Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders.
Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.
> Gender [...] involves a set of behaviors and norms that shape how men and women act, prescribe how they ought to be, and specify what it means to be a man or a woman
> ...Unlike in any other animal, gendered behavior in humans is wildly different across cultures
Sex needs a definition too:
> Sex appeared to be purely, simply genetic—until 1966, when a French zoologist discovered that the rainbow agama lizard did, in fact, rely on an environmental factor to determine sex
...no need to regurgitate the "anti-woke" talking points on this one.
Like everything else, humans have layered social and cultural constructs on top of sex and gender. For example, cultures have different ways of marking the transition from childhood to adulthood. But the fact that e.g. a bar mitzvah is a cultural construct doesn’t mean that the behavioral and social changes accompanying puberty aren’t rooted in biology.
> The assertion that gender is “socially constructed”
Who asserted this? A straw man?
It is fundamentally different.
The range of behaviors that Humans have is fundamentally far, far more broad than animals, because we are much more intelligent creatures. Example from a few thousand years ago: Farming, Cooking food. More recent examples: Fixing cars, doing taxes. Most of what Humans spend their time doing these days are things that animals don't do in nature.
Human cultures like to ascribe gender roles to most of these things, but in reality most of what people do doesn't have any implicit gender role associated with it, since it's pretty far removed from biological functions at this point.
Even in nature, the things people and animals do doesn't always neatly align with gender roles. For example, child rearing or even bearing live young is sometimes done by the male, even though it's usually a female gender role.
What's different between us and animals (as is usually the case) is our big thinky brains, and the things which follow on from that.
I suspected as such. In my life, I've often heard this point trotted out to justify "Why men/women are good/bad at X thing", which is why I was asking what they were getting at, specifically. Even if they weren't getting at that, their comment doesn't add much by itself.
In fact, very few behaviors are specific to only humans.
We aren’t that special. At the end of the day, we’re just very clever mammals.
This is a difference in scale not a difference of kind.
It's not an argument about scale. "Dogs Playing Poker" is not based on anything real.
I am positing that, in fact, most of how we spend our time as human beings (such as arguing on YC news threads) is behavior which does not exist in the rest of the animal kingdom.
That is not an argument about scale as you say, it is an argument about the type of behavior.
It would be interesting if male birds learnt how to put on more successful mate displays by watching other males, or if birds set their standards by those of the opposite sex they grew up around. Humans obviously do this, and I wouldn't be surprised if other primates did too, but which other animals might?
The reason to bring it up was in the comment you replied to. This reaction seems very knee jerk.
Conservatives trying to use biology to argue that gender and sex are fully equivalent is akin to 19th and 20th century attempts to use evolutionary theory to support racist social policies. It's not only wrong morally, it's bad science.
The question isn't "is gendered behavior rooted in biology?" it's "how much / to what degree?" and the honest answer is, we don't really know with confidence, especially when it comes to humans. The fact that Western culture seems to be currently undergoing a Cambrian explosion when it comes to gender expression contributes to how hard it is to answer this question. Unfortunately that's also why people are anxious and waging culture wars about it.
Ironically, the social changes in gender expression you’re referring to are actually premised on the opposite of the assertion you’re making. They posit that gender expression is biologically rooted—because otherwise it would be within the purview of society to regulate it as a matter or culture or individual expression.
My entire point is that’s the morally and legally correct framework, because we shouldn’t be using scientific determinism to make decisions about how individuals with free will and rights can express themselves. The article is correct to have the disclaimer, in this light.
By contrast, what you call the “mainstream liberal interpretation” is the radical position. It rejects society’s right and prerogative to impose norms and regulate voluntary self-expression. While a minority of conservatives will resist any changes to biblical categories, what generates widespread reaction across multiple groups is the feeling that liberals are using sexual minorities as a vehicle for loosening restrictions on voluntary sexual behavior and gender expression.
You’re correct the two positions lead to the “same” outcome—but only initially. Eventually, a conflict arises between liberals, who want sanction for a broader range of voluntary self expression, and gay or trans people, who often simply want to fit in as best as they are able. You’re seeing that conflict of interest play out right now. Bostock, which granted equal civil rights to trans people, was immediately accepted by the majority of conservatives. That caused liberals to pivot to causes like drag shows involving voluntary non-conformance, which generated immediate backlash and opposition. Liberals can’t tell the difference—to them, it’s self expression, whether it’s voluntary or biologically rooted. But to everyone else, it makes a huge difference whether someone is thumbing their nose at society’s rules, or trying to exist in society the way God made them.
Conservative groups have sued to get religious exemptions to Bostock (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/religious-g...) which is particularly pernicious given the number of religious organizations that operate large employers like hospitals.
Just one Tucker Carlson clip (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6324164359112) shows how American conservatives are continually frothing at the mouth about trans rights. There is a related wave of anti-trans laws being pushed through by conservative elected officials at the state level right now. They're specifically attacking trans children and school policy, as the soft underbelly that gets conservative parents riled up for a culture war and which is legally more vulnerable.
You can understand the “culture war” by applying your own description of the “liberal interpretation.” As you aptly summarized, liberals don’t care about biological determination because they believe in people being free to express themselves without being limited to traditional norms and categories. It was when liberals started to advance that view—for example by promoting drag shows, which are about cis men dressing up as women as a form of self expression—that they triggered the culture war.
I don’t think anyone claims it is completely deterministic.
But it is very significant, to the extent that is may as well as be completely for purposes of discussion or publishing papers.
While there are female lions that act in an atypical manner, the vast majority act similarly enough to say something like “female lions hunt for the pride” without need an asterisk.
