What is the difference between gender and gender norms?

[Eric the Orange]

OK let's start off with a few quick definitions taken from google,

Gender:
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

Gender Norms:
Standards and expectations to which women and men generally conform, within a range that defines a particular society, culture and community at that point in time.

If we assume these two definitions are correct, what are the differences between gender and gender norms.

For example if I were to say I am male, what would that mean other than the norms associated with male in my society/culture?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Defining it as norms is a bit too restrictive and not made with human beings in mind but more something you'd use for machine classification.


A better definition is not gender norms but gender tendencies. A proportionally higher tendency to have certain traits and adhere to certain behaviors (but with leaving open the power of the existence of human nature coming in and varying these quite a bit) is more accurate when it comes to humans.

That way, when you say you're male, you're communicating that most of your behaviors conform with the male tendencies, but aren't limited by an expectation of adhering to all of them or only to them, you're just communicating that a significant enough majority of your being fits that description.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Defining it as norms is a bit too restrictive and not made with human beings in mind but more something you'd use for machine classification.


A better definition is not gender norms but gender tendencies. A proportionally higher tendency to have certain traits and adhere to certain behaviors (but with leaving open the power of the existence of human nature coming in and varying these quite a bit) is more accurate when it comes to humans.

That way, when you say you're male, you're communicating that most of your behaviors conform with the male tendencies, but aren't limited by an expectation of adhering to all of them or only to them, you're just communicating that a significant enough majority of your being fits that description.

OK, we can change it to that. But that doesn't really answer my question.

what are the differences between gender and gender norms (or tendencies if you prefer)? Are you saying their are no differences, that those two terms are synonymous?

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

There's a third term, which you are missing and which is needed to complete the set.

Gender Identity
Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth or can differ from it. All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a person's social identity in relation to other members of society.

When you say you are male, you aren't referring to the gender norms of the society you live in. Instead, you are either referring to a personal sense of "belonging" to a given gender (a personal identity) or to the way you see yourself as socially positioned in relation to the society you live in (a social identity). In all likelihood, you're referring to both at once.

People still sometimes talk about gender norms as if they were universal constants of any given society, as if any society will have a single male and female "role", but that isn't actually true. Even if you're deeply conservative, your idea of how it is normal for a man to behave will be different from other men. To a certain extent, breaking gender norms isn't a huge deal. Everyone will break someone else's gender norms (and usually their own gender norms) at some point in their life. Heck, when you actually start to break down the messages about what the "gender norms" of our society are, you'll find they're riddled with contradictions and ridiculous idealizations which make them impossible to actually adhere to in entirety.

The reason we can square this is that, as humans beings, we all understand a difference between what we do and who we are. We know that behaving in "unmanly" ways doesn't actually change our gender identity, either in personal identity or how society percieves us. We also understand, on some level, that our gender identity is more than our bodies. When people lose their sexual characteristics due to disease or injury, their gender identity doesn't magically change, instead they are more likely to develop dysphoria, or a distressing awareness that their bodies don't align with how they percieve their "true" selves.

In conclusion, the reason you are seeing similarities between these terms is because they are actually part of a taxonomy. Gender is a broad category referring to all the societal information, culture and baggage around sex. Within the category of gender, there are gender norms, which are the sociological forces that tell us how gendered people should act and behave, but there are other related concepts too, like gender identity, which is the psychological consciousness of being or belonging to a particularly gender.

In fact, bridging the two is another concept, gender expression, which is the features by which a person socially signals their gender identity to the world by referencing gender norms. Personal identity becomes a social identity which is expressed using the "language" of norms, and all of these things fall under the umbrella concept of gender.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

OK let's start off with a few quick definitions taken from google,

Gender:
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

Gender Norms:
Standards and expectations to which women and men generally conform, within a range that defines a particular society, culture and community at that point in time.

If we assume these two definitions are correct, what are the differences between gender and gender norms.

For example if I were to say I am male, what would that mean other than the norms associated with male in my society/culture?

I thought Gender was strictly biological, as in what sexual reproductive cell you produce. I mean where does the social/cultural aspect come into sexual reproduction, traditions aside. Meaning if a society decided to treat a male as a female his whole life, its not like he'd grow ovaries and produce eggs. Social pressure does not cause physical mutation.

Gender norms though, absolutely cultural/social and what not. But gender itself is a scientific binary, male/female with the occasional in-between mutation.

 

[Satinavian]

I thought Gender was strictly biological, as in what sexual reproductive cell you produce. I mean where does the social/cultural aspect come into sexual reproduction, traditions aside. Meaning if a society decided to treat a male as a female his whole life, its not like he'd grow ovaries and produce eggs. Social pressure does not cause physical mutation.

