"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[icehorse]

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of individuals along a diverse spectrum.

Sounds like a workable definition. So, as I understand it, something like 95% of brick layers are male. Would you say brick laying tends to be a masculine activity? And I would guess that most weavers are women, would you say that weaving tends to be a feminine activity?

If you don't agree with those examples, then what would some socially constructed roles or behaviors be?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I maintain that your examples are odd, and on a baseline non-gendered.

Our society tends to gender roles like "breadwinner" and "child-rearing" as masculine and feminine respectively, problematic though those are, if you're looking for social roles. Then things like wearing dresses and high heels (an example that's been given before), having facial hair or long hair, grooming your body, painting nails, wearing makeup, etc.

Cutting aside examples and hypotheticals, what's the point here horse?

 

[icehorse]

I maintain that your examples are odd, and on a baseline non-gendered.

Our society tends to gender roles like "breadwinner" and "child-rearing" as masculine and feminine respectively, problematic though those are, if you're looking for social roles. Then things like wearing dresses and high heels (an example that's been given before), having facial hair or long hair, grooming your body, painting nails, wearing makeup, etc.

Cutting aside examples and hypotheticals, what's the point here horse?

I could make a sarcastic comment about having to hold your hand, but I'm not going to do that. But do take note that there are many separate threads of conversation going on simultaneously in this thread.

In this case, @SkepticThinker offered a video many posts ago, and I said I thought the video contained a lot of logical errors. Specifically, I quoted this directly from the video:

"Gender is how an individual organism expresses their sexual identity in a cultural context".

I think that is a really bad definition. It certainly doesn't match yours very well. If we take yours, then I think things like brick laying, tree climbing, and weaving are fair examples of gender tying into societal norms, which is more or less what you said earlier right?

So you jumped into this thread of conversation that started between me and skeptic - and now perhaps you're up to speed?

Now if you say that wearing dresses or having long hair are better examples of gender, okay. But notice that those things do not express "sexual identity" like the video predicts. They don't, for example, tell whether the individual is straight or gay.

So, I continue to maintain that skeptic's video has many such logical errors.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I could make a sarcastic comment about having to hold your hand, but I'm not going to do that.

You just did. Hypocritically so, I'll add. If you're not going to make a statement, then don't make the statement. It's not hard to do in a forum setting.

"Gender is how an individual organism expresses their sexual identity in a cultural context".

I think that is a really bad definition. It certainly doesn't match yours very well.

It actually does, fairly well. It's not perfect but it's certainly closer to the point than what's typically taken as reducing one's gender to the organ between their legs.

If we take yours, then I think things like brick laying, tree climbing, and weaving are fair examples of gender tying into societal norms, which is more or less what you said earlier right?

No.

So you jumped into this thread of conversation

I "jumped into" this conversation questioning your motives in "defending" women. I still question that motive.

Before we play a fun little game, let's get a clear definition from you on what gender is. A clear definition, mind you, not "Boys lay bricks and climb trees, girls weave." What is gender?

 

[anotherneil]

Huh? It doesn't mean "her husband" or "her boyfriend"?

 

[icehorse]

I "jumped into" this conversation questioning your motives in "defending" women. I still question that motive.

And I tried once again to converse with you, but to no avail. ciao

 

[SkepticThinker]

I often summarize long videos that I post, as a courtesy.

The whole point of my posting of the video was to present a tutorial to you wherein a biologist explains how sex isn't binary, which is a claim you keep making, among others. So summarizing the video kinda defeats the purpose.

Here's a summary: Biological sex isn't binary. It's more complex and messy than that.

That said, it's hard for me to try to steelman Forest's video because I see so many logical errors in it, but I'll try:

You haven't mentioned a single logical error.

I think Forest is trying to say that sex isn't a simple, binary condition.

Yep. Among other things. Like gender and sex address different things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I could make a sarcastic comment about having to hold your hand, but I'm not going to do that. But do take note that there are many separate threads of conversation going on simultaneously in this thread.

In this case, @SkepticThinker offered a video many posts ago, and I said I thought the video contained a lot of logical errors. Specifically, I quoted this directly from the video:

"Gender is how an individual organism expresses their sexual identity in a cultural context".

I think that is a really bad definition. It certainly doesn't match yours very well. If we take yours, then I think things like brick laying, tree climbing, and weaving are fair examples of gender tying into societal norms, which is more or less what you said earlier right?

So you jumped into this thread of conversation that started between me and skeptic - and now perhaps you're up to speed?

