This is probably the best place to post this, but if there's somewhere better, please move it.

This has been bothering me for a bit now. When other trans people say gender is a social construct, I guess I don't really get it. Gender roles, yes, are a social construct. But gender in itself? I don't think so... because if gender was a social construct, it almost makes it sound like we're choosing to be trans, which isn't the case. And then cis people go ahead and say, "Well, if gender is a social construct, then why do you feel the need to conform yourself to said constructs because your birth sex doesn't match them?" and then they accuse us of trying to enforce gender roles. It bugs me, because I could care less about gender roles, I just wish I was born in a male body. (And yes, I understand 'born in the wrong body' doesn't apply to everyone, but it does apply to me.)

I feel like what makes the most sense is that our brains were hardwired this way before birth, and I'm pretty sure estrogen/testosterone levels have a play in gender identity as well.

How is gender a social construct? I just can't wrap my head around the concept.

I'd like to see a discussion on this. Do you think gender is a social construct? Why or why not? 

I agree with everything you said 100%.  "Gender as a social construct" is so far outside my experience of reality that someone saying that might as well be an alien from another dimension.  Like many things though I think that people unthinkingly repeat the idea because they heard it somewhere and it sounds PC.


Sapere Aude

What you say is true, but I think where things get a bit confused and the wires are crossed in the overall argument for one or the other is that, even though gender is not a construct but gender roles are, we still tend to also adopt many of the social roles and presentation as part of our transition.

I think it is better to say "The gender binary is a social construct."  And to be specific, it is a Judeo-Christian social construct.  There are multiple examples of non Christian societies in the world that have long standing traditions of recognizing other genders and roles, and not just American Indian tribes.  There are tribes in Asia as well, including one Malaysian tribe that recognizes four distinct genders.

Gender is biological and as in any biological system, there is quite a bit of variability and some overlap between the defined boundaries.  Two genders is fine, but there is not a real sharp cutoff between the two. Those societies that define more than a binary tend to be catagorizing the middle, where some overlap exists. Those who define a strict binary with sharp boundaries ignore the middle and marginalize those individuals who are in the middle.


Hugs

Jen

Gender is usually defined in social sciences by traits and roles. They sometimes add other categories that could just as well also fall under role. Gender identity is which gender you identify with. Both traits and roles are learned social things. There are cases that seem to indicate some people may have an innate sense of gender dysphoria, but in insufficient numbers to be proof. In all probability, gender dysphoric people are both innate, and socially created. Most transgender people have a gnawing desire for greater visibility. Some spiritual reason, some chromosomal thing researchers overlooked, but the reality is that we are people with a gender identity that is in-congruent with our sex, who will have doctors transform us into a facsimile of  the sex our gender identity aligns with, with chromosomes of the sex we were. I wish it was something more special, but it's not, and I just accept it and be thankful there are constantly evolving surgical treatments to fix me.

Quote from: Ms Grace on May 19, 2016, 10:01:20 PM
What you say is true, but I think where things get a bit confused and the wires are crossed in the overall argument for one or the other is that, even though gender is not a construct but gender roles are, we still tend to also adopt many of the social roles and presentation as part of our transition.

It's a pretty interesting question - if there were no gender roles and stereotypes, would we be so interested in adopting those roles and presentations? And if not, then why bother? In my case, it's not so much a matter of safety or fitting in (although those matter too, to a lesser degree) - rather, I finally get to experience things denied to me though my entire life. Part of it also is to get acceptance and recognition for who I am.

However, as a thought experiment, if you take away the roles, presentations, and stereotypes, what is gender? It's not sex - that's clearly distinct. Is it brain chemistry? Hormone levels? Is gender simply a physical phenomenon? Can we measure it? If we could map the parts of the brain and say, "okay, if you have this brain you fall into this type of transgender category, and this type of brain you're in this category, and this type of brain you're cis" would you feel comfortable denying someone's identity who didn't fall into their expected category?

One problem with the concept of gender as biological is that we clearly associate certain characteristics with particular genders. So saying, 'gender is a social construct' could be construed to be commenting on gender roles inherent with our understanding of gender. In other words, if gender (however it is defined physically) and gender (however it is defined socially) are inseparable, then wouldn't it still be a social construct BECAUSE we apply gender roles? In that sense, since we cannot measure gender, I think in general when we talk about gender outside of dysphoria we really are just talking about gender roles. One then has to ask, since gender roles are so ingrained in our understanding of gender, when we talk about gender roles or even gender are we talking about the intricacies of the biological phenomenon? I think in most cases the answer is no. There are almost always outside of a clinical setting going to be some assumptions on what gender MEANS, even while recognizing that those are assumptions.

Regardless, I think the inference that if gender is a social construct then we are necessarily choosing our genders is simply showing ignorance of the subject matter.

