Chitchat Gender? (Warning: rant within)

[Pandaskel]

After learning about transgenderism, the Baby X experiment, and Margaret Mead’s studies of the Chambri people, I’ve come to the conclusion that gender is stupid as fuck.

Certain social constructs have important uses. Like time. Those should stick around. Gender isn’t one of them.

Sex makes sense. Sex is biological. If you compete in a sport, you should compete with your same sex. If you want to reproduce, it (currently) takes opposite sexes. But gender? What does your penis/vagina have to do with who you are as a person, the things you’re good at, the activities you enjoy? What should your genitalia have to do with your position in society?

I’m a girl, and growing up not being good at being “girly” FUCKING sucked. I feel much more comfortable as “one of the guys”. Online, I tend to keep my gender hidden and feel much better when referred to as “he” or “they” than “she”. My dad sometimes gets his pronouns in English mixed up (it’s his second language) and calls me “he” and it feels so weirdly good. But I’m not non-binary or trans because, first and most importantly, I don’t have gender dysphoria (maaaaybe a tiny bit of social dysphoria, but that’s about it), and second, I think gender in and of itself is fucking stupid and unnecessary. The only reason people suffer from gender dysphoria is because of there being gender identity in the first place. What the fuck should having a penis or a vagina have to do with your identity as a person????

When considered a girl, I feel like there are preconcieved notions, assumptions, and expectations of me and that’s what I hate. Especially since I don’t feel I fit those notions, assumptions, and expectations. That’s why I would say I have a tiny bit of social dysphoria. In general, for me personally, I’ve just done away with gender entirely. I think it’s stupid and imaginary. Like climate change not happening, flat earth, or Legend of Korra being good. It’s a thing lots of people believe in, but I have decided to no longer do so.

In conclusion: gender doesn’t exist. Thanks for coming to my RedTalk (it’s like a TedTalk but filled with anger and not very coherent.)

 

[Abendrot]

*grabs lawn chair, popcorn, and sunglasses*

The cataclysm may now proceed.

 

[Qazi]

Indeed, this may as well be the catalyst to some unholy evil darkness. . .

 

[AnimeGenork]

I think it’s stupid and imaginary. Like climate change not happening, flat earth, or Legend of Korra being good.

*applauds unnecessarily loudly*

BRAVO! BRAVOOOOOO!!!

 

[Pandaskel]

*applauds unnecessarily loudly*

BRAVO! BRAVOOOOOO!!!

*bows over-enthusiastically* IT HAD TO BE SAID

 

[kouzcy]

preach


A M E N

 

[Idea]

The idea of gender was never to lock people into preferences in the first place. In fact I fail to find, until recent history, much in the way of any reference to "genders" historically. "Gender" is just a statistic in another format- on average girls prefered this, on average guys prefered that.

Another side to gender was when something was built or thought for a specific sex. Like medieval armor with bulges around the hum...place down there. Or on a more controversial note, metalworking being often thought of as for men. Though even these things were basically statistical- it wasn't that there weren't muscular women, it's that the number was so small it didn't make sense to account for them.

Yeah society has expectations of your gender- but that was generally pretty fundamented on what you could actually expect. And much like thing syou could expect, sometimes it got pretty wrong, like slightly better wheather forecasting.

The idea of "gender roles", as we know it today, is pretty recent. It's a retroactive perspective upon patterns that were the norm, AKA not imposed on anyone. Don't get me wrong: there are douchebags out there who say "oh man can't have long hair" or "women should stay in the kitchen". Those people are idiots of course. But in general expecting that a female will act like a girl and have girly preferences is just expecting what was once a statistical average, if not still today.

So I disagree with you- Gender does exist, but our awareness of it is in dire need of an update.

 

[Pandaskel]

The idea of gender was never to lock people into preferences in the first place. In fact I fail to find, until recent history, much in the way of any reference to "genders" historically. "Gender" is just a statistic in another format- on average girls prefered this, on average guys prefered that.

Another side to gender was when something was built or thought for a specific sex. Like medieval armor with bulges around the hum...place down there. Or on a more controversial note, metalworking being often thought of as for men. Though even these things were basically statistical- it wasn't that there weren't muscular women, it's that the number was so small it didn't make sense to account for them.

