English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Then explain this:

There are little boys who feel like girls at earily ages. They weren't trained by their parents or society to act like girls. In fact, they, & the rest of society, encourage them to act like boys. But the boys at young ages usually don't understand or completely comply, & so they continue to act like the girls they feel they are. Even tell their parents their desires to be princesses, queens, play with dolls & dress like pretend female characters when playing.

Eventually, many of these boys grow up & allow society to socially construct them to act like what "boys" are suppose to act like. Some later learn that being a man is not them, & they become transgendered.

How is gender ONLY a construct when they felt like girls their whole lives. Society didn't tell them they should feel like a girl & behave accordingly. This sounds more like, Gender is FIRST genetic, then later society tries to construct you into what it says you should act like.

Thoughts?

2007-03-17 22:03:17 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

wendy g - I didn't confuse "sex" with "gender". Sex is the physical, gender is mental/inner. These boys when young, mentally feel like females, naturally. No one socially constructed them to behave this way. Society did however try to socially construct them to act like boys as they grow. My point was that this sounds more like nature AND nurture, not just nurture.

Some people, like biologist agree, but many poeple do not, which is why I think it's ridiculous when I hear people say the absolute that, "gender is a social construct", or, "gender is biological", when it is both.

2007-03-18 09:32:35 · update #1

mr q - Yes, gender is both biological and socially constructed. I remember when I was a little boy, I always naturally liked what boys usually like. I felt that what girls were normally into was boring, which is why I rarely played with them in grade school.

Later, when I grew up, I remember feeling exactly when society tried to force me to behave like what it felt I should behave like. For example, I felt like a happy guy doing guy things. Society in the city I grew up in, forced the ideal that guys are not suppose to smile, or be nice, he must fight, be tough, be mad, have no feelings. I felt like crap when I went through this, and eventually was forced to behave this way for a while in order to survive in the gang-ish atmosphere I grew up in. It sucked.

Only in the past five years have I been able to act more like myself, but the only difference is, I know how to get into wicked mode and defend myself if some big lunatic tries to take my wallet.

2007-03-18 09:42:20 · update #2

kirk j - There is no way to have a logical debate about actual real life facts when people like you bring religion and a "what would god/jesus do" belief system into the discussion.

People like you try to solve these issues by making guesses and theories as to what you think God wants, and base your answers on that source when that is completely subjective and not absolute.

2007-03-18 09:48:03 · update #3

Samantha - Your said, "Gender is not a construct. It is biological. Gender identity, on the other hand, is on a continuum."

Actually, Sex, is not a construct, it is physical. Gender is biologically if you mentally feel and indentify as male or female. Society has it's own standards on how a male or female should behave, which is different than how you actually feel.

For example, you may feel female as a child, naturally gravitate to desiring to wear dresses and identify with the princess you see in a Disney movie. SOCIETY on the other hand, may say because your sex is female, you MUST ALWAYS wear dresses. However, just because you female doesn't mean you should be forced to HAVE to wear dresses. That is "Gender is a social construct" at work. But it doesn't change the fact that you may naturally gravitate to feeling feminine.

2007-03-18 09:58:46 · update #4

Brian J. - Actually thats incorrect. Feminism is a good philosophy intent on uniting the family. It's the corrupt type of feminists who've become arrogant and selfish that your speaking of. I wish the good feminists would help silence and squash the bad ones because they only make Feminism in general look bad. And there a lot of that happening on those website.

2007-03-18 10:03:47 · update #5

wendy g - "So, I think our disagreement is basically a matter of semantics."

Agreeing on the semantics is usually the problem in debates because words can mean different things to different people.

So you know where I'm coming from: Based on dictionary terms, "sex" is the physical reproductive functions one has. Gender is the mental reproductive roles one behaves.

In the end, regardless of semantics, we agree that it's both nature & nurture, not just nurture.

