Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by BobbyPhilips, Sep 29, 2015.
I think it is,
Hmm. I wonder what it would look like deconstructed...
What do you mean by gender? I take it as primarily biological, anything social follows that.
That's pretty much the dictionary definition of gender.
Can you expand on why you think this?
Whilst there a 2 sexes the identifiable differences between men and women seem to be determined by social norms and expectations rather than anything innate,
What an imaginative idea for a thread. Cool avatar.
Not when I last looked.
How do you determine for sure someone's gender when you see/meet them, other than by the societal conventions they subscribe to ?
Do you not think the physical strength differences between the genders played a part in establishing those social norms and expectations? What about the usual animal instinct for the female to protect and look after the offspring? Can we discount that instinct now we live in cities?
Lumps and bumps can be a give away. They come first everything else follows.
I see DoY has given more substance to what I was getting at.
Some women are much stronger and have a physique normally regarded as maciline.
Do men not look after their offspring? You would protect yours, would you not?
I think it hard to differentiate. The stone-age norms need not apply.
I'm re-reading Philippa Gregory's "Perfectly Correct", which unlike her historical books is an absolute farce about the University of Suffix, in which feminist belief disintegrates into, well, normality as far as it exists in books. I just got to the bit where the protesting women go top-less into the Science/Industry faculty. I think I gave up dangly ear-rings in my early 20's however, this book takes a very wry view on whether or not gender is a social construct. A perfect example of why doing is better than philosophy where it comes to any gender difference, and there are plenty of men and women who do very little, and many who do, which is really the point. Not a gender issue at all, but one of motivation.
That is to say sex and gender are the same thing.
If men and women had the same dress and cosmetic conventions, it would often be difficult to determine their gender.
Lumps and bumps can easily be hidden or augmented. People are different heights, strengths, have different body proportions etc. The fact that we look at someone's appearance (and perhaps also behaviour) and decide based on that alone whether they fall into a masculine or feminine category, shows that assessment of a person's gender is based heavily on societal constructs IMO.
80/20. The 20 is the expectations your social group put on you, but depending on that socail group, |i think that original % either wears away or gets stronger.
Lumps and bumps are the result of hormones which also determine physiology and biochemistry to some degree, they are the outward expression of structural and genetic differences, behaviour is also a result of genetics.
That's why I asked what you define as gender - if you define it as a societal construct based on sex, then there is no discussion give the question in the OP.
Aw bless! You sound like my Dad c1974, watching TOTP, trying to determine how anyone from Nazareth or Golden Earring could be defined on the basis of sex alone.
Yeh Dad, as I didn't say, would I [have consensual sexual intercourse] with that? Well yes; it's a bloke then
Edited: am yet then thinking, had the same question applied to Adam Ant, the answer would have been errrr...no thanks.
Did he consider gender a social construct or that gender conventions innate?
Having a look is usually a pretty reliable guide as to someone's sex and (less reliably) gender.