This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't know that "copes" and "identities" are mutually exclusive. Many identities, including some ethnic identities, are copes of some sort. A kid who identifies as Hui in China might well identify as Chinese if he moves to the US if the only other Asian kid in school is Han. Someone who never identified as a member of a group is more likely to do so when circumstances change. And, someone who is told or feels that he does not belong in group X or group Y is going to look for another group to identify with. And, an effeminate guy who is straight is not clearly in any particular prexisting group, so it is hardly surprising that he will end up identifying with a new group of similar people. You are describing >how binary gender identity develops more than you are undermining the legitimacy of the identity.
And, the people you describe -- women with few secondary female characteristics and men lacking in male capabilities and virtues -- clearly don't fit neatly in either gender and almost certainly have attributes of the other gender. You are basically acknowledging that some middle group with attributes of each gender exists, so it seems that you are mostly objecting to the name. And note that society already acknowledge that there are women with male gender (not sex, but gender*) attributes: they are commonly called tomboys.
*You err in saying "Instead of admitting that they lack the attributes of their gender, they claim that they both male and female" -- they lack the attributes of their sex, not their gender. Gender = a set of roles, behaviors, etc, generally expected by society of the members of each sex. By calling themselves non-binary, they are indeed admitting that they lack the attributes of the gender associated with their sex.
I am reminded of how in Northern Ireland there are Catholic atheists and protestant atheists. If someone tells me they are non-binary, I immediately think, "yeah, but which one?"
More options
Context Copy link
Many of those traits are not just a linear spectrum, but seperate meters that we expect different genders to optimize differently. There are men who are weak cowards who also fail to be caring and compassionate.
More options
Context Copy link
Using "gender" to refer to this instead of "gender roles" or "gender stereotypes" conflates it with the idea of "gender identity". The idea of "gender identity" claims that people have some inherent deeply-rooted "true" gender separate from both their bodies and what societal roles they fulfill or stereotypes they match. This then comes with a whole set of ideas about "misgendering", about "deadnaming" if the non-binary identification accompanied a request for a name change, etc.
Note that actually basing it off gender roles would be completely different, for one because it would be based on society rather than the individual. Nobody advocates calling every woman in the military "he" even though the job is a male gender role. Similarly someone might believe in stereotypical correlations such that he's surprised to see a female programmer of a white NBA player, but that doesn't mean he thinks those people are actually becoming male or black, not even partially.
Once again, the claim I am defending is not that someone "becomes male." It that they identify as male. A concomitant claim often is that society should treat those people the same as those born with penises (ie, of the male sex), but that does not necessarily follow. In other words, there are two claims: 1) sex and gender are different things; and 2) society should, in many instances, treat them as if they are the same. I am discussing only #1, which is true by the definition of "gender"
Well, not really. In standard usage it is a synonym for "sex".
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=gender
Most people are not engaging in feminist academic writing, and so they usually do not imitate their confusing use of "gender". Everything from conversations with normal people to news articles to government/corporate forms will use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably. Meanwhile the "identify as" definition is sufficiently new that it isn't even mentioned. Needless to say, people are not obliged to use that one either, especially since it is typically used to smuggle in the contested assumption that people have an internal feeling of "gender identity".
Then how does that follow from defining gender as "a set of roles, behaviors, etc, generally expected by society of the members of each sex"? Under this definition is it meaningful to say things like "Andriy falsely identifies as a man, since by fleeing Ukraine as a woman rather than staying she is refusing her society's able-bodied male gender role of staying in case she is needed to fight and die against Russia"? Or does it mean that gender self-identification is true by definition, in which case it is not a reflection of society's gender roles but of the "gender identity" definition?
I have discussed this ad nauseum elsewhere. You are referring to "gender identity" not "gender." And your Andriy example, yes that is fine. That is a claim about whether Andriy understands the societal norms, not about whether he actually has the belief that he is a man.
As for what the terms mean here is what Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, had to say in the Bostock case:
And see Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F. 2d 659 (9th Cir 1977) [refusing to extend protection of Title VII to transsexuals because discrimination against transsexualism is based on "gender" rather than "sex"]. That was 45 years ago. So this is not all that new a distinction.
I understand that terms are often conflated in the vernacular. Nevertheless, when pro-trans people use the terms, they mean them in the senses I have described. Hence, criticizing their arguments by using a different definition is not much of a criticism at all, because it does not address their actual claims.
