Is gender 100% bullshit? Or not

[speakingwoman]

Big question!

So, biology is a stable reality (I have been reading the well-written Hands Across the Aisle site)

Some bits of biology are visible and tangible e.g. our wider hips.

That changes some behaviours (our gait is different to men’s gaits).

And our hormone mix is different.

Where does biology stop and gender start?

Acknowledging kyanite

Haven’t RTFT but I do believe men (on average) have much higher sex drives than women (on average). And that this influences other elements of their personality

I thinking most other gender stuff is nonsense though

See you say " most other gender stuff"

I would argue that all gender stuff is nonsense , and the the thing you pull out related to sex drive is not gender at all...it's sex. There are differences between the sexes that are simply related to biological reproduction.

I would argue that all gender stuff is nonsense , and the the thing you pull out related to sex drive is not gender at all...it's sex. There are differences between the sexes that are simply related to biological reproduction.
All we are is what we do, right? So we are basically discussing behaviour patterns, personalities and general trends. Gender is just a rubbish way of doing that. Nobody is really a blank slate, their biology, family, culture, genetics, upbringing, opportunities, etc etc shape them both actively and passively, and the individual retains the ability to choose how to behave, how to react, and who to listen to in adulthood.
Sex differences in terms of rights, protections and laws need to focus on vulnerability in order to achieve justice. If the law was changed overnight to allow a person insulted by another to punch the insult-giver square in the face, just once, think of how it would affect different groups. Young men would be punched most often, by other young men. Their volatility in general is in itself a vulnerability. The new law would adversely affect them. Women in abusive relationships would suffer, for obvious reasons. They have an obvious vulnerability. So we wouldn't vote for the party that promised to make "Stand your argument ground" a thing. It's an obviously terrible idea.
I'm being facetious but I think part of the reason sex-based protections are seen as unimportant by the young and impressionable is that they don't see women's vulnerability. It's an enormous positive, but also obviously a negative, as we have allowed them to unlearn fear and to forget or ignore their survival instinct. I know people who genuinely believe there are women stronger than men. It just isn't true, yet so many people believe it. Fallon Fox was beaten by a woman, true. But the overlap between elite female strength athletes and the average untrained man aged 18-60 is tiny.
What scared me most this week was the Der Spiegel link about paedophiles in the German Green Party. If they can convince people women are stronger than men, they can convince them children can actively and joyfully consent to sex with grown men, after all, to suggest otherwise is unequal, ageist, patronising. Now we all feel revulsion towards paedophiles because of their predatory nature, because they cause pain, physical damage and ruin the innocence of youth. We recognise the vulnerability of children and in 99% of circles, it is never in question. I feel we need to remind the public of the sex-based vulnerability of females also, in a pragmatic and unemotional way, so that they retain the basic facts of biology in the same way they understand gravity.

I like the idea of starting from this: “There is no innate or biological gender. Gender is purely society's expectations based on our biology. We have biological differences.”

There is no innate or biological gender = the blank slate - which means the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves.

But logically, not everything about gendered behaviour can be socially constructed and is appealing because it gives an illusion of control. There are behaviours specific to females (some aspects of 'feminity') that will inevitably be biologically based - not ALL but some. Of course consciousness has allowed us to adapt, have apparent free will, be influenced by culture but they exist alongside our biological heritage

Ignoring our biological heritage gives an incomplete picture.

There are biological differences between the sexes that relate to reproduction. Sex.

There are biological genes that impact lots of our behaviour.

No behaviour beyond simple sexual reproduction can be identified as being innate and belonging to one sex more than the other. that means there is no biological gender

There is biology. Sex is part of that. Gender is not.

I'd say the grey area is with hormones as men with more oestrogen are often less hairy and women with more testosterone are more easily agitated/alert.

But otherwise biology is what we were born with and is tangible physically and observed inherently.

Whereas gender is a social construct that is based on environment, cultural upbringing, societal attitudes and situation based on how they are perceived at a young age.

The trouble arises when the gender that is assigned to a sex doesn't fit the social construct.

There is biology. Sex is part of that. Gender is not

It would probably help if you defined exactly what you mean by gender. And the behaviours that are associated with gender but not sex

There is biology. Sex is part of that. Gender is not

Yes. Sex is all about biology.

Gender is an expression of sex based on an individual person's idea of what sex looks like.

This is where we get hair, makeup and clothes for example if you are talking about female gender. But actually a female can have the exact same hair, makeup and clothes as a male and still be female.

Haven't read any of the thread but my knowledge, experience and sense of self says yes, gender is 100% bullshit foisted upon us in an attempt to keep us in "our place" in the patriarchal idea of where the power lies.

Therehasbeen a requirement for violence and almost all species who are currently in existence have a form of violent behaviour (not always by the male)

I think you're right. An ability to be violent would have been necessary to our survival. I don't disagree with what you've written - I certainly don't have any authority to do so. As far as I understand it, it's impossible to really pinpoint anything as primal as violence as being completely innate or something which completely comes from society though. It's too complex. I am not up to date with all of the research in this area, though.

I can define what may be caused by sex. Possibly.

like women give birth and breastfeed and men don't. I think also That means women tend to want to close to baby in the early years. ( even if they don't breastfeed, the need to stay close is there more often / strongky than the father )

Women's sex drive is driven in part by the want for Security which I think is stronger in women because childbirth is a vulnerable time..

I am unclear if that underlies women taking fewer risks which tends to happen but may be learnt. Or it may be made stronger through learning.

That may be it.

I can't define what is meant by gender beyond " anything not sex that is attributed to a sex" because that varies by time and culture and is a big set. Driving behaviours. Violence. Painting skills. Colour preference. Empathy. Dancing ability. Creativity

In those definitions of gender, what I’m probably trying (badly) to say is they have a biological underpinning and much of it is about reproduction and then also our ability to be conscious which allows us to deviate

clothes, hair, make up
there is a requirement for us to be able to confidently distinguish between a male and female. The poster above has said a male can wear female clothes etc and I agree but look at the trans issues that are happening right now. We are asking people to say that it is ok not to be able to confidently assess whether someone is male or female. This might be fine in many circumstances but not when we have to consider some male traits, such as violence.

That’s one very basic part of clothes, hair, makeup, but then there is also the reproduction part of this. If you even think to yourself, you DO need to advertise your sexuality in some way. So visible obvious signals are what every species has to do. So our external decoration becomes relevant to attract the mate you require.

I think culture comes in somewhere here. The obvious female distinguishes...breasts...are now enlarged and placed on show. Capitalism has taken that to the extreme - there’s money to be made exploiting this particular biological desire

Hair has different markers in different cultures...ours happens to be long = women, short = male. This changes over time and place. Again, capitalism exploits this human behaviour.

And so on

I think there are some very base levels of human behaviour which subtly differ in males and females, all tied to the survival of the species, which culture is able to manipulate but essentially they all come from the same mould

I am in agreement with gendercritter on this

Therehasbeen a requirement for violence and almost all species who are currently in existence have a form of violent behaviour (not always by the male)”

Puts yet another spin on it!