The biological is nowadays (since the 50s?) called sex, not gender. There are still languages that use the same word for both but English managed to make the distinction a while ago. Gender is the cultural/social.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I thought Gender was strictly biological, as in what sexual reproductive cell you produce. I mean where does the social/cultural aspect come into sexual reproduction, traditions aside. Meaning if a society decided to treat a male as a female his whole life, its not like he'd grow ovaries and produce eggs. Social pressure does not cause physical mutation.

The biological is nowadays (since the 50?) called sex, not gender. There are still languages that use the same word for both but English managed to make the distinction a while ago. Gender is the cultural/social.

Huh, I was taught it was the other-way. Gender is the genetic, sex is the cultural distinction. D'oh well, so long as we know they are separate...

 

[Satinavian]

There's a third term, which you are missing and which is needed to complete the set.

Gender Identity
Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth or can differ from it. All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a person's social identity in relation to other members of society.

When you say you are male, you aren't referring to the gender norms of the society you live in. Instead, you are either referring to a personal sense of "belonging" to a given gender (a personal identity) or to the way you see yourself as socially positioned in relation to the society you live in (a social identity). In all likelihood, you're referring to both at once.

For quite a long time i really could not understand what this gender idendity was supposed to be. Gender was for me only gender norms/roles/tendencies and a couple of prejudices. "Sense of one's gender" seemed like pure nonsense considering dysphoria (which i kind of undertand even if i don't have it) was treated as something separate.
Now i know that this really is different for most people and i consider myself agender.

 

[stroopwafel]

We also understand, on some level, that our gender identity is more than our bodies. When people lose their sexual characteristics due to disease or injury, their gender identity doesn't magically change, instead they are more likely to develop dysphoria, or a distressing awareness that their bodies don't align with how they percieve their "true" selves.

That is definitely not true. Every difference between men and women can be attributed to the fact men have eight times more testosterone, it's why the difference between men and women is smallest between the very young and the very old. I don't mean men and women act in very different ways(though they often do) but that their hormonal predispositions make them more susceptible for different predilections. It's why women in their fertile years have the most value both in nature and society b/c they are the ones that enable the species to perpetuate it's existence, which is the purpose of every living thing. It's men and post-menopausal women that are expendable.

You can see this confirmed in almost every statistic. Men have higher numbers of incarceration, psychiatric disease, autism, violent crime and even every eight out of ten suicides is men. You can exclude any cultural influence as it's the same in every country in the world. Men gets stigmatized for certain behaviors but it's the same moral curse on their gender that makes them more vulnerable to the above. This combination of factors make that men and women experience the world in completely different ways, it's just that the times decide which attribute is valued and which is not. The same predilection for inhibited impulse control is the same predilection for self-sacrifice which is a burden traditionally put on men in times of war or conflict. The same hormonal reason is also why men tend to be the more aggressive and women the more passive sex.

No one gender is better than the other as we all just have to deal with the biological reality of the hormonal and neurological configuration we are dealt with but this whole nonsense of 'gender as a social construct' is no more than wishful thinking of either feminist ideologues or marginal groups that deviate from the norm. Men and women have fulfilled completely different evolutionary purposes for hundreds of thousands of years and without these instinctive behaviors and 'gender as a social construct' humanity would have died out a long, long time ago.

I'd say gender is not only a biological reality set in stone for the vast majority of people, it's also the sole reason of their survival. Contemporary society has fulfilled every basic need for survival which is why it struggles for purpose and desperately tries to marginalize gender differences to to suit the needs of contemporary society like this is somehow humanity's natural habitat. But it's not and just like the ideas of gender of the 20th, 19th, 18th etc century ended up on the trash heap of history so will the ideas of our time.

All for the simple fact that 3500 years of civilization won't change hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The west might die, but humanity will live on similarly with the ancestral tribes of old.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Defining it as norms is a bit too restrictive and not made with human beings in mind but more something you'd use for machine classification.


A better definition is not gender norms but gender tendencies. A proportionally higher tendency to have certain traits and adhere to certain behaviors (but with leaving open the power of the existence of human nature coming in and varying these quite a bit) is more accurate when it comes to humans.

That way, when you say you're male, you're communicating that most of your behaviors conform with the male tendencies, but aren't limited by an expectation of adhering to all of them or only to them, you're just communicating that a significant enough majority of your being fits that description.

OK, we can change it to that. But that doesn't really answer my question.

what are the differences between gender and gender norms (or tendencies if you prefer)? Are you saying their are no differences, that those two terms are synonymous?

I think the answer to this is actually found in the term tendency that I described.

