i always say that a Gender Reveal Party can’t really happen until the kid is like 16 years old. the thing people are currently doing would more accurately be called a Baby Sex Party.
Second anthropology professor appears, chastising the first one for being so ethnocentric.
Gender reveal party is a social construct.
This is my people. By that, I mean “nerdy leftists who are pretty self-aware in their absurdity, but it can be very hard to tell from the outside, so they are often very cringe to people who aren’t of the same story”. It’s silly, and I love it
Have more gender repeal parties. You’re all free of gender. Now let’s fuck.
Then technically these should be renamed to “Genital Reveal Parties” but that would imply a different type of party…
“Child genital information session.”
“Sex reveal party”. No, that sounds bad, too. “Assigned sex at birth reveal party”. You know what? Maybe we shouldn’t make such a big deal about what sex someone is born as and let them tell us who they are as they figure it out.
We should just have a 2nd trimester party or something so the parents get to celebrate at around the same time
amen
Only if the professor comes out of the cake like a stripper
gender reveal parties, but a pendant shows up and explains it’s meant to be a sex reveal party, but due to the more risque use of the word sex, and the ambigious uses of the word gender, communication about the motive of such things are difficult, and a feeding ground for pendants, people who have been marginalised, and oppressors.
I also don’t know where I’m going with this. I’m not sure what my next task should be and I’m letting my mind percolate.
Genital reveal party
It really is a genital reveal party… Never thought about it that way. Thanks!
Was it an opal pendant, or perhaps a cameo?
Also, I prefer French press over percolate.
The time of the French press has passed. It’s time for the percolator ( 16 years ago anyway).
Pedant here, use an Oxford comma.
oxford deez nuts.
fixed it anyway.
Ambiguous usage of the word is one of the reasons oppressors have such outdated and undereducated views. The less ambiguity the easier it can be explained to the common folk.
The fun bit is that the word gender was pulled from linguistics into sociology exactly to try to make a less ambiguous situation.
It literally went "what if we talked about people having gender like the French talk about objects?” Much like people, a table is feminine in French regardless of if it has a penis or not.
Later, people decided to use gender as a synonym for sex and complain about using the word gender in a way that’s ambiguous with sex.
a table is feminine in French regardless of if it has a penis or not.
Which most tables in France do, of course.
Gender has been conflated with human sex from the fifteenth century, but I like your explanation of the sociological application.
Who invited the streaker to the gender reveal party?
Me. The last one was boring. And the one before that started a huge fire. Figured nudity was safer.
Do people feel like you can’t say if it’s a girl or a boy before they’re old enough to express some preference? That seems to be the thing people pick on with gender reveal parties but that doesn’t really make sense to me if you’re cool with “It’s a girl. We’re going to name her Alice.” without the party. It’s not like the party is usually hyper fixated on gender roles. You cut some cake or pop some balloons during a pretty normal family party. Sex chromosomes/genitals are one of the only unique things you really learn about the baby before they’re here that isn’t generally considered bad news. I guess we could have height percentile parties?
The problem is that if you do away with gender roles, then a gender reveal party turns into a baby vagina/penis reveal party. It’s a creepy concept that is only normalized because of society’s hyper fixation on gender roles and we should just get rid of it.
Very often at this point, expectant parents are basing it on the presence of a Y chromosome or not, not on genitals. Does that take the creepiness out for you?
Do you have a problem with them disclosing the gender of their children at all?
They’re not disclosing the gender of their children. They also don’t take a blood test to find out the chromoses, they literally have a doctor look at the baby’s crotch with an ultrasound and throw a party based on what they see.
I might guess with such a party you really reinforce everyone’s image of the baby’s sex and they might be less accepting if the person comes out as a different gender further down the line? Idk
Doesn’t really matter. The moment the people hear it’s male or female, determines how people will treat the baby. Put a baby boy in pink and don’t tell people, and people will talk to him like they would to a girl.
Whether or not people accept the small chance that the kid turns out transgender, depends on their personal views. I doubt a gebder reveal party is significant. Besides, it’s a party for the parents to be. Not the baby.
Saying gender is binary is like saying there are only two types of apples, red and green.
There are two types of apples: Red Delicious and edible
I see you have never read the definitive apple ranking site and the Rome Apple review.
Perfect, case closed.
There are two types of apples, red apples and non-red apples. D’ya see? Everything in the universe either is a banana or it is not, all is binary.