Yeah society has expectations of your gender- but that was generally pretty fundamented on what you could actually expect. And much like thing syou could expect, sometimes it got pretty wrong, like slightly better wheather forecasting.

The idea of "gender roles", as we know it today, is pretty recent. It's a retroactive perspective upon patterns that were the norm, AKA not imposed on anyone. Don't get me wrong: there are douchebags out there who say "oh man can't have long hair" or "women should stay in the kitchen". Those people are idiots of course. But in general expecting that a female will act like a girl and have girly preferences is just expecting what was once a statistical average, if not still today.

So I disagree with you- Gender does exist, but our awareness of it is in dire need of an update.

Gender doesn’t exist. ( *｀ω´)

 

[Idea]

Gender doesn’t exist. ( *｀ω´)

It does exist- nomatter how much one defies them, people's expectations and the average way of a particular sex to behave and it's average preferences aren't something that will go away so long as humanity exists.

 

[Pandaskel]

It does exist- nomatter how much one defies them, people's expectations and the average way of a particular sex to behave and it's average preferences aren't something that will go away so long as humanity exists.

Gender doesn’t exist.

 

[AiDEE-c0]

AKA not imposed on anyone.

That whole statement just seems a bit wrong... Going far back into European history (since when speaking of gender roles, everyone really just considers the west), you can see that in ancient Athens for example, the "standard" woman was unable to vote and was taught more of dance and song, rather than politics and intellectualism. She had no choice in this and had to do what was told, which sounds like imposing to me tbh. I mean, the female gender in Athens was by law banned from owning land and even inheriting, so it had to rely on the husband (oftentimes chosen simply by dowry) to even live in a house after the father's passing.

So in short, Athen women had little choice but to stay out of intellectual affairs and take care of the household and children of a man they might've not even loved... by law and state authority. There was more and of course there probably were some exceptions. To say that the "norm" wasn't imposed though... really now. It was the role of the female gender to take care of the household and from what I can tell, it was clearly imposed.

 

[Pandaskel]

That whole statement just seems a bit wrong... Going far back into European history (since when speaking of gender roles, everyone really just considers the west), you can see that in ancient Athens for example, the "standard" woman was unable to vote and was taught more of dance and song, rather than politics and intellectualism. She had no choice in this and had to do what was told, which sounds like imposing to me tbh. I mean, the female gender in Athens was by law banned from owning land and even inheriting, so it had to rely on the husband (oftentimes chosen simply by dowry) to even live in a house after the father's passing.

So in short, Athen women had little choice but to stay out of intellectual affairs and take care of the household and children of a man they might've not even loved... by law and state authority. There was more and of course there probably were some exceptions. To say that the "norm" wasn't imposed though... really now. It was the role of the female gender to take care of the household and from what I can tell, it was clearly imposed.

Yo, going on Ancient Greece, though, Sparta was mad cool with their women. When asked why women could speak in political circles, a Spartan replied, “Spartan men come from Spartan women.”

 

[AiDEE-c0]

Yo, going on Ancient Greece, though, Sparta was mad cool with their women. When asked why women could speak in political circles, a Spartan replied, “Spartan men come from Spartan women.”

Aye, from Plutarch's Sayings of Spartan women, Gorgo is quoted as saying
"Because we are the only women that are mothers of men."
in response to a foreign woman asking
"Why is it that you Spartan women are the only women that lord over your men?"

Sparta had an almost matriarchal undertone and it was certainly a curiosity. One of the reasons I referred to Athens as opposed to all of Greece. Don't have a lot of concrete examples of other city-states either, truth be said.

 

[Idea]

That whole statement just seems a bit wrong... Going far back into European history (since when speaking of gender roles, everyone really just considers the west), you can see that in ancient Athens for example, the "standard" woman was unable to vote and was taught more of dance and song, rather than politics and intellectualism. She had no choice in this and had to do what was told, which sounds like imposing to me tbh. I mean, the female gender in Athens was by law banned from owning land and even inheriting, so it had to rely on the husband (oftentimes chosen simply by dowry) to even live in a house after the father's passing.

So in short, Athen women had little choice but to stay out of intellectual affairs and take care of the household and children of a man they might've not even loved... by law and state authority. There was more and of course there probably were some exceptions. To say that the "norm" wasn't imposed though... really now. It was the role of the female gender to take care of the household and from what I can tell, it was clearly imposed.