Gender is just a black or white thing that's more of a medical fact and has no wiggle room whereas behavioral tendencies are variable and can differ greatly from many people. For example, some may find it even more manly to be engaged in feminine pursuits because it displays a greater degree of self confidence and a lack of insecurity or fear you'll be perceived as unmanly for engaging in this activity, which is actually something decidedly manly!


So yeah, you have to be in the head of the person behaving in a certain way in order to be capable of categorizing all this stuff as fitting the norms/tendencies or not. You can't just decide it by merely observing the behavior itself without context.

So the difference if you want it simplified is that gender is a strict thing that's factual and the behavioral tendencies is something inherently in flux and open to adjustment by society and individual will.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That is definitely not true.

You'd think people would learn not to come for me on this stuff..

Every difference between men and women can be attributed to the fact men have eight times more testosterone, it's why the difference between men and women is smallest between the very young and the very old.

Testosterone is one of several hormones which we call androgens. Androgens are the chemicals responsible for physical masculinization, their most important function is to trigger the growth of exterior male genitals during foetal development, and also the changes men undergo during puberty.

Because testosterone is the androgen most people know about, there's a certain tendency in popular culture to romanticise it as the magical essence of manliness and to attribute all kinds of sex and gender difference to its supposed effects. This is, to put it very bluntly, some Dunning Kruger bullshit. Endocrinology is extremely complicated, and there's a lot we don't understand.

For example, there is no clear consensus on how normal levels of testosterone affect mood. There have been studies linking testosterone levels to aggression, but there are also many studies which show no connection between testosterone and aggression, at least at normal levels. Additionally, there are studies associating estrogen with increased aggression. There's a study showing a reduction of aromatase (a hormone that converts testosterone into estrogen) reduces aggression in both male and female mice, despite the fact female mice shouldn't be producing enough testosterone to need aromatase in the first place.

Psychological features, even really basic ones like aggression, are very, very unlikely to be determined by a single hormone. The reason endocrinology is extremely complicated is because, in a real body, many different hormones exist in a state of balance. There is no evidence that having more testosterone than someone else has any psychological effect at all. Taking testosterone supplements has been associated with changes in mood, but this seems to be more an effect of altering the balance of hormones within the body, rather than an intrinsic and universal effect of testosterone itself.

If you cannot be bothered to get testosterone right, why is the rest of your argument even worth listening to?

 

[Thaluikhain]

That is definitely not true.

You'd think people would learn not to come for me on this stuff..

I'd think people would learn not to say stuff like "Every difference between men and women can be attributed to the fact...". Lots of large and wide ranging differences, trying to attribute them all to one solitary cause, yeah, nah.

 

[stroopwafel]

Taking testosterone supplements has been associated with changes in mood, but this seems to be more an effect of altering the balance of hormones within the body, rather than an intrinsic and universal effect of testosterone itself.

Thanks for proving my point. If mood changes are already present with administration of synthetic testosterone in grown adults what do you think the influence is of the hormone on the developing brain? *news flash* The difference between men and women.

I'd think people would learn not to say stuff like "Every difference between men and women can be attributed to the fact...". Lots of large and wide ranging differences, trying to attribute them all to one solitary cause, yeah, nah.

It is because it is the only common denominator all men share. It's just a biological reality I really don't see how that is point of contention. When a man is castrated all male biological urges are lost and he becomes more passive and feminine. Similarly if a woman is stuffed with testosterone her behavior and even appearence will become more masculine and her sex drive explodes. Look up stories of female to male transgenders.

And like I said the differences are even obvious in grown adults that either have hormonal activity ceased or syntethically administered. While the real differences emerge during exposure of the hormone on the developing brain.

 

[Saelune]

Taking testosterone supplements has been associated with changes in mood, but this seems to be more an effect of altering the balance of hormones within the body, rather than an intrinsic and universal effect of testosterone itself.

Thanks for proving my point. If mood changes are already present with administration of synthetic testosterone in grown adults what do you think the influence is of the hormone on the developing brain? *news flash* The difference between men and women.

Yes, there are general differences between men and women.

But the differences between men and women biologically, is not what most people talk about with gender norms. What does it have to do with what clothing we wear? What does it have to do with our right to vote? What does it have to do with who should cook, and what they cook, and where they cook it? Such as say, a kitchen?

Plus it ignores the inconsistencies of men and women. Some women are more masculine than some men, and vice versa. And what about infertile men and women?

When it comes to the discussion of men and women, of gender identity, of sex, it is rarely ever truly about biology. It is about cultural norms and expectations, it is about equal rights, or rather the lack thereof.