Quantum physics would like a word
Quantum physics doesn’t exist, it is invented by physics professors to sell you more quants
Something is in a quantum superposition state or it isn’t, absolute binariness.
chess/similar games/sports :
Women
Open
I don’t think I quite understand…
There are two types of apples, red apples and non-red apples.
Is what the other person said. Paralels happen in certain game/sport categorizations, with women being a defined grouping, and all else (including women) being put into the open/other category.
Are they really having a “womans chess competition”? that sounds like a joke…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Blitz_Chess_Championship_2024
nope.
The goal is to improve the women’s experience and make it more feasable as a career choice for the best women. Sometimes it gets controversial, even among women, but it’s a noble idea until women and men are evenly represented in top tournaments.
Notable female players that reached near the level of the top men include Judit Polgar (Peak ranking : 8th worldwide) and Hou Yifan (Peak ranking 55th worldwide).
There is no physical gender/sex/whatever based reason why women underperform compared to men, so until societal/environmental factors change, trying to enable more women to reach higher levels with incentives seems good. They are not barred from the open category (which people mistakenly call “mens’” sometimes) , so they can choose which tourney they attend. Some “open” (I’ve now realised open can have two meanings, I am only referring to tourneys that can be played by any gender, not the opposite of invite based) tourneys even make a point to request the female world champ participate.
I’ve written lots about this in the past, but don’t have much time now
You know what it’ll be yet?
Yes, they’ll be a wage slave.
i don’t see the point they are trying to make, of course it’s a social concept, that’s why it’s a social gathering. that’s like going to a party for a doctoral degree and tell them its a social construct, like yeah so?
If you understand that it’s a social construct then you must understand that gender reveal parties are crepy af.
Exactly, just have a single celebration on the birthday and be done with it. Why so obsessed about the genitals of an unborn child.
I’m pretty sure op was just trying to be funny
Successfully failed
What’s the point of a gender reveal party if not an excuse to use high explosives? There’s no fun if something isn’t being blown up in some way or form.
Let them organize their own gender reveal party when they are old enough to decide
Gender identity is biological, and gender is not only a social construct:
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2013/10/07/book-excerpt-gender-more-performance
EDIT: this is clarified in the walls of text in my responses below, but to be clear here, I do not endorse a biological essentialist account of gender, by saying gender is not only a social construct and has biological components, I am disagreeing with a view that gender is just socialization / performance / etc., but this does not mean I endorse the view that gender is just your chromosomes / genitals / etc. Neither of these views work.
Please read the article I linked to, and for additional reading see Whipping Girl by Julia Serano, esp. relevant to this discussion is chapter 6, some of which I quoted in my responses below.
When I say gender identity is biological, I am talking about what Julia Serano calls “subconscious sex” which she also sometimes interchanges with “gender identity”, which is basically that innate and unchanging sense of your sex / gender. What I don’t mean by gender identity is the label you choose to identify with (or the concept that label represents).
From Whipping Girl:
the phrase “gender identity” is problematic because it seems to describe two potentially different things: the gender we consciously choose to identify as, and the gender we subconsciously feel ourselves to be. To make things clearer, I will refer to the latter as subconscious sex.
Results: Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves (1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development (DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2) neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.
Conclusions: Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity.
That’s not saying what you seem to be implying, and it’s not contrary to what people mean when they say gender is a social construct.
Saying gender expression is not only performance is not really related to gender being a social construct.What we define the genders to be is what is a social construct. The masculine gender encompasses a wide array of behaviours and expressions, as does the feminine. The behaviours and attitudes we assign to each gender is what’s socially constructed. People tend to have a gender identity that matches their biological sex, and through acculturation we teach them the behaviors associated with each gender in our culture. Some people later realize that they’re most comfortable conforming to a different gender than what matches their sex.
I agree with you that the “gender is a social construct” is ultimately an ontological claim, about what gender is. When I hear “gender is just a social construct”, especially from an anthropologist, I am entirely expecting a social constructionist account of gender, that’s what they are communicating - what gender is.
Clearly there are social elements to gender, like the color we associate with a gender, which has changed over time and is arbitrary. There is nothing intrinsic about gender-color associations, no reason “blue” means “boy” and “pink” means “girl”.
Regarding gender expression not only being performance: some people use Butler’s performative theory of gender as a social constructionist account of gender. It’s not really a coincidence in my mind that Butler shares some intellectual roots with the psychoanalytical sexologists who popularized social constructionist views in the 1960s, so while I’m sure you could parse several social constructionist accounts I don’t think it’s unfair to lump them together as a broad camp. The Julia Serano article I linked even does this:
Look, I know that many contemporary queer folks and feminists embrace mantras like “all gender is performance,” “all gender is drag,” and “gender is just a construct.” They seem empowered by the way these sayings give the impression that gender is merely a fiction. A facade. A figment of our imaginations.
