Gender isn't a social construct

What is inherently male or female about skirts?

Women are naturally drawn to a mode of dress more suited to light housework and relaxation whereas men tend to favor clothing designed for a more visceral lifestyle. This is only natural and it is cruel to deprive people of their natural desires in a misguided quest for "equality".

>Women are naturally drawn to a mode of dress more suited to light housework and relaxation

Not him, but the fact that fashion changes over cultures and time doesn't mean it's still rooted on gender. There has always been male and female clothes even if these have changed. The point is not what type of clothes will be fashionable tomorrow, but that our society is run and divided in this way. You also probably think that a Scotsman quilt is just your average skirt which is completely misguided, a better example would be stockings. But the point is not that there arw clothes meant for men or women, but that we divide them (they are also created taking into account different body structures and genitals). Why fo we keep dividing it? Some argue that it's just an illusion, but I think it just a way to express our deep and meaningful identity into society. Even if these costumes are illusory, the idea of someone identifying either as male or female is an uncontested concept, and everyone wants to express it in some way.

A skirt is more likely to get in the way doing housework than a pair of pants.

>- Blue is a male color, pink and purple are female colors
>- Rock music is masculine, pop music is feminine
>- Sports and working on cars are male interests, cooking and sewing are female interests
>- Hello Kitty is objectively feminine, playing with toys dinosaurs is objectively masculine
>- Long hair is feminine, short hair is masculine
>-Flowery smells are feminine
These are just expressions of gender in a society. There is absolutely no connection between purple and any sort of "femaleness" except for our current society, in fact this has changed over time without men growing vaginas.

The problem with the word "social construct" is that it definition implies nothing about its existence outside society or in a objective way. Of course "gender is a social construct", simply because it exists within society, but that does not mean that it is a real thing that can not be changed.
It is a pointless word game to convince people that gender can be transformed simply by defining the word "social construct" in a way that removes all science from the discussion and ignoring everything about that concept that is not part of society.

LITERALLY everything is a social construct, the idea of the earth being round is a social construct, because it obviously originated from society and exists within society. But that does not imply anything about being flat or round.

This is not true. Kilts were used in warfare.

What about long hair then? It was also a traditionally masculine trait in some cultures - having your long hair cut off was a sign of shame

Also once again that's a normative and culture-specific argument you're making.

You're whole thread is terrible bait.

What is with all these /pol/ tier gender baiting and race baiting threads here lately?

I grew out of most of these distinctions by my teenage years. Also, punk and purple have never been female colours except for western children in the last 2-3 generations. One only needs to look at history and how they were used.

But yeah, good thread.

OP here. Honestly I tried to post this on /pol/ first but I'm banned from /pol/ so I thought I'd post it here.

/pol/ is trying to stir up gender shit to divide people on /lgbt/ too.

>- Sports and working on cars are male interests, cooking and sewing are female interests
I do think that's true though. Males evolved to be more competitive and are physically stronger and faster than women. Couple that to the fact that men also tend to be more logical and strategical than females (again because of evolution) and we see why they would naturally be more attracted to sports.
>Some of gender, like males being better adapted to hunting and women being better adapted to childcare has actual basis
Well if some of gender has actual basis then that's enough to counter your original claim that gender doesn't exist...?

>Gender is used by society to create an image of what is expected and valued.
Exactly what gender is, it is a social construct. Gender use and it itself are the same.

I see you didn't finish reading that sentence.

Are you doubting right wing scientific research that proves Women have evolved to have genes specifically for Hello Kitty?

Please stop. If you want to talk about chromosome sequencing and how it affects neurological development, then please do so. However this thread as it is, has nothing to do with science or math

so what i actually mean is DELETE THIS

Actual dad here:

If you are born a boy you're going to have testosterone in your system, your body is going to develop as a man, if you are girl you'll have estrogen and your body will develop as woman. That is nature and has nothing to do with social construct.

Let's say that you go for hormone therapy at an early age and you become a passable trap / have reassigning sex surgery, your body still won't be capable of fulfilling its natural function, that is for male to impregnate, and for a woman to have babies. That is nature, not a social construct.

Everything else that you claimed, behavior, habits, traits, listen to some specific music, etc., is how society divides the genders, not because of whim, but because what is desirable is for the individual to fulfill its natural role, not a constructed one, the social construct is for the identification and interaction with the individual.

