CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Social Construct- a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice (Dictionary.com)
Gender is definitely a category of people that is kept and developed by society. People are influenced by their society and institutions, so it is clear why people largely accept the gender they were classified to (but of course, not always). Gender roles (which are part of gender) are also clearly socially constructed as well.
Sex is the main determiner of the traditional binary gender classifications. Those binary genders are sufficient and acceptable to almost all human beings on this planet. Those who lie outside the binary classification are an exception, not a norm. Why? Because humans are almost always one of two sexes: XY, and XX. Those sexes biologically determine the hormonal and physical makeup of the person. And those hormonal and chemical compositions have a huge part in determining behaviour.
So yes, gender is what you might call a social "construct", but it has significant and valid biological bases.
People who are outliers to the usual genders, often have genuine medical reason: androgen insensitivity syndrome, for instance, or an abnormal hormone balance. That's fine, and I support fully these peoples' right to choose their gender and have reassignment surgery. Absolutely.
However, it is ludicrous to come at this problem with the idea that non-binary gender is the norm. It is not. It is a rare exception to the established evolutionarily affirmed sexual characteristics and behaviours of binary genders -- archetypal male and female.
Gender is defined in the dictionary as the state of being male or female in a social or cultural context, though I am aware certain sociologists oppose this definition (though, in my experience these are generally sociologists whose primary focuses are feminist theory -- biologists generally don't suffer these arguments). Anyway, there is a very real reason why most people fit neatly into this binary gender classification. A male is usually (not always) predisposed to act out behaviours in accordance with his biological makeup: that he is physically stronger, has higher testosterone levels, has a brain geared more towards aggressive behaviour and less towards empathy than his female counterparts, and other facets which make him likely to act in a particular fashion. This is obviously significant in determining his social behaviours, and thus by extension, his gender.
Look at almost every culture in human history -- males dominate, as well as hunt, fight, wage war, and protect women and children, while women tend to be subordinate, child-rearers, gatherers etc. That's not to say that any of this is right or wrong in a moral sense -- the argument could be made that, nowadays, these roles are somewhat outdated and even morally negative in light of the social desire for equality of the sexes -- but there can be no argument that these are not the most obvious inclinations of males and females, due to biology. Women in most human societies -- before the advent of contraception -- would have been pregnant a significant portion of their lives, and would have spent a significant portion also displaying their very intrinsic, evolutionary desire to feed and nurture children -- it is really only in the last hundred years that this has come into question, and not even in all societies. This tendency to be in motherhood obviously presents a problem if women should want to maintain a food supply and a safe and protected society for their young, which is where males come in. And to a large extent, this is still the norm in many less developed cultures, precisely because these biological differences in strength, size and reproductive capacity compliment each other in this very obvious fashion.
That's not to say there is no scope for argument that these need not be the sole and only two genders, but they are certainly the most significant in terms of numbers. If gender is a construct, it is a construct in the same way as it is for bulls to have horns, thus fight, and sows to have udders, thus feed calves.
The outliers of this normative gender pattern are evolutionary anomolies, in the sense that there is a genetic or biological component which drives them to identify as a gender opposed to their biological sex. This, again, isn't to say it is morally right or wrong to be transgender, it is just a statement of fact: transgenderism is an exceptional circumstance -- some would say a medical or organic psychological condition, for which there is in fact significant scientific basis. Among monozygotic twins where one is transgender, the other is also quite likely to be transgender, while among dizygotic twins, where on is transgender, there is a near universal absence of the same tendency in the other twin. So it an be concluded that there must be a significant genetic component to transgenderism. Mutation presents all sorts of differences in humans' characteristics, but there is again, a very real and valid reason why the human sexes have evolved over time to by-and-large undertake very similar socioreproductive roles. The biggest driver for evolution of all species is the desire to procreate, and successful procreation requires the act of procreation between the two sexes. Transgenders and transexuals, as you know, can't procreate as the gender they identify with.
Anyway, there is a very real reason why most people fit neatly into this binary gender classification.
Because of culture and society.
A male is usually (not always) predisposed to act out behaviours in accordance with his biological makeup: that he is physically stronger, has higher testosterone levels, has a brain geared more towards aggressive behaviour and less towards empathy than his female counterparts, and other facets which make him likely to act in a particular fashion.
There are sexual differences, but much of these are based on society.
Look at almost every culture in human history -- males dominate, as well as hunt, fight, wage war, and protect women and children, while women tend to be subordinate, child-rearers, gatherers etc.
You think that is the exact same today?
but there can be no argument that these are not the most obvious inclinations of males and females, due to biology.
