>Is gender primarily conditioned rather than biological? That's a hard question to answer. I'd argue that much of it is conditioned, but ultimately stems from biological differences amplified by social reinforcement from others of the same sex. And I'm sure some degree of it is indeed purely conditioned (for this I would look for gender-specific behaviors that do not necessarily exist in all populations and societies). >Are there innate differences between the two? Certainly. That's not to say, however, that ALL individuals of a certain sex express the same innate compulsion towards gender-specific behaviors.
Even if you're one of those nutjobs that refuse to acknowledge the impact of physical sex differences on behaviour of genders or religiously ignore the effect that vastly different genetic endocrinological differences have on behaviour...
...you are still wrong.
As neuroscience shows us there are many innate genetic differences between the brains of both sexes, for example: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/32/11252.short
It's not a "social construct" in the slightest. The denunciation of our understanding of medicine, neuroscience and genetics for political reasons is a social construct.
Sex is biological. Males have a penis and females have a vagina.
Gender is a social construct based on the biological dichotomy of sex. Humans take physical features and ascribe meaning and (sometimes faulty) reasoning to them.
For example, men are biologically stronger than women. Humans then take this to a symbolic level, to be a man is to be strong and to be a woman is to be weak, regardless of the massive amount of actual variance in physical strength among individuals. Then it is taken further, any other traits that are associated with women are also associated with weakness and traits associated with men are often associated with strength. There is nothing inherently weak about crying, a strongman who suppresses his emotion is still just as physically strong, only he's been conditioned by society to endanger himself by not allowing himself to express his emotions in a healthy way. There is nothing in male biology that makes them less likely to cry, it is pure conditioning due to the subjective fabrication of what male and female is 'supposed' to be.
Another example. Women tend to carry more possessions with them in their daily life than men do. This can be biologically motivated, as women require more hygienic maintenance than men and would be more likely to carry hygienic products with them, as well as socially motivated, as women tend to place greater value on their appearance than men and often carry cosmetics. Because of this, women carry purses, and over time purses came to be seen not simply as a bags to carry possessions but as an innately feminine item. Men do not carry purses, and when they carry bags with them they choose other types of bags to carry their items, never a purse because it is considered a wholly female item. There is nothing in the design of the modern purse that lends itself more to female biology than male, it is given its feminine designation artificially.
>>7634847 Crying is a weakness. There is a difference between physical strength -your ability to physical control yourself and your environment and emotional strength -your ability to emotionally control yourself and your environment. Not being able to hold back tears is an emotional weakness. It signals to others that you have poor control over yourself and probably have very little power over others.
Nice try; guy who cries during shitty chick flicks. And yes, her vagina dried and shriveled when you cried in front of you. That's why she's cheating on you right now.
>>7634859 Do we really need to invent a brand new word to talk about the culturally transferred concepts of men and women? Apparently we do, if only to avoid these stupid arguments that hinge on definitions of words.
>>7634816 >>7634816 You lack understanding of what is meant by the notion of gender being a social construct. This does not mean in any way that gender is not real. It means that gender is subjective and can be defined from many different metrics. Further, you seem to lack understanding of the difference between sex and gender, as these are not synonymous terms. Sex refers to the biological and physical differences between males and females. Gender refers to appearance, behaviors and roles that humans are expected to conform to because of their sex, or because of what others perceive their sex to be.
What is the 'true' metric of man and women? Chromosomes? Genitals? Secondary sex characteristics? These are all non-rigid classifications that can at times conflict. There is evidence that gender identity is biologically influenced, which leads to the notion that gender is more mental than physical.
>>7634756 >Are there innate differences between the two? Yes > Should men act masculine and females act feminine? Individuals should act according to their own individual tastes when it comes to gender. No individual is pure male or female, but a male may have a greater disposition to hold masculine traits. And a female may have a greater disposition to hold feminine traits. >Is gender primarily conditioned rather than biological? There's a biological blueprint that holds the potential of an individual. External stimuli poke and prod at the way we view these potential densities, creating the perception of a general shape of our gender identity. Eventually, those densities could shift by the way those traits are perceived. As a male, one could have loud feminine traits and discouraged masculine traits. Eventually after separating one's perspective from those undesired masculine traits, one would more easily identify as female because those traits are "louder" and allowed by the perspective. But because those masculine traits are resisted against, they're still very active because one is focused on resisting them.
>>7634875 No, the concept you're thinking of is self-control. Holding in tears in public has logical benefits. You can preserve your appearance, status, or influence to others, as well prevent others from being negatively emotionally influenced by you. This does not in any way make crying a weakness, as a human you have the ability to find ways to outlet your emotions in a constructive way. A woman who cries on her friends shoulder can outlet her emotions as well as strengthen the emotional bond between her and her friend. A man could benefit from these things as well, but is not allowed to by society. When a man cries he is far more likely to be shamed, which makes him internalize the notion the crying is unacceptable. This makes him more likely to carry emotional burdens, more likely to turn to dangerous outlets to cope with these emotions such as alcohol or violence, and ultimately more likely to develop mental illness or commit suicide.