Science has its limits, but if one day men can have babies and women can impregnate themselves that, my friend, would be a social construct, exactly what you are criticizing here.

How does painting a girl's room pink and a boy's room blue facilitate them having sex when they become of age?

Yes I did. You still claimed that there is at least some actual basis to gender theory even though most of it is false. How do you reconciliate both claims? Does gender exist based on these actual facts rooted in biology that you mentioned or not? If not, why? Try not to dodge the question this time.

...

No. I said there are certain traits inherent to biological sex, i.e. legitimate gender. However, most of what society considers "gender" has nothing to do with those.

>On average, males excel relative to females at certain spatial tasks. Specifically, males have an advantage in tests that require the mental rotation or manipulation of an object.[47] They tend to outperform females in mathematical reasoning and navigation. In a computer simulation of a maze task, males completed the task faster and with fewer errors than their female counterparts. Additionally, males have displayed higher accuracy in tests of targeted motor skills, such as guiding projectiles.[46] Males are also faster on reaction time and finger tapping tests.[48]

On average, females excel relative to males on tests that measure recollection. They have an advantage on processing speed involving letters, digits and rapid naming tasks.[48] Females tend to have better object location memory and verbal memory.[49] They also perform better at verbal learning.[50] Females have better performance at matching items and precision tasks, such as placing pegs into designated holes. In maze and path completion tasks, males learn the goal route in fewer trials than females, but females remember more of the landmarks presented. This shows that females use landmarks in everyday situations to orient themselves more than males. Females are better at remembering whether objects had switched places or not

Wow. It's almost like, in the information age, I have the vast majority of mainstream neuroscience studies at my fingertips. OP and others BTFO

Yeah, those facts you posted are completely correct and well known aspects of our species' gender dimorphism

...Now what the fuck does that have to do with the fact that the color pink, skirts, and long hair being inherently female, are all culturally constructed concepts since they do not universally transcend cultures?

what kind of proofs are these?
can you post some that have conviction?

What does any of that have to do with flowers, pink and pop being feminine and blue and metal being masculine?

Your straw man doesn't disprove that gender is biologically based; it just points out that fashion is a social construct (which is rooted in historically gender based-roles mind you, with dresses originating within European maid roles, and suits taking attributes from armour).
It still doesn't deny the biological differences in styles of thinking and how baby boys/girls are much more likely to pick the car/doll despite their parents doing everything in their power to give a gender-neutral environment. It's why countries with continual pushes for gender equality and an openly embracing culture still have absurd male:female ratios in jobs like engineering and the military.
This is the argument which the biological argument is based off of (with evidence), and so this is what you need to contradict.

Conviction? What does that have to do with anything?

Every day that passes I hate brainlets more and more

>absurd male:female ratios in jobs like engineering and the military.

That is literally a result of gatekeeping by patriarchy and sexist child rearing.

>baby boys/girls are much more likely to pick the car/doll despite their parents doing everything in their power to give a gender-neutral environment.

citation needed

>On average, females excel relative to males on tests that measure recollection. They have an advantage on processing speed involving letters, digits and rapid naming tasks.[48] Females tend to have better object location memory and verbal memory.[49] They also perform better at verbal learning.

Jeez, it's almost like this would explain why women are likely to be found in occupations that allow them to be more vocal than their male counterparts.

>Additionally, males have displayed higher accuracy in tests of targeted motor skills, such as guiding projectiles.

Hmm, I'm almost getting the feeling that this might explain why men are attracted to sports like baseball or basketball.

Just because neuroscience has not yet mapped out the causes of gender disparities in the act of fingering one's own asshole, does not mean they don't exist.

Your "proofs" convince no-one. I doubt even you believe them. now stop this bait

Didn't mean to tag you in this I meant to tag

You didn't address any of the mentioned points in those comments at all.

>Just because neuroscience has not yet mapped out the causes of gender disparities in the act of fingering one's own asshole, does not mean they don't exist.

It also doesn't mean you can use that fact as evidence for their existence.

