Women's Olympic Boxing

[Matthew]

16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

I understand that. Those cultural traits were what he gave to me as a response to the question of "How would you define woman as a gender?" Do you agree with his answer? In order to belong to the gender of woman (not the biological sex) do you have to possess those cultural traits which are associated with femininity?

Well I think I just answered that twice, but you seem to be genuinely asking.

Where your question goes astray is "in order to belong." We can define and list out the traits and norms popularly associated with femininity within a culure. But how people think about and perform their personality is more complex and varied. Most things listed as masculine or feminine behavioral traits are in reality not mutually exclusive.

Its a bit like the difference between the concept of race and the concept of ethnicity. Someone might have a very physical idea of what an asian person looks like. But if asked for a list cultural traits associated with Asian ethnicities, you couldn't use that list to define if someone is asian or not.

 

Edited August 3, 2024 by Matthew

[CouchPotato]

10 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well I think I just answered that twice, but you seem to be genuinely asking.

Ok so, I take it you do not agree with Black Dog's definition of woman as a gender? It's a yes or no question. Either you agree or disagree. And for the purposes of this question, 'disagree' would include the circumstance that his definition is not broad enough.

Black Dog (and I assume you as well) says that there is a difference between sex and gender.

Am I right in assuming that when biological man identifies as a woman that is a question of gender (as opposed to biological sex)?

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

So there is woman as a sex and woman as a gender, then?

Looking back at your previous exchange, you're asking really good fundamental questions. The popular consensus seems to be yes for this one, though actual scientific theory and understanding of this is probably a lot more unclear.

 

6 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

What are the social components? Give me a few examples.

Ok see you asked for components and examples. That's what BD have you. There certainly is no absolute definition of what any gender is in cultural and behavioral terms. Its mostly made up stuff that changes constantly through history like wearing a dress or the color blue etc.

[CouchPotato]

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

There certainly is no absolute definition of what any gender is in cultural and behavioral terms. Its mostly made up stuff that changes constantly through history like wearing a dress or the color blue etc.

If there is no definition of what a gender is, what does it mean to identify as one?

How is it any different to identify as a woman (with respect to gender) than to identify as a man (with respect to gender)?

Could two people with completely the same personalities and characteristics define as two different genders?

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

14 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

I take it you do not agree with Black Dog's definition of woman as a gender? It's a yes or no question.

Yeah i agree with everything i read from him on the subject.

16 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Am I right in assuming that when biological man identifies as a woman that is a question of gender (as opposed to biological sex)?

Yes that sounds correct. Can't imagine someone can yet change their DNA and every physical aspect of their biological sex.

[Matthew]

3 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

If there is no definition of what a gender is, what does it mean to identify as one?

Again, good question. This is not just a conundrum for trans people, but a very human question for everyone. Learning what it really means to be a man or woman etc is a very personal quest. But also there is some weird and unhealthy insecurities people often connect to masculinity and femininity and pass onto their kids.

[CouchPotato]

27 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Yeah i agree with everything i read from him on the subject.

So on the one hand you agree that gender is a collection of traditional traits we have ascribed to women. On the other hand you say that a person with absolutely none of those traits can belong to that gender. That is not a very consistent definition of gender.

At this point the only option you have is to say that gender actually has two definitions. One where gender refers to some idea we have about women and how they are supposed to be. And another definition of gender which is this looser concept people with all sorts of qualities can identify with.

The problem you are left with is that this second definition of gender has no meaning at all. Two people with completely similar characteristics could identify as completely different genders. Likewise, a person who is ridiculously manly (like yours truly here) could identify as a woman while a very feminine woman could identify as a man. This definition of gender has no defining features at all. It is meaningless. Anything goes. Woman (as a gender you can identify with) embraces people of all characteristics. Man (as a gender you can identify with) embraces people of all characteristics. There is literally no difference between "woman" and "man" in this sense. Therefore, they do not exist. There is no gender here to identify with.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

18 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

So on the one hand you agree that gender is a collection of traditional traits we have ascribed to women. On the other hand you say that a person with absolutely none of those traits can belong to that gender. That is not a very consistent definition of gender.

Well gender is a trait that exists within society and has norms associated with it. Those norms don't have to be traditional as you see them. But groups tend to impose subtle pressures to induce conformity to the norms. So if one was 100% presenting as a man for example, but personally identifying as a woman, this likely would be perceived as a signigicant norm violation even in places with very progessive views about gender.