Load of absolute nonsense. These are societal based differences, and largely created by influence from outer factors that have a basis in Human social relations, not biologically based.
Women in most human societies -- before the advent of contraception -- would have been pregnant a significant portion of their lives, and would have spent a significant portion also displaying their very intrinsic, evolutionary desire to feed and nurture children -- it is really only in the last hundred years that this has come into question, and not even in all societies.
We have had a lot of progress in understanding nature and society.
And to a large extent, this is still the norm in many less developed cultures, precisely because these biological differences in strength, size and reproductive capacity compliment each other in this very obvious fashion.
Just remember, you can't derive an is from an ought, plainly fallacious.
If gender is a construct, it is a construct in the same way as it is for bulls to have horns, thus fight, and sows to have udders, thus feed calves.
Not at all, society created gender in the same way we created hierarchy and the state.
This, again, isn't to say it is morally right or wrong to be transgender, it is just a statement of fact: transgenderism is an exceptional circumstance -- some would say a medical or organic psychological condition, for which there is in fact significant scientific basis.
Since gender is societal, transgenderism has a basis in leaving societal norms, not biological norms. An easy way to disprove this is with language. Language came into human society a long time ago, but is not something within us, it is a formation of rhe mind. To say that using language (different term, "transgender", as opposed to typical classification) in a different way than usual is a medical condition of some sort is pure hogwash.
Among monozygotic twins where one is transgender, the other is also quite likely to be transgender, while among dizygotic twins, where on is transgender, there is a near universal absence of the same tendency in the other twin.
That is actually not completely true, but this phenomena can arise. Here is the real question concerning this, How are these similar people (twins) exposed to the social world? Influenced in many similar ways? How do they respond to their environment? Their psychological and biological makeup can possibly influence how they may respond to their environment, which could be something shared by twins. It is like the gay gene, there isn't exactly a found gay gene, but there was a study done that has found a gene that increased the chance of homosexual. It could largely be based on response to a specific social environment.
Now, back to the point, inheriting a language use and perception is complete nonsense, especially in this case.
So it an be concluded that there must be a significant genetic component to transgenderism.
Which would simply not be the case when considering social influence as a major impression on human behavior.
Transgenders and transexuals, as you know, can't procreate as the gender they identify with.
But can with the opposite biological sex. The idea of gender has nothing to do with it, it is society that has made this categorization.
The idea that all human behaviour is socially or culturally determined is the same as to say that a consequence is a cause. It is not the case.
The causes for many of the socioreproductive behaviours inherent in almost ALL societies throughout human history can be adequately explained by material science: genetics, neurology, neurobiology, neuropsychology.
There is no argument about what biological traits will tend to engender, only about the minute details of their manifestations. For instance, it's quite clear that a specimen with a higher organic empathetic capacity will behave in a more empathetic manner. How that manifests specifically (tending to the sick, or rearing young), is really the only point of contention.
People who have two X chromosomes have brains that organically (not just psychologically) function in very different ways to those with XY chromosomes. People who have higher levels of certain hormones have brains that communicate in very different ways than those with lower levels of these hormones.
Women almost always have greater empathetic capacity (as a neurological standard) than men do. Men almost always have a more active amygdala and stronger fight response than women, who tend to have a stronger flee response -- this makes sense because women are physically weaker than men are.
If we were to revert tomorrow to the cold of nature and give up all our comforts, we would soon find a natural equilibrium built upon the relative strengths of each sex, where men fight and women nurture. That's just how higher primates are evolved.
Why do violent people, when tested, show extraordinarily high testosterone levels? Why do mothers and carers tend to show high levels of oestrogen? What effect does excess oestrogen have on male behaviour and physiology (weeping, crying, hyperprolactinemia, milk secretion) or excess testosterone on female behaviour and physiology (increased aggressiveness, facial hair growth, less developed breasts).
There is no "ought" about it. Males and females have by-and-large evolved very specific but different biological traits that tend to naturally engender certain patterns of behaviours. Gender is not something "within us", no, as you rightly point out, but nor is it like language in the sense that language is totally created and learned. We don't learn to have high testosterone levels, thus we don't "learn" to have an intrinsic desire to fight or engage in relatively dangerous behaviours. The behaviours are not entirely "within us", they are most certainly a manifestation of what is within us. The brain is an organic entity, as is the body: the material is necessary for the function. This is why you won't find a eunuch in history who screws the women in the harem, and it's the same reason you won't find a beautiful woman who doesn't drive men mad with lust.