>>7634922 >self-control Strength by definition is control. It is synonymous with power.
>public There is never a benefit to crying alone. What use is there to dehydrating yourself ever so slightly? Unless your eyes are dried out, but that isn't crying.
>woman crying on shoulder Exactly, evolutionary benefit of crying is a social benefit that will draw attention to you from other humans. This can help women who are in trouble, but men will just look weak. That is probably why one of the sexes happens to have bigger tear ducts.
>pop psych pseudo science I honestly don't know how to address that. Not crying is not going to make you a violent alcoholic that kills himself don't be retarded. Stronger people who do not cry are probably less likely to do that.
>>7634946 >There is never a benefit to crying alone. Not that anon but, The benefit is the release of pent up emotions that are unpleasant to hold onto. A lot of people are pretty numb to it by now, but they still react to things based on that unpleasant feeling they tune out.
>>7634847 >Gender is a social construct based on the biological dichotomy of sex
So it's biological...
I'm not trying to be unnecessarily confrontational here, but the way you're phrasing it and the examples you're giving, an equivalent would be "yeah a pride of lions have a certain structure based on sexes, but that's only a social construct based on genetics".
To stretch to hyperbole "Yeah, a rabbit might run away when it sees a wolf, but that's only a social construct based on genetics".
I just don't see the need to call it a "social construct" at all. Gender is very firmly rooted in genetic sexes. People often use the term "social construct" when they want to behave differently to what society is used to and they don't want to be derided for it. This is fine in itself, many of the behaviours are in fact social constructs and they don't have to be, I would agree to that.
The problem is that many behaviours also have a very firm genetic basis. Why we don't often use women as front line troops for example. Why health professions are female dominated. Why engineering is a male dominated profession.
It just don't see why everything HAS to be exactly 50/50 just "gender behaviours are social constructs [based on the biological dichotomy of sex]". It's not only terribly inefficient to want that, but just not practical because of our genetic limitations.
>>7634882 >Do we really need to invent a brand new word to talk about the culturally transferred concepts of men and women? At least stop pretending the word "gender" was tumblerized for hundreds of years. I'm a little tired of "oh, you're so un-ed-u-mah-cated cause you don't already know and accept my revised definition of this word".
>>7634816 gender is so obviously a social construct. Nowadays its not cool to say that women should act passive but its still cool to say men should not dress in "womens clothes" which is literally the only remaining social difference between genders today. Well newsflash, literall all clothes that are now considered feminine were once worn by men. In fact in ancient times men wearing trousers was seriously uncool. Even as recently as the early 20th century women in trousers was a serious taboo. Now nobody gives a fuck so why do people get triggered over a man in a dress?
They're the same, gays, trannies etc have defects in development that made them that way. It doesn't make them bad people but it isn't normal. Not that I expect a website saturated homos in denial who beat off to trannies and call them her/she to understand anything
>>7634946 No it's not, strength is by definition power, control has nothing to do with it. When you say you'll increase the strength of a propelling system, it's not synonymous with saying you will increase the control of a propelling system.
You are implying there are only public places or you alone, there are private places where you can cry with a friend.
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women, that is normally attributed to the fact that they are not allowed to express their emotions.
>>7634847 Female tear-ducts are much shallower than negro and male tear-ducts, and thus women cry easier. Not to mention the emotional differences between men and women. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/37483/1330300109_ftp.pdf?sequence=1
>>7635728 Gender dysphoria is by definition a defect, and was classed as a mental illness until the PC wave rolled in. If something you were born with prevents you from carrying out normal human behaviour (procreate) then you are, by definition, defective. Gender dysphoria IS a mental illness, just one we attempt to curb by lopping off parts, despite the fact suicide rate for trannies doesn't decrease post-op
>It doesn't make them bad people but it isn't normal.
Humans in general aren't normal either anon, name me another species on earth that blows themselves up for sky virgins, masterbates to cartoon porn and sends machine probes into planetary orbit/outer space.
Protip: You can't because humanity is basically an abnormality itself. So when any person says x or y isn't "normal" I look at them like they're a fucking idiot because that's the fucking joke.
>>7635768 can't even tell if you're actually serious or just baiting, but i'll bite regardless
>humans in general aren't normal normal = something that doesn't significantly deviate from the average. regarding sexuality, that boils down to the following: a normal woman has a functional vagina, ovaries, womb, tits, etc. and is sexually attracted to men. a normal man has funcional testicles, prostate, penis, etc. and is sexually attracted to women.
the overwhelming majority of humans are heterosexual cis people, therefor being a heterosexual cis person is, by definition, normal. thus, humans in general ARE normal.
twisting and misapplying the concept like you did just makes you look like a clown to anybody who sees through this cheap attempt at deception.
>>7634922 I think this ignores something important. How did the construct of women being allowed to cry in public but men being shamed for doing so start? Clearly it exists now and it had to begin somewhere for some reason. Could that initial reason have been the result of biology?
