Is there any scientific evidence of gender being separated from sex? And gender being a social construct?

Is there any scientific evidence of gender being separated from sex? And gender being a social construct?

Other urls found in this thread:

etymonline.com/index.php?term=gender
nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes there is.

Sociologist would say gender is learned behavior while sex is biological. Wanting to play with a doll doesn't mean you should cut your dick off though.

No there isn't.

>gender is learned behavior
So just because i like girly things it means i'm a girl...
Also, are there any differences between male and female brain? Does that mean a transgender woman may be born with the female brain?

No. Gender and sex used to be tightly coupled terms that essentially meant the same thing. Sociologists and other soft scientists with agendas co-opted the term "gender" to mean some kind of subjective, hazily defined sex spin off. Now it is fairly meaningless.

These questions have no relevance to science.

Whether you call it a he or a she, it still is the same biological entity.

The association of certain things and actions with "femininity" and "masculinity" is learned and constructed within society. This doesn't mean that a person who likes girly things is a girl, necessarily. And it also doesn't mean that we must reject the concepts of femininity and masculinity.

But none of this has to do with science.

A better question would be if science is ok with calling a trans woman a woman

>gender is learned behavior
No

Sex = Sic/sick
Intimacy = Love
I always cross out sex and put gender. Some people are so twisted and confused they can't tell up from right, left from down.

Isn't gender quite literally a social construct? Does there exist any definition of the word "gender" that is anything else?

gender is sex. Even if a man likes to wear makeup or read women's magazines, he is still male.

People are just fucking stupid.

>Gender is just a social construct! There's nothing inherently gendered about the way someone behaves!
>But I really like playing with dolls and talking about feelings so I must be a girl trapped inside a boy's body!
>(but nothing is inherently gendered)

They're your genitals and nothing more, get over it.

Who defines gender as the same as sex?

For centuries the words were used as synonymous

You can even find some dictionaries that makes no distintion between gender and sex

Retarded /pol crossposters. But it's strange because they like trap so much, and still claim not to be gay.

I think either admitting full gayness or that gender is not the same as sex would lessen their cognitive dissonance.

Only for Adam/Eve believers. You'll be surprised to learn that there exists something outside your little world.

The original use of the word "gender" was grammatical. For example many languages have "masculine" and "feminine" nouns.

However some languages also have "neuter" nouns. But "neuter" is not a sex. You don't change someone's X or Y chromosomes by neutering them, the same way you don't change it if you get sex reassignment surgery.

Also, whether a word is considered masculine or feminine within a particular language is clearly a construct.

>Is there any scientific evidence of gender being separated from sex?

Yes and it's called "transsexualism".

Transsexualism is just people mentally ill who want to be something they cannot be. Just because you like socially constructed feminine things does not mean you are not a man,

>I always cross out sex and put gender
'Tism.

>Transsexualism is just people mentally ill
gb2

Well, if this isn't a nice motley of what people think of the topic, I don't know what is.

Either you have XX or XY and that's what defines your gender and you can't change it.
And if you think you're a different gender than you are, that's after the definition a mental illness.

It's not a mental illness to think the Earth is flat, it's just stupid.

It's not a mental illness to think you're a different sex than you are, it's just stupid.

The word "gender" has been used since before people knew what chromosomes were, Mr. Traditionalist

Google John Money
You're welcome

That's like saying

"The word 'Green' was used before they knew that it corresponded to a particular wavelength of light, Mr. Traditionalist"

Just because you know something more now about what you already knew doesn't mean the whole thing was wrong in the first place.

...

...

Therefore if someone asks what the word "green" means and you give them a wavelength, you're being silly. Just like if you refer to chromosomes to define gender.

Questioning something because of "science" when transchildren are LITERALLY killing themselves right now

This is EXTREMELY problematic.

Just because you can't see chromosomes doesn't mean they don't matter you stupid tranny

Holy fuck

Give another definition for the word "Green".

No, seriously, try to define it objectively any other way.

...

I never said they didn't matter. I said they don't determine gender, and I stand by that. But they do matter for other reasons.

It's actually quite a good lesson in natural selection, if you think about it, which is perfect for those who don't understand chromosomes.

>the genetic building blocks of humans don't determine gender

wew.jpg

> Everything that defines an organism doesn't define this one particular aspect about the organism

You realize what you're saying is on a science board, right?

First of all we were talking about X and Y chromosomes, which are not the only chromosomes.

But your assumption that gender must be determined by genetics is also unfounded. Do you believe that every aspect of your life is 100% determined by your DNA?

>Do you believe that every aspect of your life is 100% determined by your DNA?

Only the biological parts.