Hmmm...I guess you do have a point. I mean I wouldn't call those "gender roles" mostly cause they weren't based on gender- they were based on sex, but I realize that's splitting hairs a bit.

So I am inclined to concede that, although there are some mistakes there (standards of teaching someone preferences or indicating that something is preferable isn't forcing anything, if you go against the norm, you go against the norm pretending like something isn't the norm or accounting for every fringe case would be nonsensical) (women back then couldn't vote, because they weren't considered full citzens, but this was because it was men who were sent to war, which was considered a sort of right of passage to full manhood and full citzenship. Probably for the best too, as we do not have (to my knowledge) any reports of women with that much muscle mass (as opposed to men being trained since children) and considering this was a time when it was considered normal to rape any woman caught in battle or raiding...) in athens at least a form of gender roles was indeed somewhat imposed. Your point about inheritance and land owning forbidding is not something I had heard of, but it does seem believable and it would indeed make women dependent on men.

Women could persue intelectual affairs. I do believe there were reports of philosophers mentioning being asked to tutor little girls. I do not think it was very valued in women, hence it just not happening often, but to my knowledge there was no system or law prohibiting it. Marriage was admitedly forced on women, but it was forced on men also. Only exceptions were war spoils, but at that point in history slaves were a thing.

 

[Pandaskel]

Hmmm...I guess you do have a point. I mean I wouldn't call those "gender roles" mostly cause they weren't based on gender- they were based on sex, but I realize that's splitting hairs a bit.

So I am inclined to concede that, although there are some mistakes there (standards of teaching someone preferences or indicating that something is preferable isn't forcing anything, if you go against the norm, you go against the norm pretending like something isn't the norm or accounting for every fringe case would be nonsensical) (women back then couldn't vote, because they weren't considered full citzens, but this was because it was men who were sent to war, which was considered a sort of right of passage to full manhood and full citzenship. Probably for the best too, as we do not have (to my knowledge) any reports of women with that much muscle mass (as opposed to men being trained since children) and considering this was a time when it was considered normal to rape any woman caught in battle or raiding...) in athens at least a form of gender roles was indeed somewhat imposed. Your point about inheritance and land owning forbidding is not something I had heard of, but it does seem believable and it would indeed make women dependent on men.

Women could persue intelectual affairs. I do believe there were reports of philosophers mentioning being asked to tutor little girls. I do not think it was very valued in women, hence it just not happening often, but to my knowledge there was no system or law prohibiting it. Marriage was admitedly forced on women, but it was forced on men also. Only exceptions were war spoils, but at that point in history slaves were a thing.

You keep talking about "statistical norms" like they're real. They're only real because of the social construction in the first place. Like, if I have three sons and three daughters and I raise the boys to like raisins and hate peaches and the girls to like peaches and hate raisins and then I say that boys like raisins and girls like peaches. It's only true because I made it happen.

You can say statistically men don't cook as much as women and it can be true, but only because we made it true and that's fucked up. You can say statistically men don't care about fashion as much as women and it can be true but only because we made it true and that's fucked up. That's what I'm saying. Fuck gender. It doesn't exist.

 

[Idea]

You keep talking about "statistical norms" like they're real. They're only real because of the social construction in the first place. Like, if I have three sons and three daughters and I raise the boys to like raisins and hate peaches and the girls to like peaches and hate raisins and then I say that boys like raisins and girls like peaches. It's only true because I made it happen.

You can say statistically men don't cook as much as women and it can be true, but only because we made it true and that's fucked up. You can say statistically men don't care about fashion as much as women and it can be true but only because we made it true and that's fucked up. That's what I'm saying. Fuck gender. It doesn't exist.

What? What are you talking about?

No, we didn't make this up. It was OBSERVATION. We didn't make this stuff true we just observed existing trends and took from there. Yes, some things persisted way longer than they should have because the trends ceased to be valid, but that doesn't mean they weren't there in the first place. And even with the trends being different now, it doesn't mean trends don't exist, it doesn't mean there are different behaviors men or women are more inclined to follow as a standard case.

We didn't "make up" the idea men don't cook as much- for a good portion of human history this was true, most men didn't have to cook, they had people who would do it for them.