I am going to have to disagree, insofar as to say society has a role in it, but so does biology. Preferences can be a factor, but those are greatly influenced by society. I think of gender in a few different ways, physically as a presentation of who I want to be perceived as, functionally and socially as belonging in a certain group, and internally as the self I'll be most able to accept. Maybe I'm over thinking it.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Feminists use this argument (Gender is a social construct) for two reasons. And it is a purpose driven argument. it's based in political rights advocacy, not science. 

1) To stop discrimination about and social limitations on female potential. 

2)To attack masculinity as we know it, when "performed" (their word) by straight cis males. a form of masculinity they consider "toxic". 

It's an argument used to get women to engage in the masculine and men to engage in the feminine.

Like the OP my dysphoria from its earliest manifestation was primarily centered on the physical rather than the social.  While there is definitely some overlap and it is not absolute, I have little social dysphoria and have never had any great problem fitting into or performing in a male environment even though it has often felt contrived.  Possibly this is due to my life's profession and environment where men and women dressed the same and mostly performed in interchangeable roles.  Regardless, the dysphoria has been acute and centered on physical aspects rather than clothing or role.  That's why reducing transsexuality to solely a dissatisfaction with socially created gender roles makes absolutely no sense to me.  Because if that were in any way true then I should not have suffered dysphoria at all.


Sapere Aude

People need to understand that there's a difference between gender identity and gender expression. It's been proven that your brain is wired to be a certain gender and that no manner of socialisation to the opposite will have any effect on how that person identifies. Also people need to stop and think that what we regard as 'girls' things are made up by our society and just having a girl play with a barbie isn't going to magically transform them into being a girl. The way you socialise your child has no bearing on their identity. Somethings considered for men only in the past are now only for women (tights; high heels etc) and things now considered for women were only allowable for men (trousers; shirts etc). The only thing I can think of which has made a comeback to being allowable for men to wear again are earrings.

Growing up I was made to wear dresses and have long hair. While I'm not totally sure if this made me the feminine man I am today; it certainly didn't make me identify as female. I've thought about the argument of 'if society was more accepting would I want to physically transition'. And I think the answer would still be yes. I want to see a male face in the mirror; not a women's which my brain tells me is wrong. I also need my chest to be flat and my hips to be narrower; again because my gender identity sees that as 'right'. But I'm still going to be feminine because we now live in a more accepting society were I don't have to hide that part of myself.

Every culture has interpreted gender in it's own way. In that sense, gender is socially constructed.

But every culture in the history of humanity has had two binary genders (and a few non-binary folk who don't fit cleanly within their boundaries). The (generally) binary nature of gender and the drive for (most) people to identify with their gender appears to be biologically programmed.

Does that help sort it out?

Quote from: Cynthia Johnson on May 19, 2016, 11:19:28 PM
Gender is usually defined in social sciences by traits and roles.

Social sciences are primarily descriptive sciences. With the exception of psychology experimentation is too unwieldy to be applied to their subjects. Because psychology's subject is the individual and because it overlaps with psychiatry it can be more experimental, but basically it's at the stage that biology was before Watson and Crick. It doesn't mean that there's no physical component to gender, there's evidence that there is, it just means we can't point to a location or mechanism yet.

I think of it as a mixture of "biology" and context. Gender roles are a social construct, and the are continually changing, but we as people still have to function in a society with that construct, and so we have to find ways to use it that aren't negative. Acknowledging that much of what we think of as gender is an opt-in opt-out situation would be pretty good for most people...

Also the answer to "Well, if gender is a social construct, then why do you feel the need to conform yourself to said constructs because your birth sex doesn't match them?" is: Why do you feel the need to conform to said contructs just because your ~birth sex~ DOES match them? If cis people want trans people to stop 'enforcing' gender roles, then they need to work harder for a society that doesn't require them. Instead of just shutting us down and continuing to allow the arbitrary gendering of clothing, roles and objects

Quote from: CarlyMcx on May 19, 2016, 10:26:30 PM
I think it is better to say "The gender binary is a social construct."  And to be specific, it is a Judeo-Christian social construct.  There are multiple examples of non Christian societies in the world that have long standing traditions of recognizing other genders and roles, and not just American Indian tribes.  There are tribes in Asia as well, including one Malaysian tribe that recognizes four distinct genders.

also worth remembering that the British/ European colonisation of those places discouraged the expression of extra binary genders, e.g. the anti-castration laws in India that were introduced by the British Raj

Quote from: MisterQueer on May 19, 2016, 08:20:32 PM
This is probably the best place to post this, but if there's somewhere better, please move it.

This has been bothering me for a bit now. When other trans people say gender is a social construct, I guess I don't really get it. Gender roles, yes, are a social construct. But gender in itself? I don't think so... because if gender was a social construct, it almost makes it sound like we're choosing to be trans, which isn't the case. And then cis people go ahead and say, "Well, if gender is a social construct, then why do you feel the need to conform yourself to said constructs because your birth sex doesn't match them?" and then they accuse us of trying to enforce gender roles. It bugs me, because I could care less about gender roles, I just wish I was born in a male body. (And yes, I understand 'born in the wrong body' doesn't apply to everyone, but it does apply to me.)