Notice how she lumps together views like “all gender is performance” and “gender is just a construct”. I think this article is a relevant response to “gender is a social construct”.
And yes, it depends somewhat on what people actually mean when they say “gender is a social construct”, but I generally take them to mean that they believe in a social constructionist account of gender, i.e. that gender is entirely arbitrary, the result of how we are raised, and the result of socialization. If you are raised a boy, you are a boy because of how you were raised.
The idea that gender identity is biological, which is what that Safer meta-analysis concludes, contradicts the social constructionist account because it claims that a person’s gender is intrinsic to them in some way, for example you can’t just take a boy and raise them as a girl without problems (as the case of David Reimer illustrates, when the sexologist, John Money, who believed gender was just a construct and tested that theory by trying to have a boy raised as a girl).
You’re putting far too much thought into what other people mean by the phrase, particularly in the context of a joke.
Most people are not referring to several different anthropological, sociological, and feminist theories/philosophies.When you disagree with “gender is a social construct” in a casual setting, intentionally or not, you’re conveying the statement “gender is innately tied to biological sex, there are precisely two, and trans people are invalid”.
It’s better to take the phrase as meaning “having a vagina doesn’t mean you’re a hot pink wearing pretty princess, nor does a penis imply you aren’t. Gender is more complicated than a binary, and we’re better off raising children as little people who tell us who they are than spending too much time being concerned that they only play with plastic figurines compatible with their genitals and playacting the right chores”.
It’s a joke about tricking people into attending an event usually focused on baby genitals, and then instead giving them cake that isn’t coded to the babies genitals with a lecture about how they don’t tell you as much about who this little person will be as people think.
I agree, I am taking this way out of the original context, but I think the joke is maybe a straw breaking the camel’s back here. I think Julia Serano’s article communicates this well enough:
If one more person tells me that “all gender is performance” I think I am going to strangle them. What’s most annoying about that sound-bite is how it is often recited in a somewhat snooty “I-took-a-gender-studies-class-and-you-didn’t” sort of way, which is ironic given the way that phrase dumbs down gender. It is a crass oversimplification that is as ridiculous as saying all gender is genitals, all gender is chromosomes, or all gender is socialization.
She’s frustrated, I’m frustrated. There is frustration that is generated by the “gender is just a social construct”. The joke is literally about how the dumb cis people really just need an hour long lecture from an academic on how gender is actually just a social construct. I can’t think of a better example of this condescending and ironically confidently-incorrect attitude.
Maybe I think too much, but I guess my whole point is that people are not thinking enough. When they say gender is just a social construct they may not be familiar with gender theory or understand the nuances, and maybe stamping out biological essentialism is worth the oversimplifying, but there is something that feels wrong to me about penalizing a trans person challenging a view that invalidates their gender as an arbitrary fiction. I understand the intentions are not to be invalidating, and that most people don’t understand the consequences of social constructionism, but that’s exactly why I’m raising the problems and challenging it.
To your point I could have done a much better job to not be confused with taking a biological essentialist view, but I think anyone who actually parses what I said and reads the articles I linked to will understand I am not endorsing biological essentialism. Still, that maybe is too high of a bar, and it would have been better if I did more to anticipate this knee-jerk reaction to my challenge. It’s always good to make sure you are easy to understand, and this is admittedly a mea culpa because I was rushing and didn’t have much time, so I wrote a much shorter comment and linked to articles to cover the extra ground for me (which was clearly not adequate).
I don’t know what to make of your claim that I shouldn’t interpret “gender is just a social construct” as supporting social constructionism … there is something compelling here about what people are trying to convey is more rooted in their intentions than any kind of theory, like a lot of times when people tell me “gender is just a social construct” it’s because they are trying to signal they are trans-accepting. That said, I don’t think there is any consistent or coherent view that we could really point to then, that is I’m not sure we could say “gender is just a social construct” actually communicates “the gender binary is not valid”, for example, because some people will take the social constructionism more seriously than others, some people use it to actually mean, “I think trans people are valid”, and others use it to mean “I will tolerate you as a trans person”, and others still might use it to mean “you are dumb and don’t understand gender, but I went to school and in my anthropology class we talked about how gender is cultural and sex is biological, blah blah blah”.