But let's say, hypothetically that we did somehow magically made several billion people follow imaginary trends. We're clearly not forcing them to. I do admit I was wrong in saying we never did impose such norms, but it still remains true for the majority of history. So what's the fucked up part? What part of encouraging a particular gender to follow certain choices by stating it as normal? Cause only one of two could be true: Either I am right and these norms are observations, in which case telling them it's the norm is just telling them the truth, or it is, as you said, made up in which case there's literally no difference either way cause norms wouldn't exist. And the latter hypothesis is pretty absurd to begin with.

Trends to exist. Norms do exist. It may not be the traditional norms, in fact the norms and trends are probably not the traditional ones anymore. Hence me saying it needs an update. But they do exist. Gender does exist.

 

[Pandaskel]

What? What are you talking about?

No, we didn't make this up. It was OBSERVATION. We didn't make this stuff true we just observed existing trends and took from there. Yes, some things persisted way longer than they should have because the trends ceased to be valid, but that doesn't mean they weren't there in the first place. And even with the trends being different now, it doesn't mean trends don't exist, it doesn't mean there are different behaviors men or women are more inclined to follow as a standard case.

We didn't "make up" the idea men don't cook as much- for a good portion of human history this was true, most men didn't have to cook, they had people who would do it for them.

But let's say, hypothetically that we did somehow magically made several billion people follow imaginary trends. We're clearly not forcing them to. I do admit I was wrong in saying we never did impose such norms, but it still remains true for the majority of history. So what's the fucked up part? What part of encouraging a particular gender to follow certain choices by stating it as normal? Cause only one of two could be true: Either I am right and these norms are observations, in which case telling them it's the norm is just telling them the truth, or it is, as you said, made up in which case there's literally no difference either way cause norms wouldn't exist. And the latter hypothesis is pretty absurd to begin with.

Trends to exist. Norms do exist. It may not be the traditional norms, in fact the norms and trends are probably not the traditional ones anymore. Hence me saying it needs an update. But they do exist. Gender does exist.

Goodness gracious, you are not getting this.

You're telling me giving your daughter a kitchen set and your son a skateboard is not imposing gender roles?

 

[Idea]

Goodness gracious, you are not getting this.

You're telling me giving your daughter a kitchen set and your son a skateboard is not imposing gender roles?

Yes. Because:

1. You're not imposing anything (in fact you're not even promoting anything in this case)
2. The norms, as I already mentioned, are statistical or were statistical. Between the two presents, the daughter is more likely to be happy with the kitchen set. Now this doesn't guarantee the daughter will be happy with the kitchen set- but it is more likely. A parent concerned with their child's happiness, rather than their agenda, will seek to do what they can to assure happiness for their child. So, when at lack of a better option, the parent will choose whatever is more likely to make their child happy.

 

[Pandaskel]

Yes. Because:

1. You're not imposing anything (in fact you're not even promoting anything in this case)
2. The norms, as I already mentioned, are statistical or were statistical. Between the two presents, the daughter is more likely to be happy with the kitchen set. Now this doesn't guarantee the daughter will be happy with the kitchen set- but it is more likely. A parent concerned with their child's happiness, rather than their agenda, will seek to do what they can to assure happiness for their child. So, when at lack of a better option, the parent will choose whatever is more likely to make their child happy.

So there is a fundamental, natural, biological factor that causes girls to love cooking, makeup, and dolls? Fuck science, Baby X, and Margaret Mead, then, I guess.

 

[Idea]

So there is a fundamental, natural, biological factor that causes girls to love cooking, makeup, and dolls? Fuck science, Baby X, and Margaret Mead, then, I guess.

Please don't strawman what I said.

Norms exist out of STATISTICAL OBSERVATION. I am starting to loose count of how many times I have to say this. I even made a point of distinguishing gender and sex:

Another side to gender was when something was built or thought for a specific sex. Like medieval armor with bulges around the hum...place down there. Or on a more controversial note, metalworking being often thought of as for men. Though even these things were basically statistical- it wasn't that there weren't muscular women, it's that the number was so small it didn't make sense to account for them.

Right here in this paragraph I explain that biological factors that were relevant at the time informed some of the norms that ended up constituting gender. Gender itself is not a biological phenomenon it is a statistical one, this means it merely represents particular trends that were observed in society. The trends existed and informed what gender became.