The point is that "gender" meaning "gender identity" and "gender" meaning "gender roles" are different and incompatible definitions, and applying them to individual cases gives very different results. Under a gender-role definition of gender (which approximately nobody actually uses except in a motte-and-bailey fashion) Andriy is not a man due to defying the strict gender-role currently mandated by Ukrainian society with unmanly flight. Under a gender-identity definition of gender Andriy would be a man based purely on self-identification, even if the only difference from a stereotypical woman is a Twitter bio saying "he/him". Whatever definition is used it cannot coherently be both, and so "non-binary gender identity" is not meaningfully based on defining gender as "a set of roles, behaviors, etc, generally expected by society of the members of each sex".
The "difference between gender and sex" argument has actually fallen out of favor in trans-activist circles in recent years. It's now fairly common to see explicit arguments that trans people are whatever sex they identify as. But even before it was never really used consistently. For instance various governments have implemented plans to be more inclusive of non-binary people by letting people choose "SEX: X" on their driver's licenses, and apparently nobody involved in this process takes the opportunity to make it say "GENDER:" or even notices the distinction.
I don't understand what you mean. Gender is not used to mean gender identity. They are distinct concepts. See my citations elsewhere, and see eg the definitions on the Planned Parenthood page
As I have pointed out many times, this is actually a claim about how trans people should be treated. it is a claim, that transwomen should be treated AS IF they were people whose biological sex is female; it is not a claim that gender and sex are the same thing, nor that transgender women are of the female biological sex. If you have actual evidence that trans-activists now generally believe that the terms "sex" and "gender" mean the same thing, I would be interested in seeing it (note that I said "generally", not one nut job. There is always someone who is arguing something nutty, such as that sports in the US are all about white men feeling sexually inferior to black men - hence, baseball is about hitting little white balls with big brown sticks, and bowling is little white sticks being knocked down by big black balls. That doesn't mean anyone else believes it])
Because I see the opposite. eg: Genderspectrum.org says, "People tend to use the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably. But, while connected, the two terms are not equivalent."
Moreover, there is a whole Wikipedia page on the topic, and the only discussion of current criticism on the distinction is not by trans activists, but among psychiatrists who are engaging in a very inside-baseball argument about the relative contributions of nature and nurture to human behavior. And even that is posed not as a discussion of the terms "gender" and "sex' but rather "sex difference" and "gender difference."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
Merriam-Webster changed those and similar entries in 2019.
Healthline:
BBC Three: Gender is what you feel, not what parts you have
There is of course also use of the "gender role" definition, though such use is rarely consistent. Rather, as I have been saying, definitions vary according to the needs of the argument or situation at hand.
This is newer, less mainstream, and even less coherent than defining gender as gender identity, it's me commenting on what anecdotally seems like a growing tendency in pro-trans arguments rather than something mainstream enough to be in Merriam-Webster. I said that it had become fairly common on social media to see arguments basing sex on gender identity as an illustration of what seems like a broader move away from the "gender and sex are two different things" argument, which at least still treated biological sex as a legitimate concept. (Probably because of those adopting the trans-activist "gender vs. sex" distinction in order to argue that things like sports should be based on sex. Some of which already have regulations or laws which happen to use the word "sex".) Most don't explicitly make that argument, they just use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably the same way normal people do while basing both on "gender identity". But some do make it explicit, and for them often the structure of the argument is something like 'sex is a social construct/complicated (argued in a way that equates those with 'meaningless', the same way 'gender is a social construct' was used) and therefore 'sex' is either best defined based on gender identity or abandoned entirely".
Deanna Adkins, director of the Duke University Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care:
Autostraddle: It’s Time For People to Stop Using the Social Construct of “Biological Sex” to Defend Their Transmisogyny
Nature:
Forbes: The Myth Of Biological Sex
Or the controversy a little while ago about a fictional Warhammer 40,000 sourcebook mentioning biological sex:
Goonhammer: Transphobic Language and the Horus Heresy
An Open Letter to Games Workshop
This is not anything as coherent as trans-activists all switching to a new definition, and some of those explicitly say sex is biological to the extent that they recognize it as a legitimate concept at all. Rather it's that the previous "gender vs. sex" redefinition left a loophole in that people could still say "sex" if they knew and cared about the redefinition, so now doing so is associated with the enemy and there is an effort against it employing various arguments/redefinitions/accusations-of-transphobia.
Those things really don't say what you think they do. The Merriam-Webster definition c) is listed after b) : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex; the fact that it is listed after b) indicates that it is less common. More importantly, dictionaries are descriptors of both technical and vernacular usages.
Going back to the beginning, the question was: what do** leftists/gender acivists/whatever** mean when they refer to gender? You said, "The point is that "gender" meaning "gender identity" and "gender" meaning "gender roles" are different and incompatible definitions," - well, yes, that is true, but not relevant if the terms are not used that way. The fact that you found a few people being sloppy does not change the fact that gender is a sociological concept that means something other than gender identity.
