepts? Citation needed! Well it would be needed if I were going to pay anymore attention to what you post, because you're not citing sources, while demanding others cite sources, and that's a double standard I'm not going to play.

I might be misunderstanding it myself but :
I think you misunderstand this poster, I think he/she is purely trying to point out that you can't claim something is science when it obviously doesn't qualify as such.

He then tries to illustrate this by the poor manner in which the research has been conducted.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In a way I do wonder why bending the language only swings one way.

I totally understand that "it" may seem demeaning but it's linguistically also a completely logical step if we're talking about people who wish to be neither of the original choices.

It's far more logical than they because he/she/it actually is already the passing pronoun setup.



I don't mean this offensively, just a logical debate on the subject would be nice.

Actually it in and of itself is what refers to an unspecified quantity or identity.

I don't know if you've ever seen this but in Europe we teach verbs (including English in this format :

I -verb-
You -verb-
He/She/It -verb
They(plural) -verb-
We -verb-

example:

in this pronoun setup of verbs and pronouns they has always meant the plural unknown quantity whilst it refers to the singular unknown quantity.

I understand what you're getting at here, too bad that it's not exactly correct, because of a long history of they being used as a singular pronoun. This is specifically because English lacks a gender-neutral singular pronoun, thus the words they, them, their, and themselves are pressed into service: Source. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they]Soruce. [http://grammarist.com/usage/they/] These words have been used with singular pronoun since the 14th century, specifically because the lack of a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

Now you might not agree linguistically, but there are a couple of things to remember: The first is that the word "it" used as a pronoun for humans is far too corrupted by prejudice to be of any use, at least anymore. People have constantly referred to ethnic minorities as "it" as a method of dehumanization via use of the English language. The second thing is: Gender-neutral, genderqueer, and agender folk can be seen as having an unspecified gender, because they identify outside the binary. Because the gender of such persons is ostensibly an unknown quantity, even if you know their biological sex, based on the fact they identify outside the binary.

I still think the most important consideration is this: Us trans and non-binary folk aren't asking much when we ask to be identified by preferred gender pronouns. Keep in mind that we go through constant questioning of our genders, both externally from other people, and internally because of gender dysphoria. It's a lot less stressful for both parties in this case if the pronoun preference is accepted, rather than having a long protracted argument over weather a pronoun is strictly "correct". It's such a small trivial concession to make, that literally hurts no one, that arguing over it ceases to be about correctness and becomes about erasure of identity.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Also your whole argument falls apart because of a conceptual failure; gender is role and identity, not biology, sex is biology, as in primary sexual/reproductive anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics.

You can't simply repeat a challenged statement as proof of itself.

If we're going down that road of self-justifying statements, I'm changing the subject of the discussion to that I am your god, because I am your god, lol. Any chance of worship and generous monetary donations to your newfound faith?

Especially since that role, which supposedly only exists as a socially taught role, is also caused by our biology. You can only even begin to form a statement about a supposedly taught gender role once you have eliminated biology altogether.

I've actually never seen a proper causally linked statement about 'taught gender roles' where the (evolutionary) biology was properly eliminated from the equation.

Yes because taking my quote out of context and ignoring a source with lots of citations is proof of self-justification...

Also with evolutionary biology being directly tied to gender role? Especially complicated gender roles and identities that humans have, while it's debatable more instinct driven animals share such gender identity and role concepts? Citation needed! Well it would be needed if I were going to pay anymore attention to what you post, because you're not citing sources, while demanding others cite sources, and that's a double standard I'm not going to play.

I might be misunderstanding it myself but :
I think you misunderstand this poster, I think he/she is purely trying to point out that you can't claim something is science when it obviously doesn't qualify as such.

He then tries to illustrate this by the poor manner in which the research has been conducted.

(Point of order, we don't know the gender of the sheppie. It isn't listed on their profile. Hence my use of gender neutral pronouns.)

No, they try to illustrate it by the poor manner in which a single study has been conducted. And they completely fail to do so.