I'll put it in the simplest way I can

Biological factors ---> trends and norms --->gender and gender expectations ---->history factors in changing norms as particular biological factors attain greater or lesser importance --->What gender is and expectations changes

Here is an example: Did you know that in the medieval period men with very thin waists were considered ideal? Not men with strong muscles and bulgy shoulders as today, but men with thin waists.
Or for a woman's case, the mid Renaiscense period romantized snobbish women with extremely long necks and morbidly pale skin as the ideal woman.

These trends came to change as cultural symbolism changed, the kinds of professions people had changed etc... which in turn changed the norms.

The thing you're not understanding here is that the things you're mentioning happened one or less generations ago: that is not enough time for expectations to change

 

[Pandaskel]

Please don't strawman what I said.

Norms exist out of STATISTICAL OBSERVATION. I am starting to loose count of how many times I have to say this. I even made a point of distinguishing gender and sex:



Right here in this paragraph I explain that biological factors that were relevant at the time informed some of the norms that ended up constituting gender. Gender itself is not a biological phenomenon it is a statistical one, this means it merely represents particular trends that were observed in society. The trends existed and informed what gender became.

I'll put it in the simplest way I can

Biological factors ---> trends and norms --->gender and gender expectations ---->history factors in changing norms as particular biological factors attain greater or lesser importance --->What gender is and expectations changes

Here is an example: Did you know that in the medieval period men with very thin waists were considered ideal? Not men with strong muscles and bulgy shoulders as today, but men with thin waists.
Or for a woman's case, the mid Renaiscense period romantized snobbish women with extremely long necks and morbidly pale skin as the ideal woman.

These trends came to change as cultural symbolism changed, the kinds of professions people had changed etc... which in turn changed the norms.

The thing you're not understanding here is that the things you're mentioning happened one or less generations ago: that is not enough time for expectations to change

Did you know in Edo Japan, being gay was manlier than being straight? Spending time being lovey dover with some girl is hella effeminate. Spending time with a little boy, though? Hot.

Did you know little penises were attractive in Europe because it meant you had more blood in your brain instead of in your muscles and dick?

Did you know there were matriarchal civilizations?

SeE IM sMarT tOo

 

[Strawberry Ink]

TIL gender stereotypes are bad. /s

 

[Jean Otus]

Gender is a scam invented by bathroom companies in the 50s to tell twice as many bathrooms.

 

[Pandaskel]

 

[hadal]

Yes, gender is a social construct created by humans. A myriad of social constructs, including gender, have clashed and converged to create cultures, which are also socially constructed. Gender roles and norms have played an essential role in cultivating civilizations. We can debate the ways gender roles have been beneficial and harmful, but it is illogical to state that gender doesn't exist. You indicate gender has caused you discomfort, and seem to agree that transgender and non-binary people experience gender dysphoria. If gender makes you uncomfortable, and if gender roles oppress billions of people worldwide, how can you claim it doesn't exist? How did something nonexistent play such a fundamental role in creating social roles and shaping civilizations?

By negating the existence of gender, you also negate the existence of transgender people. Transgender people transition because they don't identify with the gender assigned to them at birth, but they still identify with a gender. Transgender people often experience immense pain and exclusion because they wish to transition. Transitioning costs time, money, and energy, but people are willing to bear the burden of these costs, because transitioning into a man or woman can bring about a sense of fulfillment, confidence, and happiness that would otherwise elude an individual with gender dysphoria.

Finally, not fitting into the confining box of gender norms does not mean you are not a man or woman. A woman does not have to be completely feminine in order to be a woman. I identify as a woman, but I am far from traditionally feminine. I often wear men's clothes, I am attracted to other women, and I engage in sports that are traditionally the domain of men. But no longer is it necessary that men and woman adhere to all traditional values. We should push back against restricting gender norms and have the courage to express ourselves as we truly are. Our forms of self-expression will not always fit within traditional gender roles and norms. My sense of selfhood certainly does not align with older notions of femininity and womanhood.

Millions of people do not fit neatly into conventional forms of gender identity, but this does not mean gender does not exist. While gender roles have remained steady throughout much of human history, they are now in flux (in some parts of the world). People are pushing the traditional boundaries, but they are not pushing gender into nonexistence. If gender never existed in the first place, there would be no boundaries to push.

Repeating that gender does not exist will not make you right. Your argument that gender identity provokes gender dysphoria means gender must exist. It makes no logical sense to state that gender dysphoria exists while gender does not.