As much as you mightn't like to admit it, our biology drives almost everything we do. Low serotonin drives people to commit suicide all the time. Low dopamine causes people to have no drive to do anything at all. High levels of adrenaline push people to run and exercise and do extreme sports. Oxytocin causes women to want to have babies and men to want to commit. Testosterone causes men to fight and struggle and act out, but also to protect. Cortisol causes people to have heightened sensitivities and drives them to remove themselves from harmful situations. Studies carried out on rats and mice where one group was given testosterone prior to birth and the other not, showed that the former group had muscular features and aggressive behaviours, and domineered over the latter group.
If gender is entirely based upon social and cultural influence, then it is rather remarkable to find that in all human cultures, men are more aggressive than women are. Surely if your purely cultural argument holds any water, you would expect to find a significant number of cultures in history where this was not the case. But no such finding exists. Likewise, in almost all cultures where procreation and mating were concerned, women placed higher priority on status while men placed higher priority on virility and youth.
There are outliers to these patterns, but they are very few and largely far between. They aren't significant enough to be able to say that gender is only learned and not resultant from biological differences whatsoever.
Biology and history tell us conclusively that there are definitive , near-universal characteristics of gender that are similar enough across all cultures and societies for us to conclude that gender roles are -- like in all other species on this planet -- largely intrinsic and uniform. Male lions rarely ever hunt. Female mantis' almost always chew off a male's head after coitus. Male gorillas are ALWAYS the leaders of the group: whether they are Ugandan mountain gorillas or lowland Silverbacks, while females always nurture the young. Male seahorses always look after the children while the females go out looking for another mate. Female chimpanzees invariably mate with the alpha, and screw behind his back. Male peacocks always flash their fail feathers, and females always gravitate towards the male with the largest display.
It's not learned behaviour, it's biological instinct. That humans have the cognitive capacity to question and subvert these natural instincts in no way concludes the argument in favour of the position that gender is entirely learned. Yes, we can force ourselves to act in different ways than our instincts tell us, but when it boils down to it, we are animals with biological characteristics that drive us to behave in certain ways.
The stereotypical human gender roles are stereotypical for a reason: they are near universally adopted across time and space. Just because some humans dislike these roles or don't fit neatly into them, does not make them big bad patriarchy's heinous social deception.
Male: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
Male and female are not simply ideas and not a matter of opinion or self-identification.
And I look very different from many other males, but this is not a question of simply looking different but one of whether "gender" is a creation of society or something natural.
However, just because I call myself a toaster, doesn't mean I'm a toaster. There are only 2 genders. Males and females.
But this just begs the question, it assumes that gender is not a social construct.
A toaster has a physical size and form, so a human mind can't influence there body to be like that, but if gender is a social construct, then gender is just the invention of the human mind and society. So, that would be a false comparison.
I am not talking about biological sex (in case you are mistaken on this).
That's why I asked in what context . You're either born male or female and you can't change the fact even after you go through the whole process. One has XX and the other has XY chromosomes. Are you asking if they are male or female or are you asking what people would like to consider themselves. If it is that latter, then yes, I guess it is a social construct.
Gender is largely a product of sex and the differences between genders are not typically based on societal whim. However, which differences are highlighted, and to what degree, may be a social construct. Some differences are entirely a product of socialization, but certainly not all.
Pretending that there is no social influence would lead one to conclude that a woman wearing jeans is mentally ill. However, pretending that gender is entirely a social construct denies some important biological facts as well as various common differences of behavior arising from those biological differences.
This is because society classifies biological sex and gender identity as corresponding traits.
However, pretending that gender is entirely a social construct denies some important biological facts as well as various common differences of behavior arising from those biological differences.
Are you saying that being feminine and masculine are biological facts or is the quality of separating behavior into masculine and feminine traits into two distinct concepts a social construct?
Are you saying that being feminine and masculine are biological facts or is the quality of separating behavior into masculine and feminine traits into two distinct concepts a social construct?
I'm saying that the qualities that society deems masculine are sometimes a product of social construction, and other times a product of traits deriving from biological facts.
This is because society classifies biological sex and gender identity as corresponding traits.
It's likely that this sometimes applies, but not always. There are traits that are common to males that can be shown to develop before socialization can be considered to have a significant impact. Experiments have shown this for both males and females. From this it follows that we cannot assume socialization for the development of later traits, particularly where experimentation and observation are insufficient to come to a conclusion either way.
There are traits that are common to males that can be shown to develop before socialization can be considered to have a significant impact. Experiments have shown this for both males and females.
The above is one example. It has been some time since I was exposed to the study I was actually thinking of, so I can't find it. But there are other studies along the same lines.
The fact that there are biological factors that cause gender differences isn't new or shocking. If your chromosomes had no impact on your life, if it was all socialization, then chromosomal abnormalities should have no impact, since you will be socialized one way or another. Yet, they do have an impact.