A lot of their complaints are nonsense (Breach of Ethics for collecting observed behavior data in a public setting? Really?) but I am going to ignore all of that and get to the key point: This study was not conducted by gender studies experts. This was a attempt to explain observed social behavior with principles of biology. No one involved was an expert in gender studies. The authors are a biologist (specializing in sexual traits) and a technology communications expert. The key hint should have been, you know, the entire thing is about evolutionary developed traits. At the absolute best this study touches on gender studies and was conducted by people not properly trained to do so.

The poster has literally no idea what they are talking about. This is a person so misinformed they read an entire study about evolution by a biologist and thought "Yeah, this is totally gender studies!" cause, you know, it said male and female a lot in it, so that's gotta be gender studies, right?

This is fairly typical of people opposed to gender studies. The reason why this study was chosen is almost certainly because it caused a few waves in the gaming community back in July. No one actually bothered to think about it then either. Sheppie was probably just parroting arguments against it that were made back in July.

So yeah, overall a pretty bad and ridiculous argument against gender studies.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snipped-

You just disregarded the entire concept that gender and sex aren't the same thing, which isn't an unrelated topic. The fact is that gender role and expression are very complicated social dynamics of human nature, ones that go far beyond the confines of sexual procreation.

With your horse analogy, you also mis the point, the horse's behavior is designed to A) Protect it's own offspring, and B) secure it's breeding rights with females. Those are both traits of sexual procreation, not a gender role or identity. The mares have a vested interest in not fighting intervening in the quarrel of the males, who ever wins mates with them and is obviously the superior genetic stock.

Point of fact evolutionary biology idea you're spouting is a myth of man the hunter [http://harpers.org/archive/2015/06/shooting-down-man-the-hunter/] that roots back to the socioeconomic environment of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The evolutionary picture you're trying to paint is very inaccurate biologically, socially, and environmentally.

A much bigger issue that you've ignored is that human women specifically are prone to secondary infections after birth, that up until the mid-late 19th century were one of the leading causes of death in women. With high infant mortality rates and the potential of post birth death, losing a woman wasn't as huge a deal as you're trying to make it, because a tremendous number of women died during and after child birth, and more than half of all children died before adulthood. Humanity's communal social nature is what provides for the rearing of young, not some bizarre evolutionary biology theory that holds less water than a screen door on a submarine. Especially because in tribal communities that exist to this very day women contribute to both hunting and gathering, along with defense from other groups of humans and predators.

 

[1981]

I will draw the debate away from the fallacies of 'gender is a construct, because we arbitrarily say it is' and focus it on the biological factors that determine our behaviour, many of which are driven directly by our biology, where our social interactions do not even enter into the equation.

If you want to have a rational debate, provide sources to back up your claims. I've never seen a single study that would prove that human gender is purely biological. Nor have I seen anyone here claim that gender is purely a social construct.

Roles vary between animal species and even within a species. Dominant females may end up becoming pack leaders etc.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Nor have I seen anyone here claim that gender is purely a social construct.

Gender is either a social construct, or the mix of biology and the meaning we give it, the idea which I've been defending. Can't construct something that's already there after all, and the moment we have biological components, it means that whatever meaning we give to gender ourselves, is in turn based on that biology.

I've already shown biological components, so the social construct theory is already in the rubbish bin.
It'll stay there untill something really unlikely happens, like someone disproving the existance of hormones or disproving all of evolutionary biology.

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

 

[Rosiv]

Nor have I seen anyone here claim that gender is purely a social construct.

Gender is either a social construct, or the mix of biology and the meaning we give it, the idea which I've been defending. Can't construct something that's already there after all, and the moment we have biological components, it means that whatever meaning we give to gender ourselves, is in turn based on that biology.

I've already shown biological components, so the social construct theory is already in the rubbish bin.
It'll stay there untill something really unlikely happens, like someone disproving the existance of hormones or disproving all of evolutionary biology.

