Quantcast
On the Social Construction of Sex

Forums - Politics Discussion - On the Social Construction of Sex

Is biological sex a social construct?

Yes 2 5.26%
 
No 36 94.74%
 
Total:38

Badly written and almost hits the point. But yet another piece that focuses on differences rather than the similar things. biological sexes aren't a social construct but the genders people attach to them sure are. They were useful 10000 years ago and have since outlived their usefulness. Gender and sexuality shouldn't be categorized in the first place. We should enter this world as just humans with different physiological features and preferences. There aren't men who are women or vice versa and there certainly is no such thing as "gender fluid". There are just people who decided to live in certain ways and may or may not have chosen to alter their bodies. The flimsy definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine are ridiculous and anyone who adheres to them to a point where they define their personality on them is pitiful.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

Penis = male
Vagina = female
both = both



These idiots need to be publicly ridiculed for the fools that they are. Humans are sexually dimorphic, that is scientific fact. Let's name some differences off the top of my head, men have broader shoulders, thicker necks, ridges on their foreheads, deeper voices, hairier bodies, thicker sturdier bones, thicker skin, rougher skin, proportionally smaller eyes, proportionally larger hands and feet, proportionally larger brains, proportionally larger heart and lungs, proportionally longer torso, proportionally shorter legs, more muscle mass, lower amount of body fat, ten times as much testosterone, brains are wired differently, men have superior hand eye coordination, spacial awareness and a higher aptitude for abstract thought, men go through puberty 2 years later, men have the dominance instinct and women have the hypergamous instinct. Yeah so of course that is a social construct and not reality. As soon as they said women are oppressed they revealed themselves to be an activists since women have more rights and privileges than men and receive the vast majority of government spending benefits even though men pay 72% of the taxes.



Sex is a biological fact. It is not socially constructed. "Gender" is also only partially a social construct as there are behaviours and characteristics that are overwhelmingly shown by only males or females. These behaviours and characteristics are based on biological sex. For example, some women are tall but most women are short compared to men and this is not caused by society but by genes and sexual reproduction. Same goes for things like less muscle mass in women or men balding with age. Women are on average more shy and more submissive than men because being aggressive and trying to get into fights with other people is not a good survival strategy for a short, pregnant woman. Some of these women can still reproduce of course, because they can counterbalance their "shortcomings" with other things - just like every person has shortcomings and is not the perfect mate for the opposite sex. These are not social constructs but biological facts and they are the main cause for "gender stereotypes". Gender stereotypes are based on reality, they are just sometimes cranked up to eleven and of course don't include the minority of people who do not express the stereotypical behaviour - and if we discriminate these people, that (of course) is bad.

There are hardly ever absolute categories in biology but that doesn't mean we can't put labels on things or sort things into categories. Humans are a species with two legs and two arms. That's how it is. There may be an incredibly small number of people with only one arme or three legs but they are very rare deviations from the norm.

Also, I hate it when people bring up the "gender spectrum". Gender is not a spectrum! 49.9% male, 49.9% female and 0.2% intersex is not a spectrum! These are two distinct categories, with expected biological hiccups in-between. Because biology isn't perfect.

Lastly, biological sex does not change if your shoulders are too broad / narrow or you are short or tall! A tall woman is 100% a woman, no spectrum here at all. A muscular woman is still 100% a woman. A short man is still a man, 100%. A man with a small penis is still 100% a man. A woman who is infertile is still 100% a woman. A submissive man is still a man - yeah, 100%. Who keeps making this up? People may say a muscular woman is an unattractive woman. Or that a short man with a small penis is unattractive. But that doesn't mean someone is not a man or a woman, just that they are not sexually attractive! And sexual selection only works because gender is binary. Our very existence is based on the fact that gender is binary because we all have been sexually selected for! Also, what men find attractive in women and vice versa is not socially constructed. It is based on the biological reality that weak men can't provide for a pregnant female and a woman with small hips cannot give birth to a baby (to give just two examples). Sexual dimorphism is real and it is not socially constructed. 



fatslob-:O said:

All human males come with penises and the 'rest' are just "conditions or states" ... 

Even if some of the women buck the social norms, it does not change their one key physiology and all of them come with vaginas regardless ... 

How one would 'deal' with people like these are personally up to themselves ... 

False. There are "human males" which come with both sets of reproductive organs and chromosomes that do not match the standard gender norm.

Granted such individuals are the exception rather than the norm.

melbye said:

That woman has not achieved that look by natural means, she is a deviation of what is normal.

When it comes to ones mass, biologically everyone has a certain potential... Her potential is what you might see in that image whilst another person will have a very different potential, thus not everyone can achieve such bulk.

o_O.Q said:

what about intersex people? what about people with XXY or XYY chromosomes? what about non binary people? etc etc etc

Those who are trans did start life out as male or female though from a biological perspective, they decided later in life to undergo a transition to deviate from that.