I don't think anyone on Veeky Forums, in fact probably no one in the planet below the age of 80, thinks things like the colour pink and long hair are objectively feminine. Women having evolved to care for children, however, has implications for the development of specific psychological traits such as high agreeableness. The opposite is true for men, given that we evolved to be more competitive. That alone is enough basis to say that there are some differences between gender. Boys will naturally be more attracted to sports, violence, action figures, fast cars, explosions, fire, war, shooting birds, etc. Girls in general will tend to avoid activities that generate conflict and focus on activities that focus on people, e.g celebrities, dollhouses, make-up, talking about boys, princesses, cute animals, etc.

>P-please respond to my retarded comments about color and music while I ignore the evidence presented to me

How about you just kill yourself, brainlet.

>Girls in general will tend to avoid activities that generate conflict

Wew lad. Girls love drama.

Okay. Like I said, you can keep believing that men and women finger their asshole the same, but don't bitch about how society is keeping women down, when the NBA is more popular than its female counterpart -- we have evidence explaining that.

Yes. Because drama involves people. Boys will punch each other because of football. Girls will argue against each other because they like the same boy. Huge difference.

Refute mine, nigger. Oh, that's right, I cited published studies while you talked out your ass, just like a brainlet would.

You evidence had literally nothing to do with those things, and was about completely different points. So you can't prove that those things are biologically related?

Ok, thought so.

You're the one who claimed that they weren't related. Prove it.

What studies show color, skirts, long hair, and musical taste are related to genetics? Your shit about sports has nothing to do with any of those.

No it isn't, explain why Scandinavian countries have a higher STEM gap than countries like India with low equality?

>military
>because gatekeeping

And now that the gates are flung open, we are seeing women doing well in the military.
Oh wait, that is not happening at all.
All we are really seeing is more sexual harassment charges and pregnancy.
>The ride never ends.

There's nothing to prove. It is a non-sequiter relation, and is therefore logically invalid.

Sage these slide/bait threads.

There are three genders: man, woman and mentally ill

Hjernevask: The Gender Equality Paradox
youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

you know what fuck humans and how they over complicate stuff

>- Blue is a male color, pink and purple are female colors
>- Rock music is masculine, pop music is feminine
>- Sports and working on cars are male interests, cooking and sewing are female interests
>- Hello Kitty is objectively feminine, playing with toys dinosaurs is objectively masculine
>- Long hair is feminine, short hair is masculine
>-Flowery smells are feminine
What do these have to do with gender?

That's your evidence to show preferences are not related to sex?

>Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children's toy preferences
>We studied the role of toy type and color in children's interests and stereotypes.
>We also studied the effects of toy labels and color using novel toys.
>Among boys, masculine toy type and labels affected interests.
>Among girls, feminine toy type and labels affected interests.
>Among girls, masculine toys and those that were pink in color were also of interest.

Welp, there are a few instances in which that is patently false. What's it like living life with such a strong case of mental retardation? Is this why you have never achieved an intimate understanding of the opposite sex?

Define masculine and feminine objectively without regards to human philosophy, phenotypes or genotypes. What is a "masculine" toy label art or a "feminine" color is arbitrary.

Sorry but it isn't. In the broadest terms, femininity and masculinity are only meaningful words because they were formed by biological processes. They were shaped and defined by culture to the point of inane specifics, but that doesn't remove the underlying biological foundation. As broad concepts, masuclinity is:
-Risk taking (mental and physical)
-Protector/pathfinder role (an extension of the risk factor - men are the first line of defense to the social unit)
-Orientation towards objects versus people
-Higher sexual competition

Whereas femininity is associated with the opposite:
-Risk aversion
-Nurturer role
-Orientation towards people versus things
-Reproductive bottleneck - females are the objects of competition

That's just keeping it super broad and not touching other immensely important sex-different features like direct physiological and temperamental differences. So, to answer your questions

>blue
no idea, possible that it's mostly cultural (but not completely, as colors are known to have deeply aubconscious effect on human behavior)
>rock vs pop
If you listened to the lyrics, let alone the harsh metallic sounds and rougher voices which already signal male-orientation, you'd find the message tells you a lot as well.
>sports
The fact that you think this is even up for dispute is a tar on you as a brain user. Men are more fit for sport, and they are more competitive in nature.
>cars
Men are more object oriented. In adsition, the male sexual signalling is social status, female sexual signalling is looks.
>cooking and sewing
What do these have in common with each other and not in common with working? You don't have to leave the house to do it . That's why itvs part of the gender role. Just to burst your little bubble, by the way, literally all the best chefs are male.
>hello kitty
It's feminine because it is soft and has the proportions of a baby, i.e. the main evolutionary female object.
1/2

Yet they prefer objects that fall within the set of "feminine" or "masculine." Therefore, however they are defined, the distinction is meaningful.