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

Well yea if you define anything as something, then by that defintion it is true. But I'm arguing that our defintions of gender or sex might be misplaced, or that we shouldn't have so much conviction on terms that have been so volitle throughout the ages.

If I define "x is 3", this doesn't mean I should be belived right? There should be some level of proof to it.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.



So I just think anyone know claims " x is y " should expect some level of disbelief, given the "boldness" of the claim. Its not like the soft sciences should be making these claims anyways, they can only suggest right?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Spoiler

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

Well yea if you define anything as something, then by that defintion it is true. But I'm arguing that our defintions of gender or sex might be misplaced, or that we shouldn't have so much conviction on terms that have been so volitle throughout the ages.

If I define "x is 3", this doesn't mean I should be belived right? There should be some level of proof to it.

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

So I just think anyone know claims " x is y " should expect some level of disbelief, given the "boldness" of the claim. Its not like the soft sciences should be making these claims anyways, they can only suggest right?

Again, I think you are mixing up discovering a value and describing a definition.

When the claim is made that "trait x is y" that is, as you say, a bold statement that should be met with appropriate suspicion. In soft sciences these sorts of claims are what you called "suggestions" in that the multitude of variables involved makes absolute proof virtually impossible. This is why peer review, redundant testing, alternate experiments, etc., are so important. They are absolutely vital. Soft sciences may not be able to prove many individual such claims beyond any doubt, but they can demonstrate and establish them beyond reasonable doubt. Soft sciences can and do create theories with predictive power.

On the other hand, "term x is defined as meaning y" is not a claim. It is a statement of definition, one that may or may not be accepted by the scientific community, but not based on proof because it is not a matter of proof. If psychologists cannot define terms of psychology, who can?

And by the way, all of this stuff about definitions is logic and mathematics, not gender studies or psychology or even biology. It is as hard a science as you can get.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

Spoiler

The idea has always been that sex/gender is a continuum. There are some gender/sex traits that are purely or highly biological, some that are purely or highly social, and some that are a more even mix. We use the term "sexual" to denote traits that are primarily biological in origin, "gender" to denote traits that are primarily social in origin, and the definitions acknowledge and embraces the idea that many if not all traits are influenced to some degree by both biological and social factors.

Now, you have shown 1 behavior pattern is biological in nature. That is not a problem and in no way defeats or refutes the sex/gender distinction. We don't need to address your horse example in any way because it is encompassed within the idea of sex/gender distinction.

This is because sex/gender distinction (and other social behavior theories) is not something that works against evolutionary biology. In fact, the two ideas are complementing theories. Pure evolutionary biology is not sufficient to explain all traits (especially behaviors) of humans because environment, including the social environment, has a significant impact on how traits are expressed.

This is why we say "gender is a social construct". Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment. This is not an SJW definition as you seem to think. It is a medical definition. And this definition was not decided upon by sociologists, but by psychologists (particularly psychologists that specialized in the effects of biology on behavior) and biologists.

You are the one fighting against established scientific theory, not us.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction of terms though? You just said "

Gender, by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment.

Bold emphasis mines.

Saying its a social construct implies biology has nothing to do with it, which you admit that being not the case. Its like saying a chair is metal constructed, but then it has some wood parts.

Wouldn't it be more apropos to kowtow to, "We aren't sure" as an answer to origins of gender?

Saying gender is a social construct does not imply biology has absolutely nothing to do with gender traits, though I can understand how someone might read it that way. I am no professor of behavioral psychology, I am not trained or practiced in explaining these concepts, so the confusion is likely due to my poor ability to explain. Please bear with me as I try again.

To use your chair analogy, this would be like someone saying "this chair is made of wood" but not making special note of the glue that holds the wooden dowels in place or the varnish finish. Saying the chair is made of wood in no way implies there are zero non wood components to the chair, it only implies that wood is the overwhelmingly important part of the construct. A chair is a wooden chair if it is primarily wood. A trait is said to be a gender trait if it is primarily influenced by the social construct of gender. A trait is a sex trait if it is primarily influenced by biology.