In summary, maybe you’re right that I am inappropriately hijacking this joke to attack social constructionism, but I still don’t think it’s that crazy that I thought “gender is a social construct” was espousing some form of social constructionism.
Thanks for putting up with me and reading my responses, and for challenging me - you have some compelling points that I should think about more.
these are some pretty deep viewpoints to condense into one sentence and just drop links to, can you clarify to what degree you believe gender is biological, and how that extends to transgender / nonbinary people?
Gender seems to have psychological, social, and biological components. Julia Serano covers this territory fairly well in Whipping Girl, esp. chapter 6 “Intrinsic Inclinations”:
… [T]he fact that gender expression is so highly regulated in our society has led many to argue that femininity and masculinity are merely social constructs (i.e., they do not occur naturally, but rather are inventions or artifacts of human culture). According to this social constructionist model, boys are socialized to become masculine and girls feminine; we learn to produce these gender expressions via a combination of positive and negative reinforcement, and through imitation, practice, and performance. Social constructionists point to the fact that the words “femininity” and “masculinity” do not merely describe human behavior, but represent ideals that all people are encouraged to meet. To demonstrate this, they focus much of their attention on socially influenced manifestations of gender expression (often called gender roles), which include feminine and masculine differences in speech patterns and word choice, mannerisms, roles in relationships, styles of dress, aesthetic preferences, interests, occupations, and so on. Social constructionists also argue that the fact that these gender roles can vary over time, and from culture to culture, is indicative of their constructed nature.
On the other side of this debate are gender essentialists, who believe that those born male are simply preprogrammed to act masculine, and those born female are preprogrammed to act feminine. Evidence to support their case includes the predominance of femininity in women and masculinity in men, in our culture and other cultures; the fact that girls tend to behave in a girlish manner and boys in a boyish manner from a very early age; that even in prehistoric humans, women and men seemed to perform different sets of tasks; and that species other than humans also show signs of gender dimorphic behavior. Among gender essentialists, it’s generally assumed that genetic (and subsequent anatomical and hormonal) differences between females and males are the ultimate source for these behavioral differences. Despite their insistence, such direct links between specific genes and specific gendered behaviors in humans continue to remain elusive.
As someone who both is a geneticist and has experienced firsthand the very different ways in which women and men are treated and valued in our society, I believe that both social constructionists and gender essentialists are wrong (or at least they are both only partially right). The fatal flaw of the gender essentialist argument is the obvious fact that not all men are masculine and not all women are feminine. There are exceptional gender expressions: There are masculine women, feminine men, and people of both sexes who express combinations of femininity and masculinity. People who have exceptional gender expressions (like those with exceptional subconscious sexes and sexual orientations) exist in virtually all cultures and throughout history, which suggests that they represent a natural phenomenon. Gender essentialists often try to dismiss such exceptions as anomalies, the result of biological errors or developmental defects. However, exceptional gender expressions, subconscious sexes, and sexual orientations all occur at frequencies that are several orders of magnitude higher than one would expect if they represented genetic “mistakes.”2 Further, the fact that we actively encourage boys to be masculine, and ostracize and ridicule them if they act feminine (and vice versa for girls), strongly suggests that were it not for socialization, there would be even more exceptional gender expression than there is now.
Unfortunately, a strict social constructionist model does not easily account for exceptional gender expression either. Many girls who are masculine and boys who are feminine show signs of such behavior at a very early age (often before such children have been fully socialized with regard to gender norms), and generally continue to express such behavior into adulthood (despite the extreme amount of societal pressure that we place on individuals to reproduce gender expression appropriate for their assigned sex). This strongly suggests that certain expressions of femininity and masculinity represent deep, subconscious inclinations in a manner similar to those of sexual orientation and subconscious sex. (I use the word “inclination” here as a catchall phrase to describe any persistent desire, affinity, or urge that predisposes us toward particular gender and sexual expressions and experiences.) While I believe that such inclinations are likely to be hardwired into our brains (as they exist on a subconscious level and often remain constant throughout our lives), I hesitate to define them as purely biological phenomena, as social factors clearly play a strong role in how each individual interprets these inclinations. In fact, in most cases it is impossible to distinguish our inclinations from our socialization, since they both typically point us in the same direction. Generally, we only ever notice our inclinations when they are exceptional—when they deviate from both biological and social norms.