I mean, I think it is fair to say women will often be turned off by a man who cries. It's innate and biological. Just like if a guy gets beat up in front of his girlfriend, automatic loss of sexual appeal.
>>7634847 >Sex is biological. Males have a penis and females have a vagina. The physical structure of males and females is different in every part of the body. Every organ system is different between the two. It's not simply a case of skin-deep differences.
>>7634756 >Is gender primarily conditioned rather than biological? That is not how heritability works. Heritability is the degree to which a certain trait is genetic in a certain population in a certain environment.
The heritability for gender would by definition be 1 in an environment that treats all sexes the same.
Could it be what you are really wondering is what and how large those differences would be?
its determined by sex we just have very sophisticated communicative abilities and it lets weird cunts gather together on tumblr and question why it isnt normal for a man to present himself in a way that is traditionally how straight women flaunt sexually desirable assets to straight men
like cmon guys i should be able to wear a bra and skirt in public right im not trying to get straight guys sexually aroused by my perceived big ass, wide hips and large breasts right im just challenging social norms right
its like none of them have actually sat there and had a think about WHY clothing for women is clothing for women... like... it makes sex traits pop...
and look at mens clothing? suits? they create an illusion of a V taper and broad shoulders even in men that dont have those traits. now why would a man want to make other people think he had broad shoulders and a v taper... couldnt be because that is what would indicate a sexually verile and genetically healthy male... clearly a social construct.
Our consciousness is the same both in female and male. If you want to go rational all the way, man would do better in fields that are very important for industry and development of industry.. women do better in humanitary part, they can be pretty good political leaders, administrators of sorts, care-takers, scientists in such fields. But it's only a observation done on the overall human population, when you go and observe smaller groups reality can prove you the things can go totally opposite. I live in a country where women consider themselves objects ( Romania ) and I love to change their perspective and give them hope and reboot their perspective... do not be a shit person anon if you want people to do better. There is no reason to ever get mad or get angry at someone because in reality we're shit ( I am shit I don't want to say anything about you ) some animals on a rock in space.
>>7634793 >That's a hard question to answer. It's not if you took a single class in what you're talking about, sex = biology, gender = sociology. >>7634816 >Even if you're one of those nutjobs that refuse to acknowledge the impact of physical sex differences on behaviour of genders or religiously ignore the effect that vastly different genetic endocrin... bla bla bla
those people don't actually exist. it's all an illusion, ask even the most religious tumblr SJW if they think women and men are the same.
>>7634772 There is shit. There is poo. There is feces. There is stool. It's all the same. Just a different level of speech. I am disappointed that Americans are being brainwashed with Orwellian linguistic social conditioning (>there's a difference between gender and sex!) when there are none.
>>7637234 You would think someone on a science board would understand context. Of course you can call a dead female a woman, it would be obviously understood that you're using the term woman to refer to adult female.
>>7634756 it's up for debate, anthropologists like to call it a social construct, however there have been scientific studies that show that transgenders have white matter where it would be typically found in a normal brain.
so a male transgender will have white matter where a female will normally have it, and vice versa.
so it's kinda hard to take the anthropologist's perspective very seriously considering it only has anecdotal data gathered from poorly done experiments.
Ah, /sci/. There's an excellent case study of exactly this question - when it comes to gender, what is the deciding factor? Nature or nurture?
David Reimer. Two twins were born, both were to be circumcised. However, for David, it went wrong, and his penis was lost in the process. Testicles and all, burned off. Not sure what method the Doctors used.
So, in the light of the tragedy, Psychologist John Money offered to conduct an experiment on David.
David was raised as a girl, despite being a boy, until the age of 14. Told he was a girl by everyone around him, the only confederates were older family members. Dressed as a girl, played with girl toys, went to do traditional women's tasks in the process.
In the end, he killed himself. Here's a better summary than mine:
Keep in mind it is a case study and it can't be generalized... But I don't agree that (mental) gender is a social construct.
>>7639313 I don't see how this case study really shows anything. I don't think gender dysphoria necessarily had to do with his suicide, at least not conclusively. I mean he didn't have ANY genitals. If I had my legs cut off at birth, I'd be way more likely to kill myself too.
>>7639811 You're using terms that you don't understand. Abnormal thinking patterns are not mental disorders. Thinking patterns and behaviors are only classified as mental disorders when they threaten the well-being of the person having those thinking patterns, or others around them.
You can prove sex, but you cannot prove gender. This is fucking biology. If you believe gender is biological, then go back to your gender studies containment board; also known as /pol/ and /b/. /sci/ had these threads before and the general consensus is sex is biological and gender is social. If you don't know the difference then you are stupid.
"You lack understanding of what is meant by the notion of gender being a social construct." Anon then tried to expand on this by defining gender as a social construct. More precisely, by defining what a social construct is. Might as well define 'being' and 'is' as well. Pointless.
"Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity."
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.