People think of gender backwards. Think of gender like you think of sex. Sex is not encompassed or defined by sexual traits. Sexual traits (sex in the specific) are the result of the biological construct of sex (sex in the general). That is to say, sexual traits are the result of influences of sex as a mode of reproduction. Similarly, gender traits are the result of the social construct of gender. That is to say gender traits are the result of influences of gender roles and expectations in society.

We cannot say "we are not sure" as to the origins of gender. The very statement is nonsensical. Because we are 100% sure, we made the definition. By definition, with absolute zero ambiguity, gender is of social origin. That is what it means. It would be like saying we are not sure what a square is. We are absolutely 100% sure what a square is. We defined it. Sometimes we may not have the tools or otherwise lack observational ability to determine if an shape is a square, but that does not mean we don't know what squares are.

Similarly, what we might not be sure about is if any one trait is a gender trait, a sexual trait, or a more even mix. That is where research is being done and people are figuring things out. A big part of the study of sex and gender is disentangling sex and gender. And again, to be absolutely clear, this in no way implies an absolute binary where traits are only gender or only sexual.

So, to specifically explain my statement you called out, it might be better to write that as "Gender (in the specific as it applies to traits), by definition, encompasses traits on the sex/gender continuum that are highly influenced by social environment (which would be gender in general, the social construct of gender, or gender as it applies to society).

Well yea if you define anything as something, then by that defintion it is true. But I'm arguing that our defintions of gender or sex might be misplaced, or that we shouldn't have so much conviction on terms that have been so volitle throughout the ages.

If I define "x is 3", this doesn't mean I should be belived right? There should be some level of proof to it.

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I don't see how saying "x is 3" in my context is not defining. I mean x as anything, so if I say it is "something", then I am defining it.

This is more philosophy than math really, so its my fault for a bad analogy.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

Well that is sort of my point. Someone(s) came up with the definition(s) either indirectly or directly. Regardless, when you make "any" claim, you should back it up.

And is there not a definition of a square? There are trigonometry proofs for all types of shapes. Yes I understand Math revolves around axioms, but there is still proofs one can do to determine what is a square, even if we defined it. It is the reliability of those proofs on the definitions we make that in my opinion, makes the definition really hold any weight.

For example, if I were to come up with a shape, and it had 10 sides, according to my definition of square( 4 sides, right angles) it would not be one.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

I am not being intentionally obtuse, but how are the statements: "research being done on the biological origins of gender" versus "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits" any different in effect? They both state the possibility of gender having biological origins. Does affixing the qualifier "traits" after gender somehow change it?

So I just think anyone know claims " x is y " should expect some level of disbelief, given the "boldness" of the claim. Its not like the soft sciences should be making these claims anyways, they can only suggest right?

Again, I think you are mixing up discovering a value and describing a definition.

When the claim is made that "trait x is y" that is, as you say, a bold statement that should be met with appropriate suspicion. In soft sciences these sorts of claims are what you called "suggestions" in that the multitude of variables involved makes absolute proof virtually impossible. This is why peer review, redundant testing, alternate experiments, etc., are so important. They are absolutely vital. Soft sciences may not be able to prove many individual such claims beyond any doubt, but they can demonstrate and establish them beyond reasonable doubt. Soft sciences can and do create theories with predictive power.

On the other hand, "term x is defined as meaning y" is not a claim. It is a statement of definition, one that may or may not be accepted by the scientific community, but not based on proof because it is not a matter of proof. If psychologists cannot define terms of psychology, who can?

And by the way, all of this stuff about definitions is logic and mathematics, not gender studies or psychology or even biology. It is as hard a science as you can get.

I feel that we just should not limit any discussion of any term to one science. If researchers want to investigate the possible biological causes of homosexuality, why should they not?

