Social constructionism is alive and well in Women’s Studies programs today. For instance, I encountered claims that both sexual orientation and sex (i.e. male/female) are socially constructed.
Since “sex” is usually defined as biological, and thus by definition not cultural (“gender”), then this statement seems nonsensical or underspecified. Could you clarify it with “sex” tabooed?
(Incidentally, it amuses me that “sexual orientation is a social construct” parses as liberal, while “homosexuality is a choice/lifestyle” parses as conservative. Despite being nearly identical in meaning and implications.)
Incidentally, it amuses me that “sexual orientation is a social construct” parses as liberal, while “homosexuality is a choice/lifestyle” parses as conservative. Despite being nearly identical in meaning and implications.
Not alike in implications at all. Whether something is a choice is different from whether something feels like a choice.
Also, as wedrifid said, some people are born with their sex unclear. Often, surgery is performed to “correct” the baby to a particular sex.
I think that less constrictive gender roles would solve most of the social pressure in those circumstances. To the point that I think distinctions between sex and gender are analytically worthwhile. But not everyone who dislikes the current gender roles agrees with my assessment.
Also, as wedrifid said, some people are born with their sex unclear. Often, surgery is performed to “correct” the baby to a particular sex.
I think that less constrictive gender roles would solve most of the social pressure in those circumstances.
How so? I don’t think a weakening of gender roles will help to change the fact that most people aren’t going to be sexually attracted to someone who’s biologically sort of in between the sexes. Or are you referring to a different social pressure than the one towards surgery?
I suppose it depends on how hard you think rejecting social constructs is, at that. Still, the mere existence of a “cure for gay” would massively reshape the debate, let alone one as easy as, well, willpower and objectivity.
Since “sex” is usually defined as biological, and thus by definition not cultural (“gender”), then this statement seems nonsensical or underspecified. Could you clarify it with “sex” tabooed?
Phenotype is physical and not (completely) determined by genetics. A physical form that is, for whatever reason, a certain shape may be defined by social construction to be “female” or male” depending on the details of the culture. Most obvious applications here would be whether a guy who has operations to get some pieces cut off and takes some hormones is called a “female”, whether people who place dress-ups but mean it are called their desired sex and whether someone born with testicles and no ovaries but looking like this is a female).
“Socially constructed” is usually a fancy way of saying “taught”.
Bodies are out there in the world, part of the territory. The idea that some of them are “male” bodies and some are “female” bodies is something that is taught to kids. That doesn’t mean it’s thereby right or wrong: the existence of God and of electrons are both things that are taught, too.
In the case of electrons, the things that are taught about them have been checked against the territory in a lot of ways, although not entirely. (For instance, a lot of people would tell you that nothing that runs on a couple of AA batteries can give you a deadly shock: batteries are safe; wall current is dangerous. This is wrong.) In the case of God, the things that are taught are not really checked against the territory so much. And in the case of maleness and femaleness, it’s kind of in between. There is a lot of fallacious thinking that gets passed off (mistaking of statistical generalizations for universal truths, for instance) and a lot of data that kind of get swept under the rug because they make someone uncomfortable — kind of in the same way that people who believe in a nice friendly God like to sweep uncomfortable data under the rug, too.
The quality of thinking about sex (i.e. male and female bodies) is not as rigorous as the thinking about electrons (and most people have a lot of wrong ideas about those!) but it’s not as fuzzy as the thinking about God. But one of the things people are taught about sex is that they’re supposed to be very sure of it. And that’s a recipe for bad rationality.
Since “sex” is usually defined as biological, and thus by definition not cultural (“gender”), then this statement seems nonsensical or underspecified. Could you clarify it with “sex” tabooed?
(Incidentally, it amuses me that “sexual orientation is a social construct” parses as liberal, while “homosexuality is a choice/lifestyle” parses as conservative. Despite being nearly identical in meaning and implications.)
Not alike in implications at all. Whether something is a choice is different from whether something feels like a choice.
Also, as wedrifid said, some people are born with their sex unclear. Often, surgery is performed to “correct” the baby to a particular sex.
I think that less constrictive gender roles would solve most of the social pressure in those circumstances. To the point that I think distinctions between sex and gender are analytically worthwhile. But not everyone who dislikes the current gender roles agrees with my assessment.
How so? I don’t think a weakening of gender roles will help to change the fact that most people aren’t going to be sexually attracted to someone who’s biologically sort of in between the sexes. Or are you referring to a different social pressure than the one towards surgery?
I suppose it depends on how hard you think rejecting social constructs is, at that. Still, the mere existence of a “cure for gay” would massively reshape the debate, let alone one as easy as, well, willpower and objectivity.
Phenotype is physical and not (completely) determined by genetics. A physical form that is, for whatever reason, a certain shape may be defined by social construction to be “female” or male” depending on the details of the culture. Most obvious applications here would be whether a guy who has operations to get some pieces cut off and takes some hormones is called a “female”, whether people who place dress-ups but mean it are called their desired sex and whether someone born with testicles and no ovaries but looking like this is a female).
“Socially constructed” is usually a fancy way of saying “taught”.
Bodies are out there in the world, part of the territory. The idea that some of them are “male” bodies and some are “female” bodies is something that is taught to kids. That doesn’t mean it’s thereby right or wrong: the existence of God and of electrons are both things that are taught, too.
In the case of electrons, the things that are taught about them have been checked against the territory in a lot of ways, although not entirely. (For instance, a lot of people would tell you that nothing that runs on a couple of AA batteries can give you a deadly shock: batteries are safe; wall current is dangerous. This is wrong.) In the case of God, the things that are taught are not really checked against the territory so much. And in the case of maleness and femaleness, it’s kind of in between. There is a lot of fallacious thinking that gets passed off (mistaking of statistical generalizations for universal truths, for instance) and a lot of data that kind of get swept under the rug because they make someone uncomfortable — kind of in the same way that people who believe in a nice friendly God like to sweep uncomfortable data under the rug, too.
The quality of thinking about sex (i.e. male and female bodies) is not as rigorous as the thinking about electrons (and most people have a lot of wrong ideas about those!) but it’s not as fuzzy as the thinking about God. But one of the things people are taught about sex is that they’re supposed to be very sure of it. And that’s a recipe for bad rationality.
As a friendly addendum, I think your point that people are “supposed to be very sure of it” is an important part of the concept.
A more LW friendly version of this point is Paul Graham’s Keep Your Identity Small
Ah, I see. “Gender is not determined by sex.”