See [here}(https://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/11-1-understanding-sex-and-gender/)
and here
and here
and, the whole last part of your post seems to be about something else - For example, I don't understand the relevance of the quote, "The idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person’s sex or gender is fundamentally flawed."
Finally, the declaration from Deanna Adkins is about justifying sexual reassignment surgery:
characteristics.
outward expressions of the person’s gender identity and bringing the body into alignment with that identity to the extent deemed medically appropriate based on assessments between individual patients and their medical and mental health providers. These treatments have been very successful.
appropriate medical course is to re-assign or re-classify the individual’s sex to align with gender identity.
So, when she says that "From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity" she is not saying that gender identity = sex; she is saying that gender identity is the determinant of what sexual organs doctors should give to patients who are transgender or who were given surgery as infants because they had both types of primary sexual characteristics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a poor example. The Hui in China are largely descended from Han Chinese who converted to Islam (in fact, the word it derives from - huihui - describes people who follow Abrahamic religions, not just Islam). There is no reason why they would not consider themselves Chinese, even if we go back centuries, even if they differentiate themselves from Han Chinese, as they're not exactly a people who kept a separate society which was then conquered by/did the conquering of China, nor have they ever tried to establish their own state and cultural history entirely apart from China (unless you count the Taiping, but then the Taiping were very much so Chinese nationalist).
You would be better served with almost literally any other minority in China, like the Zhuang, or the Miao, or the Manchus.
So is a gender a specific set of roles attributed to members of a sex in a given society?
Well, judging by this, the Chinese govt seems to think that they don't, or at least not as much as the govt would prefer. It quotes Xi Jinping as saying that “Cultural identity is the deepest kind of identity,” which tends to refute what I see as your implicit argument that identity must be based on genetic ancestry. And btw Wikipedia cites a source which apparently states that "Communist theorists used his argument to justify their early treatment of the Hui as an ethnic minority or ‘minority nationality’, resulting on the Chinese Communist Party identifying Chinese Muslims as a historically oppressed minzu rather than a religious group."
But, that is kind of the point: Identity is flexible, and what it means to be "Chinese" can change, depending on circumstances.
As I understand it, it does not make sense to refer to "a gender" in that way, though it seems that people might sometimes use it as shorthand for "gender roles." Our society, AFAIK, only has norms re males and females, and note that, as I understand it, someone who claims to be nonbinary is not saying that they are a third gender, but rather do not fit in either of the the two genders that society recognizes.
I am not exactly making the argument that ethnicity is based strictly on genetic ancestry, but that there has been no real Hui identity that is divorced from the civilizational project of China, which doesn’t exclude that they can be a minority, or segregated, or whatnot. This is the case even if we take for granted that the Hui are a separate people (minzu as in the Wikipedia article you linked). In that sense, then, I don’t see where the oddity is in a Hui person thinking themselves Chinese, unless you explicitly try to equate Chinese with Han.
This is not the case with the Manchu, for example, who have a long history as a separate people.
Your first sentence was saying that “a person who identifies as Hui in China might well identify as Chinese” seems to imply that a Hui person would usually rather not identify as Chinese, which is very odd sounding to me.
Regardless, it’s a minor quibble, no big deal really.
What exactly is the purpose of neopronouns and “they/them”, then? What exactly are the people (some of whom I know personally) who sometimes flip between “she/her” and “they/them”, and take it very seriously, doing? What about someone who decides to be “xe/xir”?
(One simple way to do away with all this is to just have unisex pronouns for everybody. Alas, that ship has sailed.)
Isn't the use of "they" or any other alternative to he and she consistent with being nonbinary? As for xe, that is apparently exactly what you call for: a unisex pronoun
Yes, now to get it adopted by the entirety of society!
The problem with the they and she thing was the inconsistency and the insistence on different ones at different times (as well as the rarity until recently of using they as a singular for a named subject in modern English); xe is also just not common - I had not heard of it before being exposed to someone who wanted to be called that, nor do I think people who insist on being called xe/xir in contradistinction to more traditional pronouns banking on the idea that having unisex pronouns stops all of this silliness. (Edit: I would be more amenable to going back to the singular they, as English I believe has a history of using it as such, but even then it still just sounds wrong somehow. Xe/xir or ze/zir etc also just look and sound aesthetically revolting, at least to me.)
What I meant was a language, like Estonian or Finnish, which lacks gendered grammar entirely. That sort of cultural and linguistic structure/norm probably isn’t going to happen without a great deal of time and who knows what else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This definition presupposes that these roles are all learned and are mere societal expectations (presumably arbitrary ones at that).
