Really? I'm pretty sure a large part of any discrimination against women is due to their physical sex, not the way they identify.
That's only a very recent distinction, and still a contentious one. According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender) and the OED (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/gend...), it's far from clear.
What evidence do you have that identity doesn't originate in biology?
I'm well-aware of the existence of transpeople, but I'm not ready to conclude that gender dysphoria doesn't originate in biology. There's more to a person's biology than their genitalia.
That's the crazy thing about stereotype threat and related psychological phenomena: you can manipulate the same people to perform better or worse simply by manipulating their perception of the situation. Thus the effect really can't be about biological sex. Check out reducingstereotypethreat.org for a comprehensive rundown of studies.
The idea that gender is separate from biological sex is very recent. When you examine its origin you find that it comes from Foucault and Judith Butler. Both were gay. It's unsurprising to me that that idea would come from that lineage. If you are gay you are confronted with a difference between what you feel and what society tells you from a very early age. In general straight people do not have that issue and would never consider drawing that distinction unless the concept is introduced to them.
This seems both unjust and irrational.
Why? As a rule of thumb, humans start thinking about something when it doesn't work for them. And for gays in particular, the traditional structuring of gender roles has been deeply problematic, indeed even today there are many countries where gay sex is illegal. So it's no surprise that homosexuals have though more deeply about gender and its relationship with sexuality than those for whom it works.Foucault is intersting. In contrast, Butler's work is weak. She really doesn't have a meaningful handle on the relationship between sex and gender.
That's not how I read it. I read it as, Foucault and Butler's idea is unproven because it's based off of their anecdotal experience rather than based off of any scientific evidence.
Perhaps near-future advances in genetics and neurology will expand our definition of biological sex to explain gender identity. In that case, our current sex vs. gender distinction would simply be another way of saying "we don't understand how this works yet". There's a lot of this "transitional stuff" in science history, where we have credible anecdotal evidence that our previous understanding is wrong but don't yet know how to coherently explain it. (See: Greek attempts to explain the nature of matter; the infamous cholera map by John Snow; etc.)
That doesn't make the "transitional stuff" wrong: an idea doesn't have to have solid theoretical underpinnings to have merit. It does, however, mean we should continue searching for an explanation.
gender is more relevant than sex
No it's not.The underlying biological reality is that humans reproduce sexually. All gender roles are social elaborations and heuristics that evolve(d) to regulate and structure the biological reproduction of humans. All gender roles directly or indirectly refer to the sexual binary between males (= can father children) and females (= can give birth to children). E.g. the concept of Kathoey doesn't make sense except as an inversion of the biology-based distinction between males and females. After all, a substantial part of the Kathoey lifestyle is to look and act exactly like a biological female (including permanent genital modification), and have sex with a biological male. Clearly that's an extreme identification with the biological binary, except from an unusual angle. By imitating biological females and their conventional gender roles, by trying to look exactly like somebody who can give birth to children, the Kathoey reinforces the binary between male and female.
stereotype threat
It's deeply questionable that "stereotype threat" actually exists. The 'studies' that claim its existence are methodologically dubious. intersex is considered a very normal
To a quantitative biologist, maybe. But that's the wrong point of reference, as they don't make mainstream culture.Sexual reproduction so as to perpetuate humanity is the single most important function a society executes. All human culture directly or indirectly relates to this task. One of the key tasks in this context is the choice of partner(s) whom to reproduce with. Alas, not any two humans can reproduce together. Indeed, an exact determination who can successfully reproduce with whom is still not possible in 2016, although we are much better at this task than say 1000 years ago.
Given that we can't predict mate compatibility perfectly, humanity needs heuristics to make this decision efficiently. The following heuristics are being used in practise:
- Divide humans into two, male and female, based on the shape of their genitalia.
- Have sex with members of the opposite group.
Humans use additional heuristics for deciding with whom to mate, e.g. social status, age, but the male/female binary is by a large margin the most important.
As you correctly point out, not all humans neatly fall into the genital-shape based classification between. But it doesn't matter, because the heuristic works so well that humans can reproduce successfully by ignoring those outliers. That means outliers must be infrequent enough (say > 99% fit the binary).
I can't overemphasise this: the heuristic has been extremely successful.
The very concept intersex makes sense only in contradistinction from binary normalcy. To see this, consider the fact that most humans have 10 fingers, but not all. Yet, there is no socially relevant concept of 'interhanded' people, no pressure groups, nobody claims to have been born with the wrong number of fingers, no finger reassignment surgery etc. That's because the number of fingers is not all that important.
In the future we might have a refined classification, as our understanding of human reproduction has improved immeasurably in the last century. But note that a finer classification still relates to biological facts about human bodies. It would probably be something along the lines of
- Can give birth to children, i.e. falls in the category woman, despite non-standard genitalia.
- Can father children, i.e. falls in the category man, despite non-standard genitalia.
- Can neither father children, nor give birth to children.
In other words, it would be a refinement of the male/female binary.
The problem with that is that most of the time the group you're perceived to belong to and what groups you identify with do have everything to do with your "equipment".
This is a very broad statement which is trivial to prove false. Look at powerlifting: men perform better than women, and testosterone plays a well-understood role in this performance. This is a function of sex, not gender. And while it's most numerically provable and obvious in powerlifting, this is true for a lot of sports.
At a more fundamental level, I question whether the gender/sex divide is scientifically valid. One can point to the example of a transman and say, "Their female sex didn't align with their male gender at birth" but that seems like a very surface assessment; it's also possible that chemicals released by (for example) their brain or pituitary, are causing the dysphoria they experienced. Are we to claim that ovaries and testicles are sex, and the brain and pituitary is gender? Or might it make more sense to broaden our understanding of sex to realize that genitalia aren't the only organs regulating sex, and instead say that the transperson wasn't born female, but was instead born with a mixture of sex characteristics, and only the most obvious sex characteristics were female, while the characteristics which more fundamentally defined their identity were male.
In a larger sense, this seems related to the categorization error of separating mind and body as if they are two different things, a separation which seems more clearly false.
NOTE: Please don't construe anything I say as negative toward transpeople. I think humans have an inherent, fundamental right to define their identities and modify their bodies in any way they choose. People don't need excuses or justification to exercise that right. Certainly we don't need an abstract distinction between sex and gender to let people dress and socialize with people the way they want or change their bodies.
That about sums up the usual definitions, yes.
Take a look at this chart: http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/DeadliftStandards....
Your deadlift of 220lbs puts you in the "Advanced" category assuming your body weight is somewhere in the middle. By comparison, I'm deadlifting 360lbs at 185lbs, and that's not even close to "Advanced", I'm well within the "Intermediate" category. For me to be considered advanced, I would have to lift 440lbs, literally twice what you're lifting. That's not a difference explained by psychology.
Besides, we can easily remove the factor you're talking about: there are plenty of sports which don't have the social factors you're describing. There are tons of women who run, for example. In the 60 meter dash, the top male performer, Maurice Greene, finished in 6.39s, more than half a second faster than the top female performer, Irina Privalova, at 6.92s. A half second might not seem like a lot, but consider that Privalova's time wouldn't place her even in the top 25 of male atheletes. [1] Similarly, Paula Radcliffe's 2:15:25 marathon record doesn't wouldn't put her even in the top 10 (I suspect there are hundreds of men whose personal record beats her time, but Wikipedia only shows the top 10).[2]
Do you really think Irina Privalova or Paula Radcliffe is just being actively helpless?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_metres#Top_25_performers [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon#All-time_top_ten_athl...