If gender is a social construct, why does Feminism exist? Wouldn't femininity fall under this social construct? Wouldn't an inter-sectional movement, like egalitarianism (which does not make distinction between gender/sex), be more ideologically correct than a gender based movement like Feminism?
This is the best argument I've heard yet. I'm all about girls and boys following their hearts and maybe doing things outside of the norm. But denying certain biological differences based on CLEARLY VISABLE biological differences is akin to wanting something to be true just wishing it in to existence.
Because FEMALE people are oppressed based on their sex, they are exploited for their bodies and their reproductive capacities in a way that men are not and in fact could never be. "Gender" therefore becomes a hierarchical system, not just a set of benign characteristics that are innate... it boxes in both sexes, but it does the most harm to females by keeping them demure, quiet, less likely to fight back, more likely to be agreeable... it keeps them wearing certain types of clothes (think: high heels) which restrain them, etc.
Look I have a whiteboard with some writing on it in different colours. This is bound to make me look more intelligent than I actually am and make my arguments more persuasive.
Gender presentation or manifestations of your biological sex is socially constructed NOT gender itself. The essential argument is valid, simplistic to some but not invalid.
Great presentation! Thank you very much. I have to deliver a presentation on gender views and you have been great help. Kind regards. (By the way, have you ever worked with Butler`s notion of performative display and iterability?)
Thank you for this video. I am a student getting to grasps with gender performativity right now and this was quite helpful! How does this tie in with the notion that sex is socially constructed as well as proposed for example by Moore? That's the thing I honestly don't really understand.
Question: if gender is nothing but a social construct (which I think it is) and it's so easy to discriminate based on it, why should we still have it at all? It seems to me that there's no logical point to gender.
Do you wear tie and suit deliberately to make a point or do you wear it because you feel comfortable in it? Or do you do it without issue to either. It is that it is something it covers your body so you don't get charged for indecent exposure walking around naked. Do you wear it all the time or just sometimes?
Hardly surprising that you would question the obvious reality of significant physiological, emotional, behavioral, and other differences between the sexes. Until I heard your voice, I wasn't sure which you were either, but I was leaning towards male.
In philosophy we call it an "ad hominem" attack when a thinker attacks the person of their interlocutor rather than engaging the argument. It is much easier to [attempt to] insult the person you disagree with than it is to come up with a logically sound rebuttal.
+Jennifer Lisa Vest Such an argument may not be challenged. 1st, the reasons why this is wrong are varied and too complicated for people who only read third rate intellectuals or people who confirm their prejudices. Secondly, the opponent is battling against a mass delusion which seems to be in full riot mode. Thirdly, scumbag cowards, who know this is insanity, will not speak up. We begin with destroying the family - an old target of paranoid loons. We take up the challenge of Jesus (anti-family) and combine with the equally absurd Rousseau. We then add Marx and add his poison and get people to deny cultures exist. We then move on to other observable things such as childhood and say that too is constructed. Before we know it, gender and sex are to be separated on ideological terms (forget a proper thinker like Wittgenstein, we've got feminism now) and sex as well as gender are, apparently, constructed. In England this kind of credulous fucking idiocy is now taught in several high school subjects. No one has fought back against this kind of delusional shit. The scumbag parasites pushing this insane shit are scum, want others to think like them and are simply copying the ramblings of erstwhile patriarch loons like Jesus et al. How many times has this kind of shit gonna happen before we simplify the process, by shooting the cunts who preach this deranged and unhinged fuckin' shit?
The points you made of division of labour in the home doesn't include the idea of the increasing amount of men who live alone and have to do house chores. Not what happens in gay households.
Do you even know the David Reimer story? He didn't get to choose his own gender identity, he had a twin brother and was raised as a girl. His doctor did a bad circumcision so HIS parents chose for himself to raise him as a girl, that is not the same as Social Construct Gender Theory.
There are a lot of sexist assumptions in this explanation. I don't think you can jump to conclusions about someones personal traits based on their sex.
Every time I hear arguments for gender as a social construct it just seems evidence for gender 'expression' is a social construct. eg in all those examples you gave both men and women who express what is considered opposite gender behaviour don't see themselves as trans gender. They are still CIS gendered and either aggressive women, or effeminate men.
@twixxxy999 Well, we can say sex is socially constructed when we look at the example of intersexed individuals who are assigned a gender through surgical mutilation of genitals to approximate societal notions of acceptable sex organ presentation. See, for example Linda Nicholson's work on the subject or the work of Myra Hird, et all, "The Intersexual Body and the Medical Regulation of Gender." Also, consider the fact that the aspects of bodies that are highlighted as most important determinants of gender vary over time and across geography. In this way, even how biological sex is defined is to some extent socially constructed.
You claim biological sex to be socially constructed (to some extent), yet fail to provide any evidence of this. You claim it is because you claim it is, but scientifically speaking, what's the predictive capability of it?
