NBC are quoting a police chief in Nashville...

[FusionChefGeoff]

That's all I'm saying - Google is your friend and it's in the byline.

The reporting on this is a prime example of how gender ideology is the enemy of clarity (which is perhaps part of its aim). We are being told that Hale was angry with her parents for not accepting her being gay and trans. What does 'gay' mean in this context? The 'trans' changes the meaning of the 'gay'. It's generally assumed that Hale was a lesbian, but if people really believe that she was trans then that automatically means she was straight (by genderist logic). We are told she had issues with the conservative Christianity of the school, and TRAs are arguing that she was driven off the rails by societal transphobia. But isn't the actual problem here someone being told that lesbianism is a wrong (something that religious conservatives and TRAs would agree on) and becoming completely warped by internalised lesbophobia, of which the trans identity was a manifestation?

@MalagaNights

You think women get sociology lessons before they wear makeup??

If a woman grew up in isolation untouched by society, do you think she would ever wear make up?

Socialisation is an unconscious process.
The behaviours from socialisation are unconscious and many then claim freely chosen.

You seem to be adding a new aspect of 'conscious choice' to gendered behaviour which I haven't seen before.

Pressed send too soon. And if a man grew up in the same conditions, would he be any more or less likely to wear make up?

Nope.

I think some behaviours are more culturally linked and some more biological.

And that's there's a difference between behaviour and sex.

I think behaviour linked to sex whether cultural or biological is what we refer to as gender.

Violence is not sex but it is a gendered behaviour linked to biology and socialisation.

Oh my fucking god how is this so hard for you.

GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

SEX IS INNATE, BIOLOGICAL REALITY.

TESTOSTERONE IS LINKED TO SEX.

But yes you are right, we need to understand and accept biological differences of sex, the conclusion being that women have their own sports categories and safeguarding from men when in vulnerable situations.

400 years ago men wore wigs and painted their faces. Then only women did. Then in the 80s men did again. This could flick back and forth forever because it is a gender idea, a social norm associated with sex, but not caused by sex.

Testosterone levels are not an associated idea, they are a reality. women are not all of a sudden going to start naturally producing male levels of testosterone, and then swap back some decades later. Because it related to biological sex

I think some behaviours are more culturally linked and some more biological.

And that's there's a difference between behaviour and sex.

I think behaviour linked to sex whether cultural or biological is what we refer to as gender.

I think some behaviours are entirely culturally linked (eg makeup, heels) and to me they are what I would describe as gendered behaviours, not sexed ones.

There seems to be a redefinition of gender taking place here that gender are behaviours that only refer to cultural norms and not behaviours linked to biology.
So ruling out violence as a gendered behaviour presumably?

That would be more logically consistent but more closely defining some behaviours as biological, which seems reductive.

I prefer the traditional version as gender being the roles and behaviours associated with sex, and then understanding some are more linked to biology and some more cultural than others.

There's no need to swear and shout at me.

I actually think you cannot see the obvious flaw in your argument despite my attempts to explain, but I'm not swearing at you.

Could you answer this one question for me as I think it may help unstick this:

Do you think violence is a gendered behaviour?

think some behaviours are more culturally linked and some more biological.

And that's there's a difference between behaviour gender and sex.

yes of course there is a difference between 'behaviour and sex' -they are different words with different meanings!

Violence is not sex but it is a gendered behaviour linked to biology and socialisation.

This is the crux of the discussion. How much is violence related to biological sex, and how much is violence 'gendered' - in that men, or more commonly adolescent men, perform it in order to be 'manly'.

All violence linked to testosterone is a matter of biology. All violence linked to male socialisation/expectations is gendered.

In the case in hand of Hale, we are wondering how much, if at all, is this linked to her taking testosterone, and how much is linked to her performing 'man gender'.

I was swearing generally, not at you. apolgies if it upset you, I swear alot, don't take it personally

And yes you are right we are arguing over definitions here, and gender is becoming a word harder and harder to define as it is so often being conflated with sex. Who is even right anymore?

Puy simply:

I think there are
gendered behaviours
And
sex behaviours

Gendered behaviours are a result of societys expectations, biological sexed behaviours are due to biology.

Sometimes the line is very clear - menstruation is a biological process/behaviour. That is not gender. (Even though some transwomen on tiktok are trying to perform it!)

Violence... Is both sex and gender. To some extent ot must be as a result of being male, to some extent it is defined by society and cultural influence.

I think it is important that gender has a distinct different meaning to the word 'behaviour' because otherwise it ceases to define anything of itself.

You seem to be arguing behaviours linked to sex are not 'gender' is that right?

So violent behaviour by men is not gender?
Less aggressive women is not gender?

That's just biology?

Or a mixture of both biology and culture?

If it's a mixture is it 'gender'?

I thought gender was roles and behaviours linked to sex?

Some of which will be biologically linked some more cultural in my opinion.
So can't be socially constructed.

If however you are arguing only the behaviours we can prove are purely socially constructed, are 'gender' then your argument does become logically consistent, but more dangerous for women I'd say.

There are two types of gendered behaviour. Those with a biological root and those which are totally socially constructed.

Propensity to violence has a biological root - testosterone makes men more violent (on average) than women. It appears that women who take testosterone also become more violent.

Things like wearing make up are totally socially constructed.

Some physical attributes of men and women are also 'gendered' in the same way as propensity to violence - height for example. Men are (on average) taller than women. But as with vioent behaviour there is a huge overlap with some women being very tall and some men very short.

So I think saying every attribute which is not a distinct difference between the sexes (with no overlap between the sexes) is due to socially constructed gender leaves us with nowhere to put physical attributes or behaviours in which males and females differ due to the biological difference between the sexes.