Now if you say that wearing dresses or having long hair are better examples of gender, okay. But notice that those things do not express "sexual identity" like the video predicts. They don't, for example, tell whether the individual is straight or gay.

So, I continue to maintain that skeptic's video has many such logical errors.

Are you trying to say that a tomboy climbing a tree is "expressing their sexual identity in a cultural context?"
Do you consider climbing a tree a cultural context?

What are you trying to say?

 

[icehorse]

The whole point of my posting of the video was to present a tutorial to you wherein a biologist explains how sex isn't binary, which is a claim you keep making, among others. So summarizing the video kinda defeats the purpose.

Here's a summary: Biological sex isn't binary. It's more complex and messy than that.

FWIW, I think you did a fine job of summarizing the video.

That said, virtually every categorization scheme allows for rare exceptions. The existence of such exceptions does not render the categorization void. We can test this out, name a categorization scheme, and I'll see if I can find any exceptions.

When societies create laws and policies, they are almost always statistical in nature. Statistically, men are much larger and stronger than women. Statistically, men are much more likely to physically assault women than the other way around. The existence of rare individuals with variations in their DNA does not make those statistical claims untrue.

Are you trying to say that a tomboy climbing a tree is "expressing their sexual identity in a cultural context?"
Do you consider climbing a tree a cultural context?

What are you trying to say?

Earlier kilted offered a definition of gender that I think is workable:

"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of individuals along a diverse spectrum."

Can we use that definition or do you want to offer a different one?

==

In the meantime, I'd say that examples like climbing a tree do fall under the definition of socially constructed roles. And I DO NOT think that those examples are an expression of sexual identity.

So that's one example of where I think your video made logic errors. And once we work thru this example, I will be happy to find other examples from the video and discuss those as well.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And I tried once again to converse with you, but to no avail. ciao

Mmhm.

So given that you're using the definition for gender that I provided, is that how you define gender?

 

[SkepticThinker]

FWIW, I think you did a fine job of summarizing the video.

Thanks.

That said, virtually every categorization scheme allows for rare exceptions. The existence of such exceptions does not render the categorization void. We can test this out, name a categorization scheme, and I'll see if I can find any exceptions.

That's the point. That humans (and other animals) don't fit neatly into two little boxes of either/or.
Remember, I posted this video in response to your claim that sex is binary.

When societies create laws and policies, they are almost always statistical in nature. Statistically, men are much larger and stronger than women. Statistically, men are much more likely to physically assault women than the other way around. The existence of rare individuals with variations in their DNA does not make those statistical claims untrue.

No, but it stops us from claiming that every man is stronger than every woman. And it's true. Some women are stronger than some men.

Earlier kilted offered a definition of gender that I think is workable:

"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of individuals along a diverse spectrum."

Can we use that definition or do you want to offer a different one?

I don't see a problem with it.

==

In the meantime, I'd say that examples like climbing a tree do fall under the definition of socially constructed roles. And I DO NOT think that those examples are an expression of sexual identity.

I guess I don't see the act of climbing a tree as a socially constructed role.

So that's one example of where I think your video made logic errors. And once we work thru this example, I will be happy to find other examples from the video and discuss those as well.

I don't think I see the error. Do you think tree climbing is a socially constructed role?

 

[icehorse]

That's the point. That humans (and other animals) don't fit neatly into two little boxes of either/or.
Remember, I posted this video in response to your claim that sex is binary.

And that's where one of our disagreements lie. Even though there are rare exceptions, for practical purposes sex is binary. It's binary when it comes to emergency care and many other medical interventions. It's binary when it comes to assault. It's binary when it comes to women's rights to privacy or religious beliefs.

And so on.

It doesn't always matter, but in many crucial circumstances, biological, binary sex matters.

I guess I don't see the act of climbing a tree as a socially constructed role.

How about brick laying? You give me an example and we'll work with that.

 

[The Hammer]

Sex and gender exist in a spectrum both:

"The gender spectrum is an understanding that gender is not binary, but rather a spectrum of biological, mental and emotional traits that exist along a continuum.

In contrast, the gender binary—also called gender binarism or genderism—is a belief that gender is composed of two distinct and opposite genders (women/men) in which there is not overlap.

Unfortunately for those who believe in a gender binary, it is not scientifically or medically correct. Gender can’t be binary, because it is a personal identity and is socially constructed.