Sex is a biological property while gender is a linguistic property. Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

Yes.
What else determines it? The stars? The environment?

Everything about you is encoded in your genetic material, including how you respond to environmental stimuli.

So for example you think that what languages you are able to speak is determined by your DNA.

And gender is biological?

Quam ad vestrum genus synonymum stuprorum genitalibus.

Obviously yes

No, I don't, because language is learned ability. You learn how to speak, just as you learn how to swim and how to use a computer.

You do not learn your gender. You ARE that gender. You don't pick up a polly pocket doll and say "oh hey I kind of like playing with this" or look in the mirror and say "you know I think my hair could be longer" and "learn" your gender. You have simply discovered that you have different likes and dislikes than other people.

Congratulations, you're not exactly the same as everyone else with a penis. That doesn't mean you have a vagina.

That's funny because it's obvious to me that it isn't.

Every time you just said "gender" you meant "sex"

>transchildren
This happens because you brain-wash kids into thinking they can be the other gender

>The word 'Green' was used before they knew that it corresponded to a particular wavelength of light, Mr. Traditionalist
Yes. Yes, yes, that's right. Yes? Yes.

If
>Just because you know something more now about what you already knew
>doesn't mean the whole thing was wrong in the first place
then using the word "gender" before you knew about chromosomes, means you were using the word "gender" without the context of chromosomes- and it means that, even if you know about chromosomes, that the original use of "gender" is not wrong. It means, if you stick by the use of the word "gender" as it was used long ago, then it has nothing to do with chromosomes. Even if chromosomes exist. It doesn't define or depict chromosomes. It does not deal with them. No.

If the whole thing was not wrong in the first place, then it means that gender is not the same as sex, and then that sex deals with chromosomes- because it is not dealing with a person in the same way gender did/does. Which, was without the context of chromosomes. Feminine, Masculine.

This user even mentions it better.

Right there and then, gender and sex are two different things. Gender is mostly abstract, and otherwise deals with the behavioral or psychological traits of an individual- no chromosomes, no DNA. Sort of wishy-washy. It's a container for sex characteristics that may be physical, and some that may not be physical. Do you present yourself in a "girly" way? Do you "look girly"? You may have a penis, you may be a man, but you may act like a woman. You act: feminine. This does not change the fact that you are a man, sex wise, but it does put the arbitrary collage of your collective "masculinity" at risk. Perhaps even void it.

Sex, deals with the DNA, and the chromosomes, and is the reason the behavioral or psychological traits may emerge/present themselves.

Gender deals with what emerges from sex as well as what does not; sex is not gender.

Gender is a made up word from social science (social sciences are not real sciences)

Stop it.

Some of these things are not like the other.

How is it brain-washing to teach kids about the evils of being a cis white person?

You have proven yourself to be an idiot.

Only one of those is me? I don't think those are all the same people, and I also don't think some of those people even agree with one another.

Also, can you explain why this is the case? Maybe you made a mistake?

See, that's why you're not understanding all of this.

"Gender" and "sex" are synonyms. They both refer to the genitals of an organism that reproduces sexually.
They are labels that we have come up to distinguish the two parents that come together to reproduce.

There is nothing more to it. Your likes, dislikes, feelings, thoughts, hopes, dreams, behaviors, none of that plays any role in it at all.

Your whole argument is under the assumption that humans are somehow "special" and separate from the rest of life on Earth, in that somehow there is a connection between the way one behaves and something as concrete as sex and gender. Just because traditionally, males and females have had different likes, dislikes and personalities AS A RESULT of the roles they were taught to assume from a young age, doesn't mean that you can take one of the words used entirely to describe a physical characteristic and apply it to personality in order for it to agree with those purely traditional, prior, behavior aspects that men and women GENERALLY could be catagorized by.

>gender
>refer to the genitals of an organism

>gender
>labels we have come up with to distinguish the two parents that come together to reproduce

>gender
>behaviors
>none of that plays any role in it at all
>implying likes, dislikes, feelings, thoughts, hopes, dreams are not all behaviors

>gender
>somehow implying all humans are special and separate from the rest of life on Earth

>gender
>implying gender not being a connection between the way one behaves and something as concrete as sex
>behaves
>behaviors
>rest of life on Earth
>behaviors

>gender
>traditionally, males and females have had different
>behaviors
>AS A RESULT of the roles they were taught
>the roles they were taught
>behaviors

>gender
>purely traditional, prior, behavior aspects
>behavior
>that men and women GENERALLY could be catagorized by

Uh. I don't know if you realized this, user, but you just described gender. Also, you misspelled "categorized".