Further evidence that gender inclinations represent naturally occurring phenomena can be found in other species. If one looks across a wide spectrum of mammals and birds (whose gender and sexual expressions are presumably not shaped by social constructs to the extent that ours are), one generally finds certain behaviors and affinities that seem to predominate in one sex, but which also occur at lower but substantial frequencies in the other sex as well.3 Thus, any model that attempts to explain human gender expression, sexual orientation, and subconscious sex must take into account the fact that both typical and exceptional forms of these inclinations occur naturally (i.e., without social influence) to varying degrees.
In order to reconcile this issue, I would like to put forward what I call an intrinsic inclination model to explain human gender and sexual variation. Here are the basic tenets of this model:
- Subconscious sex, gender expression, and sexual orientation represent separate gender inclinations that are determined largely independently of one another. (This model does not preclude the possibility that these three inclinations may themselves be composed of multiple, separable inclinations, or that additional gender inclinations may exist as well.)
- These gender inclinations are, to some extent, intrinsic to our persons, as they occur on a deep, subconscious level and generally remain intact despite social influences and conscious attempts by individuals to purge, repress, or ignore them.
- Because no single genetic, anatomical, hormonal, environmental, or psychological factor has ever been found to directly cause any of these gender inclinations, we can assume that they are quantitative traits (i.e., multiple factors determine them through complex interactions). As a result, rather than producing discrete classes (such as feminine and masculine; attraction to women or men), each inclination shows a continuous range of possible outcomes.
- Each of these inclinations roughly correlates with physical sex, resulting in a bimodal distribution pattern (i.e., two overlapping bell curves) similar to that seen for other gender differences, such as height.4 While it may be true that, on average, men are taller than women, such a statement becomes virtually meaningless when one examines individual people, as any given woman may be taller than any given man. Most people have heights that are relatively close to the average, but others fall in outlying areas of the range (for instance, some women are 6 feet 2 inches and some men are 5 feet 4 inches). Similarly, while women on average are more feminine than men, some women are more masculine than certain men, and some men more feminine than certain women. Because these inclinations appear to have multiple inputs and show a continuous range of outcomes, it is incorrect to assume that those with exceptional sexual orientations, subconscious sexes, or gender expressions represent developmental, biological, or environmental “errors”; rather, they are naturally occurring examples of human variation.
In terms of what you have asked me, I believe gender identity is biological in the sense that your subconscious sex (as Julia Serano would call it) is not something you can choose or that can be altered by social influence. I believe this to be grounded empirically, in the fact that conversion therapy does not successfully treat gender dysphoria while transitioning does. The conservative medical establishment would not back transitioning otherwise, if conversion therapy worked, our cis-normative society would absolutely endorse it as the main treatment for gender dysphoria. There is of course additional evidence in the MRI scans and the autopsies of trans brains which found trans women had structures in the brain like cis women, the brain-sex mosaic that was discovered and so on.
What this means for trans and non-binary folks is that our experiences are not the result of social contagion, delusions, or imagination, but instead a result of natural variation and our biology, even if the way that implicit gender identity manifests in our personal and social lives is clearly shaped by cultural influences.
It also means that conversion therapy, as established empirically, cannot be effective because it cannot change subconscious sex or the causes of gender dysphoria.
yeah okay, thank you. i think “gender identity has at least some grounding in biology” and “genderqueer identities are generally normal varieties of humans to see, speaking from a scientific viewpoint” are much more agreeable points, and i appreciate the literature that you’ve provided in their support
fwiw, i’m not sure i’m convinced this is 100% solid science, but i don’t think that’s really the salient point, either
i don’t know exactly how near and dear to your heart “my gender identity stems from an innate, biological place” is - or even “some people’s identities stem from an innate, biological place” - but, i think you may find better traction stating that directly, along side an “saying that gender is a social construct feels invalidating to my / some people’s experience of their gender identity (and, if you want, here are some sources about that as well)”; if i’m understanding the point you’re trying to make correctly
i would also include that i do not believe that invalidating your/others’ experiences as sort of innately biologically transgender people is the intention of those that say gender is a social construct. while it is not really something i, as an individual, believe (so i may not be able to do their argument justice), i believe it comes from a fundamentally good place of believing all of us would be better off with less gendered constructs enforced upon us by society. it’s not really about invalidating anyone’s experience of their gender, or even saying that their gender (/gender constructs) shouldn’t be or aren’t important; just that, generally, assuming things about people because of their gender tends to do more harm than good. like yeah (using my own gender transition as an example), presenting as a man and getting gendered correctly is great, but those years before where people treated me like a girl because they thought i was one (and frankly, i did too) would probably have sucked less if society didn’t make those assumptions
but, to be clear, i think it’s absolutely valid to feel like saying gender is a social construct is invalidating. i just don’t think that’s the intention
if your point was something else, if you just wanted to provide education or something, i apologize for misunderstanding. opening a post with “gender identity is biological” is just uhh, quite a strong statement to open a comment with (especially with the deeply emotional excerpt that accompanied it), so i assumed it was something you felt strongly about. but, you know, internet, tone, etc etc etc
Can I ask which parts you feel most skeptical about? I’m not sure what your standards are for “100% solid science”, I might agree with you but I’m not sure.