>literally all the best chefs are male.

Yet cooking is considered feminine, my point exactly.

>It's feminine because it is soft and has the proportions of a baby, i.e. the main evolutionary female object.

Men are sexually attracted to women with neotenous features, so men should be attracted to it too.

>the distinction is meaningful.
But you have yet to link the distintion to the XX or XY chromosome, and as has been pointed out, what is masculine and feminine varies widely by culture.

Don't strain yourself. A lot of these numales are beyond salvation; they would rather repress the distinct sexual identity of the sexes while simultaneously claiming we are all the same. It would be funny, if it weren't so depressing to watch.

What is funny is watching women walk all over them and choose to be with real men. The STEM departments at my school are filled with the white-knighting faggots.

>long hair
this probably has a bigger social effect, but whatever non-social ques for long hair could be these:
-males are more often in situations where short hair is preferable because long hair gets in the way. hunting, fighting, shit like that
-an extension of the female form of sexual signalling, long hair represents health and stability
>flowery smell
don't know how deep these associations go, but flowers were a female thing since recorded history. probably because females had more spare time to incorporate this in their sexual repertoire while the males were out hunting and fighting other tribes

There, I gave you some potential reasons for these cultural phenomena. Some more conjecture-based, some less.

Now let me ask you a question. How do you think all these cultural intersex differences formed. Is there a specific time and place that this happened? Trace this back through human evolution, would you kindly?

What I don't understand is the asinine train of thought that literally everything about iur culture MUST be arbitrary. Where did you get that idea?

Flowers could have started as a tradition. Some revered warrior or king saw some pretty flowers in his travels and brought them to his mate as a gift, and others imitated and the practice spread, as is how many customs started.

>What I don't understand is the asinine train of thought that literally everything about iur culture MUST be arbitrary.

I never said everything must be arbitrary. I said most of what is ascribed to gender is. "Gendered" items have been extrapolated, if not outright created, beyond any relationship to the physical form.

Cooking is considered feminine when we're talking about the family/tribe unit, but the fact that all the best chefs are male is a product of vastly higher competitive instinct in men.

>men should be attracted to it too
A 1 month old child can tell the difference between a baby and an adult/adolescent. Don't be stupider than a baby in your quest for social justice.

>link the distinction
I have, in pretty culture-independent language.

It doesn't vary so widely that there are cultures where it's feminine to be a bodybuilder and it's masculine to play with barbies.

Lol OP casually decides to ignore arguments that disprove his points and he isn't able to argue against. Over andlver again. Classic brainlet who's only able to argue in strawman behaviour.

You're right skirts are just pieces of cloth just like breasts are mounds of flesh. But they have a certain appeal to them.
Women find skirts feminine because men find they are, just like men find being muscular is masculine because women think it is. When you break masculinity and femininity to their basics it is just for sexual appeal.
Now can you leave Veeky Forums and can we stop having these gender identity crisis threads.

This. It all breaks down to reproduction and the propagation of the species. Only brainlets fail to understand this.

>could have
Yeah, and could not have.

>I never said everything must be arbitrary
Every single one of your posts implies this, from the implication in the OP that the only difference between men and women are balls and vaginas, to this very fucking post.
>"Gendered" items have been extrapolated beyond any relationship to the physical form
Once again, the "physical form" is NOT the only difference between males and females. On every single describable trait, males and females have quantifiable differences. The temperamental ones are especially large. If that's the lens you're looking at the world through, though, then obviously you'll get to a place where gender is a "social construct", with no implied relationship to the underlying biology.

Humans have been evolving for a heck of a long time prior to even developing a social impulse, the fact that you think all the underlying sexually dimorphic machinery doesn't directly mould culture is astounding.

>They are statistically correlatable to biological gender but there's nothing inherently male or female about them.
If there was nothing inherently male or female (feminine and masculine are better terms, btw, as they also apply to for example women with hyperactive testosterone production) about them, then why do males tend to gravitate towards some things and females anothers?