How anyone could think this is a man because of "muh chromosomes" is beyond

that is CLEARLY a women you nazi scum

Arguing semantics is annoying. I am not anti-trans, but I can admit that both the words "gender" and "sex" have been hijacked to some extent. In the past I think they were synonymous or closer to being synonymous than they are now.

I understand the annoyance at people hijacking terminology.

However, I think most of these anti-trans people are mad about more than hijacking words. They would be mad no matter what words were used, because they just don't want words to exist that can possibly describe the trans phenomenon.

>jawline says he is a man
>arms say he is a man
>hips say he is a man
>fat distribution says he is a man
>bone structure says he is a man
>dick says he is a man
BUT
>his feelings says he is a women.

This is a tough one....

No, he is a man because he has a penis

>then using the word "gender" before you knew about chromosomes, means you were using the word "gender" without the context of chromosomes- and it means that, even if you know about chromosomes, that the original use of "gender" is not wrong. It means, if you stick by the use of the word "gender" as it was used long ago, then it has nothing to do with chromosomes.

See that's the logical fallacy in all of this.

The use of the word "gender" prior to the discovery of chromosomes and the role they play in the development in humans was still used to differentiate between the two physically distinguishable partners that define sexual reproduction.

It was not known, however, where gender and sex came from - the biological process that caused it. this DOES NOT imply that gender is not a result of chromosomes because it didn't refer to chromosomes hundreds of years ago. It referred to ones genitals (ever wonder why the words are so similar?).
We now know that genitals are a result of chromosomes. This means that gender - the word used refer to genitals - is caused by chromosomes.

I described the word that refers to genitalia because that's what sex and gender are synonyms for.

Cite.

That is a man dressed in a fashion that women commonly dress.

etymonline.com/index.php?term=gender

Why are you people questioning something when transkids are killing themselves?

Stop it.

Science is not more important than human life.

If a person identifies as a women THEY ARE FOR EVERY PRACTICAL PURPOSE A WOMEN YOU NAZI SCUM

If a man can be a woman if he just get boobs, it means i'm not a woman because i'm flat-chested as fuck?

I usually don't look at someone's genitals before I decide whether I should say "he" or "she". It's about how they act and present themselves, i.e. social cues.

People assume that every individual's parents look at their genitals when they're born and then make the decision to raise them as a boy or girl, and that they never change. But unless you're personally checking everyone's genitals when you meet them, you can't claim that gender is physically determined by that.

you most likely decide to call people "he" or "she" the same way I do. you just assume that under their clothes they have what you think they have

See this

Exaclt

You don't look at their genitals.
Because sex = gender = genitals

You don't get to decide, they don't get to decide, no one decides.

It's in their DNA.

Exactly*

They can't decide what their biological sex is.

They effectively can decide the social aspect, e.g. what pronouns they want you to use. You have no authority to check their genitals to determine what pronoun to use.

Biological sex = gender = what "he" and "she" refer to

You also misunderstand my argument.

I don't give a fuck how people dress, talk, what they do for fun, whatever.

If a man wants to dress up in a pink dress and put on makeup then that's totally fine.

But none of that changes the fact that he is a male.

so how do you decide whether to call a person "he" or "she"?

Do you give them a DNA test? Or tell them they have to drop their pants?

Or do you just make an educated guess based on how they act and look?

I look at them, make an educated guess about what their genitals are based on how they dress, and 99.9999% of the time I'm right.

The other times that I'm wrong, then whoopsie, I made a mistake. Sorry if that offends you but that's really the least of your concerns in the real world.

So you check their genitals later and verify that you were right? Like, what percentage of your acquaintance's genitals have you seen?

Not very many, but I make the valid assumption that if I'm not corrected, then I wasn't incorrect.

Wait so do you explicitly ask them whether they have a penis or vagina at least? Or do you just assume that because they don't object to the pronoun that you used, that automatically means they have the genitals you assume they have?

After all, there are plenty of biological males with penises who would be happy for you to call them "she" and would not correct you.

Nope, I look at the length of the hair, their facial structure, their clothes, and I make an assumption about their gender = sex.
Then, if I talk to them or refer to them later, I will use the pronoun that corresponds to my assumption.

I make the assumption that the way they look approximately reflects their genitals.This assumption is almost always accurate.

And I additionally assume that if I am not corrected then I was correct.

Out of all the years I have been alive, I have been corrected once.

Gender is not learned. Gender roles (to an extent) are but gender is a sense. Like I feel like my body fits me, I have a dick and it feels like I should.

Gender dysphoria stems from a neurological cause. It isn't learned.

And you have no way of knowing how many people didn't correct you because you used the prounoun they wanted you to use, despite the fact that it didn't match their genitals or chromosomes.