I am not saying psychologists cant define their own terms, but what makes it "their" terms in the first place? Sciences are connected. Psychology is a wide field, it involves the study of the brain to a degree, which intersects with biology. There are people from all of these fields studying gender, why is one more right than the other?

Or the possible biological causes of gender, why should they not?

A key part of the scientific method is asking questions. So if either sociologists or biologist ask the right questions and gather the right data in the right scope, I do not see fault in saying that "gender could be either biological or sociological" in origin.

And as to your last part, I would say "stuff about definitions" is more philosophy than math, regardless the "hard" vs "soft" was my error in assuming one would be better than the other. As I stated above, we should just investigate the origins of gender by whatever field, and when the questions stop being asked, then we can say gender originates from "a" or "b" or both. To assume one over the other would be bad logic no? That is what they did when they assumed homosexuality was biological only in the past yes? And now we know there are alot of factors that are related.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Spoiler

That depends on what x is and what kind of definition you are making. If you are trying to figure out the value of an existing x then yes, you can't just say x is whatever you want. You need proof. No one is disputing that. But that is because you are not defining it at all, you are discovering it's value. This is a vital distinction, and exactly what is not happening with the definition of gender.

I don't see how saying "x is 3" in my context is not defining. I mean x as anything, so if I say it is "something", then I am defining it.

This is more philosophy than math really, so its my fault for a bad analogy.

Spoiler

I was attempting to distinguish between the common usage of "define" and the logic/mathematical usage of "define". Basically, the common usage of define is ambiguous and imprecise. The definition used in logic is not. Basically, there are (at least) two possibilities of the meaning of your statement "x is 3". In one case you are reporting a fact or making a claim. This is not a defining in the formal sense. A claim can be contested and even disproved.

The other possibility is defining in the formal sense. I'll get back to this in a minute.

I can't prove to you the definition of gender. It is a intensional definition, meaning it describes a meaning to which a thing may be checked against (like a category.) You cannot prove such a definition any more than you can prove the definition of a square or of whole numbers or of 3. There is nothing to prove.

As for why the terms sex and gender were decided on for their respective definitions, hell if I know. I didn't come up with it.

Well that is sort of my point. Someone(s) came up with the definition(s) either indirectly or directly. Regardless, when you make "any" claim, you should back it up.

But it is not a claim. This is where you seem to be hung up. Defining something is not a claim in any way. Think of it as purposing a symbol that encompasses an idea. "9" is the symbol that we have defined to mean the idea of the number 9, but you cannot back up that "9" is the correct symbol to represent the idea. People may or may not accept it for various reasons, but it's essential "correctness" as a symbol is not something that can be debated in the same way the correctness of a claim can be.

And is there not a definition of a square? There are trigonometry proofs for all types of shapes. Yes I understand Math revolves around axioms, but there is still proofs one can do to determine what is a square, even if we defined it. It is the reliability of those proofs on the definitions we make that in my opinion, makes the definition really hold any weight.

For example, if I were to come up with a shape, and it had 10 sides, according to my definition of square( 4 sides, right angles) it would not be one.

There absolutely is a definition of a square. But try to separate in your mind the symbol, the definition, and any proofs or tests that might determine if a shape is a square.

Consider it like this:

First we recognize a useful idea. "This shape seems like it has special significance."

Then we assign a the idea to a symbol. "We will call this shape a 'square'. It is defined as [formal definition of a square]."

Then we come up with the proofs and tests that allow us to test a given shape against the definition. "Check the number of sides, the length of the sides, and the angles of the connecting sides."

You cannot create a test to check against a definition until the definition has been created.

Now, creating a reliable test that checks if a shape is a square is a fairly trivial problem. Determining if a trait is gender or sexual or a combination of both is many, many orders of magnitude more complex. We are working on creating those tests now. Insisting the validity of a definition relies on the test that determine if a thing fits that definition is essentially demanding that scientists have all the answers before they begin their research.

There is research being done on the biological origins of gender, there is research being done on the social origins of gender. The quality of both I do not know.

I know that there are social effects on sex, I certainly know that there are biological effects on sex.