John2290 said:

They can live a lie all they want, even spread the lie. I don't care, what I do care about is trying to worm this shit into science through social means, the shaming of scientists and running them out of a job unless they conform to this thinking, even if they still practice empirically under the table is straight from the dark ages or something out of Orwell like literature and on the matter of written text, they'll come for the litriture next and the medical texts once they realize it contradicts thier beliefs before they eventually get full control of digital media, it's just a matter of time, the books will be destroyed or at least they'll try and make a case for it. This needs to be nibbed in the bud and I wouldn't be surprised if there is no chance and it is some high level social engineering or interstate subversion and bot, mind fuckery at play. 

So no, I don't think biological sex is a social construct, just writing that in a sentence is plain contradictory.

Citation needed.

EricHiggin said:
Is math and science a social construct, because we made them up. They didn't exist before we created them. Are the answers they give us really the truth or does it simply explain what we see and not what's really happening underneath?

Math and science are the tools we use to explain concepts in the natural world, they are certainly a human invention, they are certainly as accurate as the evidence portrays them to be.

fatslob-:O said:

As far as I can see there are only potentially 3 valid biological sex states. You're either a male, female, or both but by no means does it serve as a justification for transsexuals to defy this classification system on an ideological basis since there are very real biological consequences that comes with it ... 

Or "none of the above".

TheBird said:

I don't know how one does "not fit comfortably into male or female". You either have a penis, or a vagina, and that is literally just that. It's what determines your sex. if you do not believe that, then you need some psychological help. Now, how you want to use those said tools, is entirely up to you, and completely okay (Unless harmful to others).

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the thread... And thus people do not need "psychological help" for their convictions, something you need to keep in mind as you attempt to engage in civil debate.






--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network

uhh... lol no.

Had to do a double take when I read that title.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

I try to elaborate why I think that the article has some valid points.

This is not about abolishing the categories male and female but instead to look at them in a different way. Instead of the old binary male/female, you're either 100% male or 100% female, you can also see male and female as opposite poles on a scale (see above). This depiction of sex allows us to better understand the human body. Up to a certain point all human fetuses develop the same but then they start to develop different sexual characteristics, not only the genitals but bone structure, muscle structure and probably even brain structure develop differently, this development is not completed until the end of puberty. 

To see sex as this scale allows us to better understand and depict problems such as "why did this man not develop this typical male characteristic?", "what influence certain hormones have on our development", "what happens in puberty?", etc..

Another example is intersexuality, intersexuality is not a third sex or something like that, it means that the body was not able to develop enough towards one side of the scale.



Pemalite said:

False. There are "human males" which come with both sets of reproductive organs and chromosomes that do not match the standard gender norm.

Granted such individuals are the exception rather than the norm.

Hence the other set of 'rest' being just "conditions or states" ...

Pemalite said:

Or "none of the above".

It's impossible to be born without some reproductive organ ... 

Our current biological sex system is more than binary but still far from being a 'continuous' spectrum like some would imply ... 



vivster said:
Badly written and almost hits the point. But yet another piece that focuses on differences rather than the similar things. biological sexes aren't a social construct but the genders people attach to them sure are. They were useful 10000 years ago and have since outlived their usefulness. Gender and sexuality shouldn't be categorized in the first place. We should enter this world as just humans with different physiological features and preferences. There aren't men who are women or vice versa and there certainly is no such thing as "gender fluid". There are just people who decided to live in certain ways and may or may not have chosen to alter their bodies. The flimsy definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine are ridiculous and anyone who adheres to them to a point where they define their personality on them is pitiful.

so i can infer that you would be in support of peeling away all of the rights and special protections women have due to their gender?

"The flimsy definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine are ridiculous"

elaborate?

"anyone who adheres to them to a point where they define their personality on them is pitiful."

so women who lament going out at night alone because they perceive themselves as being more susceptible to harm from men are pitiful?



o_O.Q said:
fatslob-:O said:
Biological sex being a "social construct" is about as much as gravity being a "social construct" ...

These 'constructs' are based on the "rules within the universe" thus it doesn't make them not true. Again just because it is a perception of our reality doesn't make it to be not true ...

Jules98 said:
Honestly, I really don't get the uproar.

When you're born, you either have a penis, or you don't. That's a fact. Since people with penises play a different role in the process of reproduction than those without, they where given a different name. At the end of the day, that's all the terms 'male' and 'female' really mean.

melbye said:
How can observable fact be a social construct. There are men, there are women. It has to be like this from a biologically point of view

you guys are really just saying that something is the way it is simply because you declare it to be the case

you are not acknowledging as the article describes that many men do not fit neatly into the male category such as those who are intersex (2%), those who are infertile, those who are smaller than women, those who are submissive etc etc etc

and likewise we see the same with women

how do you deal with women like this in your conception of what sex is?

Personally, I like muscles on a WOMAN.  So this particular WOMAN is attractive to me.