I feel like what makes the most sense is that our brains were hardwired this way before birth, and I'm pretty sure estrogen/testosterone levels have a play in gender identity as well.

How is gender a social construct? I just can't wrap my head around the concept.

I'd like to see a discussion on this. Do you think gender is a social construct? Why or why not?

I never thought of it that way. I used to blame gender in and of itself for the social construct until I read your post here. But you wisely narrowed it down to the roles. This makes perfect sense and explains things much better. Thank you for sharing this with us!

I'm inclined to say, "you don't have to agree that 'gender is a social construct'."  Of course, you don't have to agree that the Earth revolves around the sun, either.  But people who spend large chunks of their lives to studying either tend to agree with those statements.

The thing is, most of the things we talk about are social constructs.  E.g., languages are social constructs.  My own, highly non-technical definition of a social construct is that it's something that only exists because humans agree/believe/act like it exists.  English exists only to the extent that people speak it, read it, write it.

A social construct can be one's identity.  Millions of USAans identify as American.  They consider it an essential part of who they are and they feel very uncomfortable when they are asked to hide or even just tone down any part of their American-ness.  I don't particularly identify with being "American," yet when I lived in Europe for several years, I kept running into the myriad ways that Americanness had become a part of my self (the way Strontium-90 becomes a part of one's bones.)  Yet "American" didn't exist 500 years ago, and students of American history and literature have traced how people in what is now the USA created and constructed this concept.

The thing is, people start out without labels.  They're just the way they are.  (If you've had a couple of children, you've noticed how different they can be right from the minute they pop out.)  But then society comes along and says "this is a boy and boys are like this, and that is a girl and girls are like that."  And that everyone is either one or the other (not both, not neither, not sort-of anything.  You're all M or you're all F.)  And this indoctrination starts at birth.  They learn What Girls Are the way they learn What Cats Are.  Plus, they learn what society says they are.  But if there's a conflict between the way a child actually is (something the child can experience directly) and what they say their assigned gender is, then they can either (a) try to turn themselves into something they aren't or (b) take on the entire adult world and tell them they're wrong.

What's interesting to me is the ever-growing number of people who identify as non-binary.  To me, this is, if anything, evidence for the arbitrariness and thus the constructedness of gender.  If "being a boy" and "being a girl" were something built into people, rather than a classification based on socially defined concepts, we wouldn't expect to find people who are genderfluid, agender, mix-and-match, etc.  I think there have always been people like that, they just had to describe themselves in the terms and fit into the roles society supplied them with, while knowing that those terms didn't really fit.

Many of the gendered behaviours associated with male and female are hormonally and anatomically induced in addition to socially. The idea that it's nothing but a social construct is the basis of virtually all TERF arguments.

In simple terms and using "you" to describe any trans, their thinking goes:

Your gender is a social construct---> Our society is a Patriarchy ---> Your gender is a Patriarchal construct ---> The Patriarchy oppresses women ---> You oppress women.

I discussed in another thread how to be more exact, gender expression is different from roles but socially constructed to a large degree, so are gender roles. They are about communication and expectation and those vary by society. Gender itself is separate from the social system.

If i'd grown up isolated and naked on a tropical island with a small bunch of people (that sounds good particularly if there are mangos but i digress), I'd still feel feminine. How i express that and what the groups expectations of that would be, may be different.

When i was first married to my lovely spouse and identifying as a feminine leaning male, i caught a lot of kidding from friends because she was usually the one to drive when we went somewhere together. They were like...i would never let my woman drive, makes me too nervous etc. Men do the driving etc. Such a strange expectation but it exists in most male/female couples we know. 

Oh and i loved to ask for directions (before GPS)

We are only whom society allows us to be...



Paula, X.

Quote from: JMJW on May 20, 2016, 11:39:59 AM
Many of the gendered behaviours associated with male and female are hormonally and anatomically induced in addition to socially. The idea that it's nothing but a social construct is the basis of virtually all TERF arguments.

In simple terms and using "you" to describe any trans, their thinking goes:

Your gender is a social construct---> Our society is a Patriarchy ---> Your gender is a Patriarchal construct ---> The Patriarchy oppresses women ---> You oppress women.

Yeahhhh, a few things:

1) I wouldn't take TERFists to represent feminism. This and your other post paint a horrible picture of feminism through an over-simplified and extremely biased representation. For example, rather than attacking people for being 'male,' feminists tend to attack the IMPOSITION of male roles, such as bullying other men for not being 'manly' enough.

2) What are these behaviors that are hormonally and anatomically induced? Isn't that an even worst argument against trans people?

3) There is a logical fallacy here: TERF might use that argument to support their views, but those arguments don't necessitate those views. Hence there being radical feminists who are not TERFists. The implication that if you believe gender is a social construct then you support TERFism is absolutely incorrect.