And please don't say all correlations/variations are 100% explained by socialization.

>you can't prove that my examples of social constructs aren't social constructs therefore gender is a social construct

what the fuck, your argument is shit

Those social constructs didn't just come out of thin air. They exist because of patterns in the innate behavior of men and women.

If you really want to know the difference, look at the animal kingdom, were there is no influence of gossip or media what so ever. Those animals act according to their nature / gender.

all those are social constructs indeed. and they do not amount to biological sex. but penises and vaginas aren't social constructs. they are anatomical constructs. and that entry in your passport means your biological sex. your social role in life is a completely different thing. and nobody with a secure and healthy sexuality will define himself or herself by social constructs. and the whole discussion is senseless. most people simply dont understand their own biology.

now look at bonobos. they have something like gossip and group pressure. and many of them are genderfluid and bisexual.

>creation isn't an act of god
Then scientifically, starting from the standard model and GR, prove the existence of humans.

The questions your asking would require the variables you mentioned to have a gender. They don't, however a male and female do. Therefore this question is a "nothingburger."

Gender manipulation is a social construct. There is male and female. It can not be added to or taken away unless changed and altered with unnatural means.
Example, when you buy a puppy with the intention of breeding it purchasing a male and a transgender male will produce negative results.
Anything beyond this no matter of what gender someone makes up, attempts to be change or alter will always be determined by only a male and a female.
I've yet to see any socially constructed gender create compatible results of any unnatural gender that produced offspring. Until gender benders produce results that are stronger than mother nature there is only male and female they are genders, and not negotiable. Gender benders can slice and dice to "change" the appearance and to simulate further with hormones, cloths etc. But will never be able to complete the task.
Further more stereotypical preferences is gender preferred and naturally done so attempting to further twist gender identity by labeling in a biased new gender bender way is in essence just a perversion of something that takes place naturally without any perversion

Cogito ergo sum.

No, the Earth being round is an observable fact of the material universe. Just because we know about it that doesn't mean it's socially constructed. Yes, we have to have a conception of "the Earth" and "round" in order to describe it, but the Earth physically does not change depending on our opinion of it or our ability to conceptualise it.

Our conception of gender, on the other hand, has changed throughout history as well as between different cultures. Gender as we know it only exists because of our conception of it. The colour pink was seen as a manly shade of red barely a century ago, I believe. The only factual observation you can make with regards to pink being masculine or feminine is whether or not society deems it so. That is why gender is a social construct and the round Earth is not.

you're a fucking brainlet and so is OP for starting this bad thread. gender isn't even a real concept. biological sex is the only thing that actually exists. gender is a word made up by a hack sexologist who diddled children.

>gender isn't even a real concept. biological sex is the only thing that actually exists.
So what do you make of all the things in the OP regarding colours and dresses and stuff?

Why are you so stuck on that? Why do you find that so contentious?

Okay, from now on dolls wear blue dresses and toy cars are green. Who gives a fuck?

>from now on dolls wear blue dresses and toy cars are green
That's wrong, though. Can you imagine why?

>If you are born a boy you're going to have testosterone in your system, your body is going to develop as a man, if you are girl you'll have estrogen and your body will develop as woman. That is nature and has nothing to do with social construct.
>Let's say that you go for hormone therapy at an early age and you become a passable trap / have reassigning sex surgery, your body still won't be capable of fulfilling its natural function, that is for male to impregnate, and for a woman to have babies. That is nature, not a social construct.
True
>Everything else that you claimed, behavior, habits, traits, listen to some specific music, etc., is how society divides the genders, not because of whim, but because what is desirable is for the individual to fulfill its natural role, not a constructed one, the social construct is for the identification and interaction with the individual.
False. What "natural" role? How does Hello Kitty figure into this? Why does it differ between different societies?
>Science has its limits, but if one day men can have babies and women can impregnate themselves that, my friend, would be a social construct, exactly what you are criticizing here.
How would that be a social construct? Artificial and social aren't the same thing.

Men are more inclined to things and women are more inclined to people. This is true even in newborns, where males will look at a thing for a longer tine than they will a face, while females do the opposite.

>thread about gender again
>"Let's use science to justify my weirdness"

I don't want to know that you are a fucking genderfluid trannie women who loves dolphin's dicks
I fucking want to you fuckers actually talk about real science here