So my point being, yes a person can think whatever they want about their identity, and yes gender is a nebulous and inconsistent social construct that is ever changing. But most people in society tend to conform to their culture's current unwritten norms on the subject.

Edited August 3, 2024 by Matthew

[CouchPotato]

9 minutes ago, Matthew said:

So my point being, yes a person can think whatever they want about their identity, and yes gender is a nebulous and inconsistent social construct that is ever changing.

In that case the only defining feature of gender is that it is what one defines oneself as.

If it is some nebulous social construct which anyone can define in their own way, it doesn't exist. And therefore the only thing you are left with which is real and tangible is biological sex.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

9 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

In that case the only defining feature of gender is that it is what one defines oneself as.

Maybe, though if that's the case there is a severe dearth of originality. I can't say I've consciously thought much about my gender to decide how to do it. Have you?

[CouchPotato]

20 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Maybe, though if that's the case there is a severe dearth of originality.

Yes, well it's because people don't realize the logical implications of what they are saying.

To restate it, if someone with very exaggerated manly characteristics (whatever those are in any given culture in any given time period) can define themselves as a woman, and someone with very exaggerated feminine characteristics (whatever those are in any given culture at any given time period) can identify as a man, then there is no definable difference between "man" and "woman" with respect to gender. You just pick one of two completely meaningless terms and identify as one.

Quote

I can't say I've consciously thought much about my gender to decide how to do it. Have you?

I am a male. I don't have to think about it.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

The problem you are left with is that this second definition of gender has no meaning at all. Two people with completely similar characteristics could identify as completely different genders. Likewise, a person who is ridiculously manly (like yours truly here) could identify as a woman while a very feminine woman could identify as a man. This definition of gender has no defining features at all. It is meaningless. Anything goes. Woman (as a gender you can identify with) embraces people of all characteristics. Man (as a gender you can identify with) embraces people of all characteristics. There is literally no difference between "woman" and "man" in this sense. Therefore, they do not exist. There is no gender here to identify with.

This is not so much a problem as you may think it is. You're describing all social constructs. Race doesn't actually exist, ethnicity, marriage, family, schools, companies, big macs, the color blue, etc. None of these things objectely exist outside of collective human imagination as we interact in a society together.

One sociologist famously argued that even though such things are not objectively real, they are nonetheless real in their effects. The systems and ideas society has created around gender do serve some very meaningful functions.

Edited August 3, 2024 by Matthew

[Matthew]

17 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

I am a male. I don't have to think about it.

Exactly, for most people the social systems we live in do the thinking for us and we are socialized to conform to norms of how to behave, dress, talk, and all the other performances of gender that we do without thinking or deciding anything.

[CouchPotato]

6 minutes ago, Matthew said:

One sociologist famously argued that even though such things are not objectively real, they are nonetheless real in their effects. The systems and ideas society has created around gender does serve some very meaningful functions.

Good for him.

Biologists say sex is real. It has defining characteristics. Intersex people are proof of the binary nature of sex because they are not a third completely different sex, but a combination of the two.

If your idea of gender is that it has no meaning and it is defined purely subjectively, then the only reality is sex. So unless you are intersex, you are either male or female.

[Matthew]

54 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

the only thing you are left with which is real and tangible is biological sex

In terms of tangible, yes. But again just because something exists in the social/ cultural realm doesn't make it less real in it's impact.

A good example might be being a biological father vs the more nebulous concept of fatherhood. Fatherhood is a vague cultural construct, but it has just as profound effects on people's lives and experiences as the tangible biological aspect (maybe more).

But it doesn't have the same objective meaning. Someone can choose to be a father to someone else in the non biological sense.

Edited August 3, 2024 by Matthew

[CouchPotato]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Fatherhood is a vague cultural construct, but it has just as profound effects on people's lives and experiences as the tangible biological aspect of fatherhood (maybe more).

Fatherhood has a more solid and tangible definition than the one you have proposed for gender, unless of course you start to mingle it with gender ideology.