The highest murder rate in the world is in Honduras, the lowest is in Singapore.

Men murder at x10 the rate of women consistently, regardless of which country/society they grow up in. So a man in Singapore is x10 more likely to murder than a woman in Singapore, and the same applies in Honduras. This is biological.

However, a woman in Honduras is x50 more likely to murder than a man in Singapore due to the society she has grown up in. This is the social impact.

Figures are from that episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage episode I linked to before (about 12 mins in). The episode is from 2016 so may be a bit out of date but the principal applies.

monsteramunch · Today 09:46 · Today 09:46

You think women get sociology lessons before they wear makeup??

If a woman grew up in isolation untouched by society, do you think she would ever wear make up?

monsteramunch · Today 09:47
Pressed send too soon. And if a man grew up in the same conditions, would he be any more or less likely to wear make up?

I don’t think either the woman or man would be more or less likely to wear makeup under these conditions,(Adam and Eve first two humans condition?) but I do believe that they most likely would not be identical in their behaviour and not just if the woman gave birth.

If there were more than the two of them I believe the differences between the women and men would become more and more exaggerated, however they expressed it, through clothes or decorations.

This would be a societal norm. Being formed.

In my opinion, however, the way humans use their skills to create an enhanced sense of the differences between male and female through superficial markers may well nevertheless be biologically driven.

As to which would be most likely to fight or kill, male or female,apart from to protect their baby, I think the pattern of it being something males are more prone to do would be evident.

Somewhere on one of these threads someone has put statistics showing the 98% male proclivity persists around the world.

Does do not usually behave like stags, mares like stallions etc either

I found that article a difficult read. A journalist is taught to always ask : Who , where , what , when , and why as the means to investigate and report on any news story.

But this intrepid reporter falls at the first hurdle : Who. And spends the rest of the piece playing Hide and Seek with the truth.

I think it is important that gender has a distinct different meaning to the word 'behaviour' because otherwise it ceases to define anything of itself

I agree with this and I thought it was behaviour and roles associated with sex.

We don't seem to have a shared understanding of what gender is.

See @OldCrone above who provides a different definition.

I personally think not defining sex by behaviour is vital, but allowing space for the reality of sex differences linked to biology is also vital, the most helpful direction for women.

But it's still not accepted by many feminists as the immediate 'offense' on this thread to discussing this, beyond the negative aspects of masculinity (as linked to male biology).

Ok, my deiniftion of gender is - the social/cultural expectations of one's sex

Sex is the biological reality of that sex.

Gender does not exist in animals, they merely act off their biology. A bull is not performing what it thinks a bull should do, it is acting instinctively from its biology. A high testosterone bull will be larger and more aggressive than one with lower testosterone.

Go to a farmer and ask what gender their animals are and they will laugh at you. Instead you ask them what sex, male or female.

If gender only exists with the human animal then I would say it is a phenomenon that is associated with conscioussness and ego.

Human behaviors are due to either gender or sex, or a combination of.

Gender does not describe sex related biological process like menstruation.

There are two types of gendered behaviour. Those with a biological root and those which are totally socially constructed.
A definition by @OldCrone

Separating gender into biological root and socially constructed.

This is logical and admits not all gendered behaviour is socially constructed.

But what is gender then?

Is it behaviour and norms associated with sex?
Or only socially constructed behaviours?
Or both?
Or only conscious behaviours?

Surely it's obvious 'gender is a social construct' doesn't cut it anymore?

OldCrone · Today 10:08
Things like wearing make up are totally socially constructed

Yes, but the urge to exaggerate a difference between men and women is not in my opinion.

A house may be a social construct, the urge to build some sort of protected shelter is not.

that's just classic invisible women syndrome, forgetting they exist. the fact that transmen still suffer from it should tell them everything they need to know about how much male privilege they've actually gained but it can be hard to spot if they keep you sufficiently distracted.

This is where is starts to make less sense for me -

There are two types of gendered behaviour. Those with a biological root and those which are totally socially constructed.

ok so now we have 'biology gender' and 'gender gender' ?

Gender needs a distinct definiton or it becoems a pointless word.

Then if we have gender behaviour, what exactly is that describing, and how is it different from sexed behaviour

Then we break it down to - what is the dofference between s'sex' and 'gender'.

And this is where I make my clear distinction - sex is due to biology, gender is related to social expectations. In this sense we have a vlear meaning for sexed behaviour and gendered behaviour.

This is how gender becomes a social construct, because there could arguabley be a society where men wear dresses and high heels, women wear trousers and walk with a swagger, where women talk loudly and men are. Manly if they giggle lots.

Or you could have the total opposite.

But you never have the oposite of men giving birth and women getting erections.

You've redefined gender as only the socially constructed behaviours.

Which is fine (but I haven't seen that before) but then you have to prove which behaviours are purely socially constructed, and most are probably a combination to varying degrees.

Also when you start ascribing some behaviours to pure biology it becomes narrow and prescriptive and leads to...so if you are an aggressive female you are male etc. At least logically.

Behaviour has to be viewed separately from sex and this is what I thought gender was: Behaviours and roles associated with sex.
Without a causal labelling.

Yes, and I suppose this is the ongoing discussion... How much is something affected by a biological or instinctual reality, how much is it socially constructed?

What link might high heels have with biology?

Why do men want to appear 'hard'?

Why do women want to have long eyelashes?

Are women actually worse drivers? If so, why?

And this is what we can endllessly pick apart.

BlessedKali do you therefore not regard male violence as a gendered behaviour?

Do you view male violence as part of being the male sex? And so not gendered behaviour?