I’m gonna guess you get push-back on this, depending on how you’ve phrased it before, because saying gender is not a construct is a strong/radical statement in the context of theory.
I imagine your point is that, for an individual, gender is not some arbitrary choice. It is very real. I agree. That is consistent with the idea of finding oneself on a dynamic gender spectra that is collectively defined; i.e., a social construct.
The people who try to deny an individual’s gender, who they are, by using social construct as a synonym for “not real,” do not understand the term and, more importantly, will always find some other reason to do so until they learn to be better people. That is, the term itself is not to blame.
saying gender is not a construct is a strong/radical statement in the context of theory
To be clear, I’m saying gender identity isn’t a social construct (gender roles definitely are). And that’s hardly a radical statement given that there is a genetic factor to being trans, as evidenced by e.g. twin studies like this one which found a much higher amount of cases where both twins are trans among identical twins (who have the same genetic code) than non-identical twins. Also, like I mentioned before, a lot of trans people feel considerable relief to their own gender dysphoria upon seeking hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries, which is quite hard to explain on a social basis.
To be clear, I’m saying gender identity isn’t [entirely] a social construct
Then I’m with you 100%.
Sorry for going straight to pedantic bitch over semantics, but sometimes it’s injected as a wedge issue by bad faith actors with local clout, and then burying the lede is a mistake.
Coherency on the gender constructionism thing is a phalanx for everyone in the space (protecting mostly trans folk now, others later) because the potential contradiction in the gender [identity/expression] distinction and the resulting confusion (quickly seen here) is continually weaponized by phobes in an old but still popular have-it-both-ways narrative about wokism.
I’m gonna guess you get push-back on this, depending on how you’ve phrased it before, because saying gender is not a construct is a strong/radical statement in the context of theory.
I imagine your point is that, for an individual, gender is not some arbitrary choice. It is very real. I agree. That is consistent with the idea of finding oneself on a dynamic gender spectra that is collectively defined; i.e., a social construct.
The people who try to deny an individual’s gender, who they are, by using social construct as a synonym for “not real,” do not understand the term and, more importantly, will always find some other reason to do so until they learn to be better people. That is, the term itself is not to blame.
To be clear, I’m saying gender identity isn’t a social construct (gender roles definitely are). And that’s hardly a radical statement given that there is a genetic factor to being trans, as evidenced by e.g. twin studies like this one which found a much higher amount of cases where both twins are trans among identical twins (who have the same genetic code) than non-identical twins. Also, like I mentioned before, a lot of trans people feel considerable relief to their own gender dysphoria upon seeking hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries, which is quite hard to explain on a social basis.
Then I’m with you 100%.
Sorry for going straight to pedantic bitch over semantics, but sometimes it’s injected as a wedge issue by bad faith actors with local clout, and then burying the lede is a mistake.
Coherency on the gender constructionism thing is a phalanx for everyone in the space (protecting mostly trans folk now, others later) because the potential contradiction in the gender [identity/expression] distinction and the resulting confusion (quickly seen here) is continually weaponized by phobes in an old but still popular have-it-both-ways narrative about wokism.
Thanks for coming back to reply to everyone.
ETA clarity and context