Sex, which refers to one’s biological characteristics, also exists as a spectrum, because intersex people exist. A person’s sex can be female, male, or intersex—which can present as an infinite number of biological combinations.

Today, numerous scientific fields, including biology, endocrinology, physiology, genetics, neuroscience, and reproductive science, have confirmed that both sex and gender exist as a spectrum.

This is true for humans and across the animal kingdom."

Gender Spectrum: A Scientist Explains Why Gender Isn't Binary

Science confirms that gender (and sex) exist along a spectrum, because both are composed by a mosaic of traits—none of which are binary.

cadehildreth.com

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Having had a few hours to think on this, I will make one more comment. I said that most kids with GD grow out of it naturally and most are gay.

Your response as to my ignorance is quoted above. Oh sorry, my "vast and massive" ignorance.

So I went back again and reread the interview with Finland's top GD doctor. I'm simply reporting on what she said in the interview.

So apparently you think you know so much about this topic that you can call Finland's top GD doctor "massively ignorant".

It's crap posts like that from you that led me to stop debating with you.

Again, have a fine day in your oh-so-smug little world.

No, what's crap is how you try to position yourself as more informed and knowledgeable in the topic than others and insist you are right and scream strawman and control group amd actovist to dismiss everything. "oh, one at a time and we'll discuss it" is what you say next.
And you say all this while making it clear you've done a few hours total thinking about this and researching it. Yku frequently get called out ans corrected but keep insisting your ignorance is fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And that's where one of our disagreements lie. Even though there are rare exceptions, for practical purposes sex is binary. It's binary when it comes to emergency care and many other medical interventions. It's binary when it comes to assault. It's binary when it comes to women's rights to privacy or religious beliefs.

If there are exceptions to the "rule" that sex is binary, then that means sex isn't binary.

And so on.

It doesn't always matter, but in many crucial circumstances, biological, binary sex matters.


How about brick laying? You give me an example and we'll work with that.

It's your point. You make it. I don't see how tree climbing by a tomboy or brick laying are examples of socially constructed gender roles.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, I listened to 18:00 minutes, and I made a list of 19 issues with the presentation. Some strawmen, many distinctions without a difference, many hasty generalizations, gish gallops, several conflations, and at least one instance of non-scientific, agenda-driven language.

A few (rough) timestamp examples:

:30 he strawmans thoughtful disagreements about gender stereotypes
:33 same with gender
:51 he talks about a "two gender system" - another strawman

Jumping ahead at around 17:30 or so he says:

"Gender is how an individual organism expresses their sexual identity in a cultural context".

Even by his own standards, that's inconsistent with other things he's said and it's inconsistent with what thoughtful people understand about gender. For example, a girl who expresses a lot of masculine traits, i.e. a "tomboy" is in NO WAY expressing her sexual identity when she climbs a tree.

==

Now, how about you spending half the time reading the link I gave you?

I read the link you gave. It appears that it where the vast majority of your arguments and talking points have been taken from, and as such, have already been addressed repeatedly on these threads.

 

[icehorse]

It's your point. You make it. I don't see how tree climbing by a tomboy or brick laying are examples of socially constructed gender roles.

Not my point, I'm responding to the video. Again, I'm happy to use an example of a socially constructed gender role. Can you provide an example that you are happy with? The reason I'm asking is because at this moment we're discussing the video. thanks.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So who in society decided that climbing trees and laying bricks is only for boys? I bet it was those ******** at General Mills, the same fools who have us believe Trix are only for kids.

 

[Wirey]

So who in society decided that climbing trees and laying bricks is only for boys? I bet it was those ******** at General Mills, the same fools who have us believe Trix are only for kids.

Trix are just for kids. Don't cross that line again.

 

[icehorse]

Sex, which refers to one’s biological characteristics, also exists as a spectrum, because intersex people exist. A person’s sex can be female, male, or intersex—which can present as an infinite number of biological combinations.

Today, numerous scientific fields, including biology, endocrinology, physiology, genetics, neuroscience, and reproductive science, have confirmed that both sex and gender exist as a spectrum.

This is true for humans and across the animal kingdom."

Society could not function without categorizations. Almost every categorization scheme has exceptions. One important categorization scheme is biological sex. Society runs on the idea that most of the time a person is either male or female. Our healthcare systems are designed around this idea. Keeping women safe is designed around this idea. Allowing women to compete more fairly in sports is designed around this idea. None of these are perfect solutions, but most of the time they work.

Why would we want to weaken these solutions?