Gender ideology is not just vague. If anyone with any set of characteristics can define themselves as anything, then it is not simply a question of hazy, grey areas. It is beyond vague. It has no meaning at all. As I pointed out, based on what you have told me, there is no difference (not even vague or hazy) between what defines a man and a woman when it comes to gender. It is absolutely anything.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Fatherhood has a more solid and tangible definition than the one you have proposed for gender, unless of course you start to mingle it with gender ideology.

How so?

[CouchPotato]

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

How so?

Fatherhood is the state of being a father.

A father is a male parent (biological or adoptive) of a child.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[CouchPotato]

7 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Fatherhood is the state of being a father.

A father is a male parent (biological or adoptive) of a child.

It is 2:39 am here. If you want to continue cortorting yourself into absurdity for the rest of your life be my guest.

Your definiton of gender does not even have a vague meaning. It has absolutely none whatsoever. Gender was originally synonymous with sex. If you want add Black Dog's definition then it has a vague meaning. But if anyone with any characteristics can identify as "man" or "woman" or anything else there is no meaning. It is absolutely absurd. It is useless as a term.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

2 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Fatherhood is the state of being a father.

So we could make a list of what defines fatherliness. Provides for family, supportive, role model, solid dad  joke skills, etc. There are lots of different things that people world imagine as true fatherliness.

What if a man didn't have some of the defining traits? Suppose he lost his job and has no sense of humor. Does that make him not fatherly?

If everyone can just make up their own style of being a father, is fatherliness just meaningless?

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, CouchPotato said:

Ok so, I take it you do not agree with Black Dog's definition of woman as a gender? It's a yes or no question. Either you agree or disagree. And for the purposes of this question, 'disagree' would include the circumstance that his definition is not broad enough.

Black Dog (and I assume you as well) says that there is a difference between sex and gender.

Am I right in assuming that when biological man identifies as a woman that is a question of gender (as opposed to biological sex)?

Woman is a gender. Female is a sex. Notions of gender--what is masculine or feminine, womanly or manly--have changed dramatically over time and vary widely from culture to culture. Our biology, not so much. 

The world is full of gendered things and concepts, from masculine and feminine verbs in language to toys and clothes and colors. Again, biology not so much. 

Gender traditional describes *things* associated with males and females. But those associations are changeable. And people's affinity toward those gender norms can change even within a lifetime.

There's no denying these are closely related words (that's how we get gendered "norms" in the first place) and in colloquial speech many people are going to use them interchangeably--and be aligned most of the time. But now that you know the nuanced differences you can speak more precisely. 

[CouchPotato]

Quote

If everyone can just make up their own style of being a father, is fatherliness just meaningless?

If everyone can make up there own definition from any possible combination of characteristics, then yes, it would be meaningless.

Would you say all definitions of fatherliness are equally valid?

 

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

If everyone can make up there own definition from any possible combination of characteristics, then yes, it would be meaningless.

I agree, and on one hand I don't think each individual actually defines most of it for themselves, and on the other hand most of it IS meaningless. These are things within a culture that people make together through their interactions, like all other social constructs.

I could say that being a true man is defined by eating sauerkraut for breakfast, and that Slavic ethnicities are defined by sleeping with your shoes on, and true fatherliness means bathing in Dr Pepper. But none of these would communicate manliness, slavicness, or faltherliness to other people. But if a few people start doing something something together, then we end up creating and sharing a meaning together, even though it may not be based on anything real. Thus pancakes become breakfast food and elf on a shelf becomes a thing.

This is partly why conservatives get upset when the majority of society creates new meanings and moves on without them.

Edited August 3, 2024 by Matthew

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, Matthew said:

This is not so much a problem as you may think it is. You're describing all social constructs. Race doesn't actually exist, ethnicity, marriage, family, schools, companies, big macs, the color blue, etc. None of these things objectely exist outside of collective human imagination as we interact in a society together.

One sociologist famously argued that even though such things are not objectively real, they are nonetheless real in their effects. The systems and ideas society has created around gender do serve some very meaningful functions.

This happens to be one of the wildest departures from reality I have seen in a long time.

Conga-rats for a perfect example of the rot that has infected the Libbie mind.

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

I agree, and on one hand I don't think each individual actually defines most of it for themselves...

But can they?

Is it valid for anyone with any combination of any characteristics to claim they belong to any gender? Is it valid for two completely similar people with all the same characteristics to identify themselves one with "woman" and the other with "man"?

All yes or no questions.

Edited August 3, 2024 by CouchPotato