But actually the same thing that makes your body grow a penis or a vagina also affects the brain, the hormones etc. The gender-sex distinction is made up, it's not even possible to express it in any other language than English (other than outright loaning the word "gender" as is). Gender started out as a euphemism for sex, to avoid referring to the act of sex (before that, it only referred to grammatical categories). They should be nothing more than synonyms.
No, it doesn't assume that. A norm is literally that which is deemed normal. Eg: Men are stronger than women, so it is natural that society would deem it normal that men do jobs which demand physical strength. There is no reason at all that gender norms should be arbitrary. But they can be nonarbitrary, yet nevertheless change, as when they take more extreme forms, such as "women can't be lumberjacks" or "men don't cry" or "married women shouldn't work."
And, feel free to suggest a different term, if you don't like "gender." We would be having this same discussion, regardless.
Feminists who still understand gender as the roles you mention are fringe today and labeled TERFs. Yes, originally gender studies was about these roles and women's place in society etc, but today's woke gender concept is something else. The whole point was that these gender roles are something you are pushed into by your social setting, not something you choose based on your unique snowflake personality quirks. The original goal wasn't to tell people "hey, you don't like the roles/social expectations put on you? Then you aren't actually a woman/man!" but to allow women and men more flexibility in shaping their roles to their personality and temperament without anyone denying that they can live like that as women/men.
Interestingly enough, a significant chunk of the Hungarian left (including a massively popular leftist YouTube show) are also with that earlier definition and are woke-critical/gender-critical. It would be worth a post sometime I think.
I don't think that's the intention, but when you start putting all sorts of prescriptive political, moral and aesthetic judgements on these things....
What they hell did they think was going to happen?
The problem was a lack of self-criticism where they never realized that trying to allow men and women more flexibility in terms of personality and temperament was always in conflict with the political goals of more freedom for women, or at least how they went about it focusing on universal socialization and the Blank Slate.
More options
Context Copy link
I think that is an issue that is orthogonal to the one I am raising. I am merely saying that the concept referred to as "gender" is different from the one referred to as "sex." How a person who does not conform to current gender norms should or should not respond is a separate issue.
Is your gender the social expectation from you or is it your inner feeling?
Does someone who doesn't conform to "current gender norms" have a different gender then?
No, It does not make sense to say that someone "has" a gender in that sense, because, as I said, gender is a set of norms, etc. You can conform to the set of norms assigned to your sex, or not, and based on gender norms, you can identify with your sex, the opposite sex, or in the case of those who identify as nonbinary, neither.
Identity is, by definition, an inner feeling. Whether a given identity should be recognized by others is a different question, but even ethnic identities are manufactured to some degree and are a function of beliefs/feelings. See, eg, the literature on the development of Scottish ethnic identity, and of course arguably almost no one identified as "Palestinian" pre-1948, but plenty of people do today.
“Arab”, “lawyer”, “millennial”, and “criminal” are identities; are those just inner feelings? If not, why not? Or are they not identities, per your definition? What are they then?
Those are categories. Whether someone identifies with one of those categories, and hence whether that is one of his identities, is a feeling. Eg I am a lawyer, but I don't particularly see that as part of my identity (as opposed to being a baseball fan. If I am on a dating app, I feel much greater affinity for someone who is a baseball fan than for someone who is a lawyer).
Identity = a belief about who you are, where you belong. So, yes,it is by definition a feeling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I realize that this is a popular claim on the left. I reject it, and this is one of the central points of debate between the woke left and everyone else. You do not get to assume your preferred conclusion and get away with it.
Certainly, everyone has a self-conception, which generally is highly colored by feelings. But everyone also has a social identity, which is separate. The claim on the left is that this social identity is subordinate to self-conception--that you have some right to dictate how you are perceived by others. You do not. You may, through your actions, influence how others see you--and everyone does this--but that identity is...socially constructed.
Honestly, identity doesn't mean anything at all. It's just used as a way to say 'X is very important', and then just ... claim it's important by virtue of being important (which is meaningless), instead of pointing to some other justification. And maybe that thing is important, but it has nothing to do with identity. Goes for here and when the far-right claims 'white identity' is important. Even if the 'white race' is very important, it wouldn't be about 'identity' (bantus also have that, if whites do), but something else like iq, temperament, whatever
More options
Context Copy link
I think you are conflating two different things: 1) whether identity is an inner feeling; and 2) how others must respond to that identity. Although there are disputes between left and right re #2, I do not believe that #1 is a claim of the left; white identity is a thing, after all, and of course immigration issues are tied to claims about identity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link