Also, unless you checked the ol genitals, you have no way of knowing the true biological sex of the person who did correct you. You only know what they told you.

>Gender is just a social construct, it has nothing to do with biology!
>Let me just cut my dick off so I can be part of the other gender, although remember it's not biological lol

Someone explain this reasoning to me

It first says, "kind, sort, class". So, yes, back then, the word "gender" would be used to differentiate between the two physically distinguishable partners that define sexual reproduction.

In what fashion? "Kind, sort, class".

makes reference to
which is making reference to
which is making reference to
>The word "gender" has been used since before people knew what chromosomes were, Mr. Traditionalist
>"The word 'Green' was used before they knew that it corresponded to a particular wavelength of light, Mr. Traditionalist"

So, I was operating by the logic above. Let's step away from that for a moment, because it isn't the logic I would like to use.

Let's recap.

Gender; "kind, sort, class", circa 1300s. Borrows from 12th century definition in Latin; "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also "(male or female) sex". No context for chromosomes, interchangeable with sex. Used primarily to differentiate between "kinds" or "classes" of what can only be understood as "sex"; men, women, mostly physical, based mostly on looks- like one's genitals.

>It was not known
>where gender and sex came from

>of what can only be understood as "sex"; men, women

Language evolves, and so does the knowledge of things. According to your source, "[t]he grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c". That word, attested? It allegedly means "to affirm to be correct, true, or genuine". In the late 15th century, the word "gender" is asserted, it is maintained to be true, that the use of "gender" in a grammatical context was valid, was true, was genuine. And yet, "[t]he "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c".

At that point, between the late 14th and early 15th century, the word had evolved to mean two different things, both uses being valid enough. Feminine, Masculine, Grammatical; Sex, Male, Female; Sex, Gender.

By the 20th century, "gender came to be the usual English word for 'sex of a human being,' in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous".
>gender came to be the usual English word for
>sex
>sex of a human being
>of a human being
>colloquial

"Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963".

The word evolved from meaning one thing, to being colloquial, to meaning only another thing. As of today, the two words, officially, mean different things. This is most likely due to the increase in understanding of the human self, biology and sociology included. If the use of the word "gender" prior to the discovery of chromosomes and the role they play in the development of humans, did not include said knowledge, then the use of the word "gender" did not mean those things. If the word has changed over time, especially since the discovery of chromosomes, then the word "gender", by definition given in your source, does not define chromosomes, because it now affirmed to define biological qualities or social attributes than the "kind" or "class" of peoples, male or female.

The science behind the nature of chromosomes seems to reaffirm that sentiment. "Gender" is seldom used in modern context to describe XX or XY by those who write the abstracts, reports, or studies, because the word "gender" has changed, as our understanding of things have changed.

LGBT has a thread on this

Pure autism.

>Is there any scientific evidence of gender being separated from sex?

Nothing that is not based in plausibilities.

But by all means, cherry pick an answer from here that agrees with you like a true conformation bias.

The boards are melding together.

nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
>Battle of the sexes
>According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance. In 2009, researchers reported deactivating an ovarian gene called Foxl2 in adult female mice; they found that the granulosa cells that support the development of eggs transformed into Sertoli cells, which support sperm development. Two years later, a separate team showed the opposite: that inactivating a gene called Dmrt1 could turn adult testicular cells into ovarian ones. “That was the big shock, the fact that it was going on post-natally,” says Vincent Harley, a geneticist who studies gonad development at the MIMR-PHI Institute for Medical Research in Melbourne.

REFUTE THIS

>Humans are mice

There is no scientific basis for 'gender' - S.Crowder

Well there's things like gender identity disorder, but it's import to understand that gender is innate in most people look at the case of David Reimer, he had a botched circumcision that left him mutilated, clearly he was never going to live a proper life, they were advised to raise him as girl.
(cf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

It was a complete failure, he was deeply depressed, hated himself and was constantly "behaving as a boy". Eventually he killed himself but not before transitioning back to being male and living (relatively) happily as a man for a few decades.

It's a complicated subject that can't easily be addressed with just a yes/no answer.

It's a sticky subject, but as far as anatomy is concerned, there is no physical indicator of gender, due to the fact that gender is a non-scientific term which has always been used to class a behaviour instead of a biological state.

It is similair to how people misinterpret the meaning of sub-species as including some sort of biological variance (ergo human's have sub-species), when in actuallity it simply refers to a small group of potentially biologically similair animals which are behaviorally different from the standard observed in the species (refuse or are unable to breed with members outside their sub-species).

>if you transform genes you transform cells
GENDER CONFIRMED ALL IN YOUR HEAD
SCIENTISTS BTFO
HOW WILL Veeky Forums EVER RECOVER