And many of those who want to fall back on biology to excuse their sexism wont like it when its used against them. I mean, why not use testosterone as proof that men are rapey perverts who cant be trusted alone with women or children? I bet that would upset alot of people who want to fall back on biology to excuse their own sexism.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The whole chemical administering thing in general doesn't make sense to me. If someone who has boobs wants me to call em a dude I don't care. You shouldn't need to take testosterone if you already feel male though. I've felt male all my life and I never took anything to make that happen. I think it kinda defeats the point of saying someone was born that way if they have to take things they're literally not born with in order to achieve their purported natural state.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think it kinda defeats the point of saying someone was born that way if they have to take things they're literally not born with in order to achieve their purported natural state.

Does that apply to all other medication, though? A lot of people require medical help to retain what they'd consider normal or natural for them.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think it kinda defeats the point of saying someone was born that way if they have to take things they're literally not born with in order to achieve their purported natural state.

Does that apply to all other medication, though? A lot of people require medical help to retain what they'd consider normal or natural for them.

For something to be natural you had to have been that way at some point and know that you're not that way any more and need to get back to it. If you've never had male levels of testosterone in your system you have no idea how that feels, you just think that that's what your normal way is but that's by definition not it and if you don't feel male enough without needing to take hormones that means something. Whatever you wanna call it, taking hormones is the actual opposite thing of being your natural or true self, it's more like gender plastic surgery. It's like trying to reach your unrealistic ideal self.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Thanks for proving my point. If mood changes are already present with administration of synthetic testosterone in grown adults what do you think the influence is of the hormone on the developing brain? *news flash* The difference between men and women.

You missed my point, which is that hormones within the real human human body don't exist in isolation.

There was a little internet drama a while back when the Buzzfeed Try Guys had their testosterone levels tested for a video, at which point every far right commentator who ever failed high school biology went apeshit and started talking about how they had the testosterone levels of 80-100 year old men, and thus that they were clearly weak feminized beta men. These also tend to be communities where men openly encourage each other to take steroids as a form of HRT simply because they have quote/unquote low testosterone and thus need more testosterone in order to ensure they remain real men.

Hypogonadism is the condition where a person's body doesn't produce enough sex hormones, which in the case of male bodies can include testosterone. It's associated with some quite serious and debilitating symptoms, and is something which usually needs to be followed up on medically because it can be a sign of serious medical complications like cancer. If you don't have those symptoms, then it's extremely likely that whatever testosterone level you have is normal. There is no evidence that differing levels of normal testosterone determine your level of physical masculinization or your psychological characteristics, it doesn't determine whether you are or are not the mythical and elusive "chad". On the contrary, chasing high levels of testosterone can permanently damage your body and leave you with permanent hypogonadism (or, because aromatase converts excess testosterone into estrogen, it can cause you to become physically feminized, because again, hormones are complicated).

Androgens on their own don't really do much or predict anything, what's much more important is maintaining the overall balance of hormones in your body.

Again, testosterone is an androgen. Its function, along with the other androgens, is to physically masculinize the body, both in foetal development and during puberty. This masculinization does affect the entire body, and that includes the brain. The brains of men are usually slightly larger and less dense than those of women due to the steroidal function of androgens. There's a lot of speculation about other differences between the brains of men and women and what they mean, but at this point we are getting to the point where these supposed neurological differences are so small that we don't have accurate enough equipment to actually measure them. It can't be entirely ruled out that there are vague, aggregate neurological differences in the brains of men and women, but again, (beyond a few obvious ones) they are so small that we are left debating their existence or their significance.

The idea that every single difference between men and women's societal role and behaviour can be traced back the impact of foetal androgens on the brain would be truly, truly laughable even if it couldn't be easily debunked simply by looking at the fact that gender norms change enormously both cross-culturally and over time. If these differences are the product of our neurology, then clearly our neurology has changed (which is ultimately what people who ascribe to your position usually end up believing, around the time they get really into InfoWars).

 

[Silvanus]

For something to be natural you had to have been that way at some point and know that you're not that way any more and need to get back to it.

I can see the logic, but I don't think it's terribly solid.

For instance, having two arms is generally natural. If a child is born missing an arm, you would-- i suppose-- say that is the child's "natural" state, and yet, they may well have an experience much closer to the regular human experience if they had a prosthetic.

Why is the latter less natural, even though it's the state of normalcy for most people?

 

[Saelune]

For something to be natural you had to have been that way at some point and know that you're not that way any more and need to get back to it.

I can see the logic, but I don't think it's terribly solid.

For instance, having two arms is generally natural. If a child is born missing an arm, you would-- i suppose-- say that is the child's "natural" state, and yet, they may well have an experience much closer to the regular human experience if they had a prosthetic.

Why is the latter less natural, even though it's the state of normalcy for most people?

People only care about natural when it supports their own bigotry. I doubt they want to give up their cars and electricity and synthetic materials.