The problem is there are a ton of people who try to use that fact to justify forcing everyone to fit the typical trend. "Most people are right hand dominant, so everyone should learn to write right handed or be punished" is the milder historical example. The worst case scenario is "it's legally defensible to murder someone because they don't conform to expected gender roles" https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/member-...
Do you know this to be true for the set of *all* penguins? Or just most of them?
So, when we say "humans have X," it doesn't mean every single human has X. Rather, it means that a significant enough number of humans have X for us to consider it a characteristic of our species.
I mean of all possible mammals to choose as an example for your point (presuming in good faith that your actual point was as stated), penguin is an unusual choice. Maybe you just happened to have penguins in mind as an example of a mammal, I don't know.
Oh, and by the way: penguins aren't mammals! Though I'm sure someone has already pointed that out, or at least I hope they did.
For starters why are single sex sports and single sex changing rooms so controversial?
Similarly if gender and sex are entirely distinct. Does that not mean that the trans community is the strongest supporter of traditional gender roles? Afterall what does it mean to change gender if differing social attitudes to gender ought be extinguished?
It's introduction and parallel with sex means the article makes a wider point about a difference between sex and gender. I agree this article could have been written better without any mention of gender so as to avoid making an out of scope claim in a pop sci article.
It denies the different "gender roles"
> Does that not mean that the trans community is the strongest supporter of traditional gender roles?
Um yes? That's been a sticking point for quite a while.
Because men are much stronger physically due to genetical differences. Just check out top records in various sports.
(That page has a link to download the PDF if you're interested, but also here's a taster in the form of a book review at the time it was published: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/10/archives/male-and-female-....)
There's an attempt to call „gender“ „socialinė lytis“ (= social sex). But doesn't make it sound like it's anything beyond socially constructed cultural phenomena.
So you...do have a word meaning "transgender?"
That has nothing to do with the word "transgender" existing in their language (which I would bet exists in pretty much any widely-used language these days, most of the time as a borrowed word).
Not sure of their language, but it is the same in russian, with the single word "пол" (pronounced as "pohl") used to refer to sex/gender.
The current usage of "gender" was introduced by American psychologist John Money in the latter half of the 20th century.
It's popularity in common speech was accelerated by "sex" becoming a synonym to "copulation," causing "gender" being used as a polite alternative.
--
But how is gender actually defined? Even now, the Oxford Dictionary: "gender: the male sex or the female sex"
Behaviour and norms used to be called 'manners'. Men bow, women courtesy. Princes and princesses.
Abstracting out a 'gender norm' across all cultures is a doomed exercise. There's too many different tones (genders) trying to be contained in the one song.
The vast majority of western humanity fits in man/woman straight spiritual manners.
Bikeshedding over gender definitions is something worth forgetting from the past ten years.
Let the third and fourth and fifth 'gender norms' be what they may.
Could you please re-read the article and at least absorb the complexity of sex and biology in nature in general? At least be a bit amazed how little we seem to grasp about reproductive processes even on a biological level. And then maybe even feel the need a little to reflect how the article might mean that you're not living in such "sad times" but (maybe) the opposite.
I think it’s just a shiri’s scissor [0] to draw energy away from productivity.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
No, it is just a consequence of complex reality butting up against a "common sense" (including the quote marks) derived from incorrectly assuming that words accurately and unambiguously carve up reality.
If biologists instead used a different common definition such as "female == able to get pregnant, otherwise male" then birds would be all be male, and seahorses wouldn't be associated with the sentence "weird biology fact: the males get pregnant!"
See also: "There's no such thing as a fish", and "how many moons does the Earth have?"
Going a step further I found this: >Depending on the group, different mating types are often referred to by numbers, letters, or simply "+" and "−" instead of "male" and "female", which refer to "sexes" or differences in size between gametes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_type
So it does seem to be a strict definition and anything outside of the strict definition is given an alternate identification scheme.
All individuals of this snake are female (presumably 'female' here is defined relative to other snakes) and reproduce parthenogenetically (sic?). By your definition, these wouldn't have a sex at all, presumably.
You're describing anisogamy. Large males are sexually selected for in elephant seals because they can fight off other males, but small males are sexually selected for in spiders for they can mate with the female quickly while avoiding being eaten.
Your abstraction ignores all the sterile men and women too, by the way. That's because it is a particularly bad one.
You're the one who wrote:
> Mammals on the other hand have males that impregnate the females.
We're all saying "that's not a very useful definition".
Biology is messy, the boundaries are messy, the words we use are merely for our own benefit to simplify a messy and complex reality.
"Common definition"? I don't think so. If it was my post-menopausal wife would now be a man
I very much doubt that common-sense folks "assum[e] that words accurately and unambiguously carve up reality" either. Is it likely that a grown-up has never had a discussion about whether something was blue or green, or whether something is a fruit or vegetable?
I didn't say it was a good definition :)
In fact, the very point you're making here is also commonly brought up whenever someone uses this common definition to try to argue against trans issues, which is how I know it's commonly used.
I rather hopped that me saying "birds would be all be male" would be a hint that I didn't hold this definition in high regard.
> whether something is a fruit or vegetable?
Tom-ah-to, to-may-to, but either way I really need to figure out how to use it in a fruit salad.
Sure, almost everyone has had such an argument; but I've noticed many tend to say "it's common sense" and stop listening from then on.
How would we know? Are we able to communicate with animals yet?
> [...] peacocks still do not have genders. And the reason is that peacocks do not have culture.
[1] https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/
I suspect to some extent you could argue this either way for social insects, however; is their 'society' so biologically programmed in that the pseudo-gender identities it _appears_ to create don't count?
There are also some primates which have, if not societies, things which look suspiciously like societies, of course. Still, the statement is probably basically true, with a little fuzziness around the edges.
[0]: https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/
Do people do?
If people did not then you wouldnt really expect any differences that could not be better accounted for by environmental factors.