This of course depends on what you mean by "gender", "social effects", "sex" and "biological effects", and several other terms I am not going to bother enumerating. Just because gender and sex are often used interchangeably does not mean they are interchangeable in formal definition.

What you might consider "research being done on the biological origins of gender" might be better described as "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits". Language is not precise, and even if it were people might mislabel or misspeak because people are not perfect.

I am not being intentionally obtuse, but how are the statements: "research being done on the biological origins of gender" versus "research being done on the possible biological origins of traits suspected to be gender traits" any different in effect? They both state the possibility of gender having biological origins. Does affixing the qualifier "traits" after gender somehow change it?

They are very different in effect, but the difference is subtle unless you are used to thinking about things like this in highly precise language. They can mean the same thing, but the first statement is ambiguous. It can mean several things.

In particular, the second does not state the possibility of gender having biological origins. This is vastly oversimplifying it, but think of all traits that might be gender or sex traits being sorted into two different columns based on our best experiments. Again, to be clear, this is a massive oversimplification just to illustrate the idea. It is not a binary question.

The second statement suggests that some trait might have been categorized as primarily gender and and research is being done to determine if this is the case. The suggestion is not that gender might have biological origins, but that something thought of as a gender trait is not a gender trait.

On the other hand the first statement can mean all sorts of things, it is ambiguous. But in particular it does suggest that gender might have biological origins, which is counter to the formal definition of gender. Gender, by formal definition, cannot have biological origins because it is defined as having social origins. Anything that has biological origins is by definition not gender.

Again, for the sake of simplicity I ignored the possibility of a non binary answer to the question.

I feel that we just should not limit any discussion of any term to one science. If researchers want to investigate the possible biological causes of homosexuality, why should they not?

They totally should? No one is saying that.

I am not saying psychologists cant define their own terms, but what makes it "their" terms in the first place? Sciences are connected. Psychology is a wide field, it involves the study of the brain to a degree, which intersects with biology. There are people from all of these fields studying gender, why is one more right than the other?

The distinction between what we might call biological traits and social traits between the observed sexes was first seriously considered by psychologists (specifically psychologists that studied the effect of biology on sexual behavior.) They were the first ones doing the research, they made definitions and names for things so they could talk about it and study it properly.

Turns out the distinction had far reaching implications across several major disciplines. Everyone else who later also studied the topic used the established terms and definitions so they too could talk about it and everyone involved would understand.

Psychologists defined the terms because it was first considered as a problem of psychology. That is the only reason.

A key part of the scientific method is asking questions. So if either sociologists or biologist ask the right questions and gather the right data in the right scope, I do not see fault in saying that "gender could be either biological or sociological" in origin.

Nothing is stopping a biologist or sociologist from studying the sex/gender distinction. In fact, many, many biologists and sociologists do study it. But they use the language decided on by the people who studied it first because it wouldn't make sense to rename it.

And as to your last part, I would say "stuff about definitions" is more philosophy than math

Not in the formal sense. Logic and mathematics have nailed down what it means to define something because without formal definitions language is ambiguous and cannot be used in logical discussion. Defining something has a very specific meaning in logic and mathematics. It has nothing to do with philosophy. And what we are discussing here are formal definitions.

Regardless the "hard" vs "soft" was my error in assuming one would be better than the other. As I stated above, we should just investigate the origins of gender by whatever field, and when the questions stop being asked, then we can say gender originates from "a" or "b" or both. To assume one over the other would be bad logic no?

Again, the problem is that you are not divorcing the idea of gender and gender traits in your mind.

A trait may be influenced by biological or social factors.

If the trait is primarily influenced by biological factors it is a sex trait, falling under the category of sex.

If the trait is primarily influenced by social factors it is a gender trait, falling under the category of gender.

Now, assuming one over the other in relation to specific traits would be bad logic, as would not using every tool at our disposal to study it (meaning different scientific disciplines and the relevant tools and perspective they bring to the table.)