Thank you for the guidance on how to approach this topic, though I feel a little confused. I thought I clearly stated gender identity comes from a biological place and that gender is not just a social construct, linking to two articles that cover everything I was trying to communicate (esp. the Julia Serano article). I guess if you didn’t read the articles and you just try to respond to my sentence it might not go well … Maybe the idea is that I need to make it more about my own experience or something, since people might feel differently about those statements being made by a trans person, but that feels … wrong to me somehow. We shouldn’t necessarily care who says something as to whether it’s a right view, even if who says what might be contextually relevant to interpretation. 🤔
Or maybe your point was that I need to connect the biological basis of gender identity more to the way social constructionism is problematic. (I don’t like focusing on validating / invalidating, since I think we can choose to be validating to something we don’t think is real or true, and truth might sometimes be invalidating. We probably can’t separate the moral concerns entirely from our theorizing, but it’s an important point that gender theories don’t succeed or fail based on whether they are trans affirming or not, but on whether they accord with reality and are backed by evidence. This goes for Ray Blanchard’s theories as much as Judith Butler’s.)
Sorry, I feel like I’m missing your point, but I really appreciate the attempt and I think I am getting glimpses of your point. My original comment was admittedly too short and lacking a lot of important context, which I was trying to economically back-fill with the articles I linked to. (Admittedly, I was short on time, and since this was a joke tweet I wasn’t taking it too seriously.)
i would also include that i do not believe that invalidating your/others’ experiences as sort of innately biologically transgender people is the intention of those that say gender is a social construct.
Oh of course, to the contrary I think a lot of people assume social constructionism is validating, so many people will tell me “gender is just a social construct” thinking they are signalling they are trans-accepting. It makes me cringe, it’s not a small part of why this particular thing upsets me and I bothered even linking to the article in the first place. I can’t stand the misinformation, and I also hate how it led to real world suffering, like with David Reimer. This is a view that needs to be revised, even if it is well intended.
opening a post with “gender identity is biological” is just uhh, quite a strong statement to open a comment with (
If someone hears a challenge to social constructionism they might assume I am endorsing biological essentialism, esp. if I’m talking about the biological basis of gender identity, so I get that. Partially I feel that is a problem with the reader, not a me-problem, but demanding people correctly parse and then read articles is probably a high bar and I should expect knee-jerk reactions if I’m not doing more work. Again, a lot of this was because I didn’t have enough time and I was under pressure when writing the message.
I think I’ll edit the post and try to clarify a bit. 😅
I can feel strongly about this issue, but it’s also something I bite my tongue on over and over - it creates this instability where maybe I feel a building need to address it sometimes because I can only handle so much. I know most people are shallow in their understanding of most things and even though that bothers me, I feel like that’s a problem with me, I am out of sync with everyone else. Still, when I’m not filtering or being quick I might accidentally slip into lecture mode. 😬
EDIT: oh, and I wanted to say - thank you for being so nice and patient with me, lol - you’re a real human and I appreciate that so much ✨ 💞 😊
If gender is just a social contruct, why do trans people want to change their gender?
i’m not really here representing a viewpoint other than “if someone wants to identify in a way that makes them happy, they should be allowed to, regardless of the basis they claim for it”
i specifically asked in this case because, especially nonbinary people, but also gnc trans people are sometimes invalidated because of the biological argument, so i wanted clarity on the commenter’s position. of course, i don’t know everything, and consider my experience to be fairly gender normative for a trans person, so i’m open to learning something new, as well
Why wouldn’t they? if being withing a specific social construct makes you uncomfortable best thing to do is to change the social construct.
A common anti-trans response would be: if gender is a social construct, then perhaps people are influenced by social media into becoming trans. This is the debunked notion of “social contagion”, it assumes gender identity is subject to social influence.