""GENDER" is the social construct that tells those individuals with the sex organs of one sex & the brain structure of another, that they have to "be" what their genitalia dictates. When they choose the gender that their "brain dictates" they are bucking the social norm, and thus they are ostracized...even though their choices are actually quite "natural"".

Thats exactly my point, only I'd say that Gender is also biological because one will natually feel female or male before truly experiencing society.

2007-03-18 11:02:09 · update #6

Interesting article. Reminds me of how I think schools should teach kids more equally, and not have problems like heterosexism, (or bisexualism or anything else like this that could come up if gone too far), sexism, classism, racism, heightism, age-ism, lookism, etc, because if this stuff was dealt with in school first, maybe adults wouldn't discriminate against people as much as they seriously do now. People are judged on sheer appearance and then preceived behavior, rarely on who you actually are and what you can do.

2007-03-18 19:13:02 · update #7

Baba yaga - My response right above this was for you, I forgot to call out your name at the beginning of the response.

2007-03-18 19:14:15 · update #8

Cristy - You mentioned

"Simply because a child exhibits a preference for play/etc typically attributed to girls and women/boys and men doesn't mean that the child feels 'like a woman' or 'like a man', it simply means that the child prefers play/behaviors normally relegated to women/men..."

I think you misunderstood what I asked. I didn't say, for example, a boy who plays with girl toys then absolutely feels like a girl because of the toy. My point was that some boys who already feel like girls will typically play with girl toys and identify themselves with female characters in media like princesses, etc. But I didn't say that the toys they play with determine if they feel female or male.

Heck, I remember playing with a Barbie doll once when I was 7 or 8 because I was curious about the nude female body. I searched up her dress & was dissapointed when I saw that the creators didn't define her genitals. But me playing with the doll didn't mean I identified myself as female.

2007-03-24 04:03:37 · update #9

Cristy - You also mentioned,

"You can't use exceptions to prove the rule. This is ridiculous!"

I'm using transgendered boys to prove the fact that before these children experiences society and it's rules for gender, they already naturally feel feminine. Before understanding what a woman or a girl is, or what being feminine means, they already feel like what girls typically feel like. As they grow and first learn about girls and boys and female things in life, they point to them and indentify with them, and say things like, "Momma, I'm a princess", and believe it. Some, when they understand what a boy is, will say, "I don't wanna be a boy, I'm a girl". This behavior isn't learned, it's genetic.

This proves that Gender is both nature and nurture. I use this "exception to the rule" to show that the majority who are not transgendered are still human and therefore born with gender traits from birth, then learn gender social construction when they grow in society.

2007-03-24 04:15:39 · update #10

Cando - Everything you said made sense.

I actually think it's both socially constructed, & also a natural behavior thats "adopted by society and given a label."

You mentioned, "I guess what I'm saying is that these boys feel like they are girls because their feminine behavior, in this society, has been deemed to be belonging to women, & as such, they feel that "woman" best describes who they are & what they feel they are because of it."

I think thats partially right. These boys will actually feel like what we call "feminine", or "female", before actually knowing the words & what they mean. When they grow up & see a person who is female & pretty & feminine in every way, they identify with those people and naturally desire to be more like them. As the grow older, they then do what your saying which is, they realize how society views women & femininity and therefore apply that social gender role to themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that they felt feminine before this.

2007-03-24 05:02:03 · update #11

14 answers

"In fact, they (their parents) and the rest of society, encourage them to act like boys." That's just it, they self-identify as "girls"...their "organs" identify them as boys. Studies have shown that transgendered people have similar brain structures as the sex they identify with, not their "true" sex. Don't confuse "sex" with "gender." Of course the "sexes" are different...that's biological. And people who identify themselves as the opposite sex are both (their bodies are one thing, their brains are another). They may then chose to "be" one gender or the other, DESPITE what society tells them. "Gender" is what you're talking about when you describe parents trying to make little boys "be" little boys. That is the external influence that "constructs" our gender..our expected roles. As you said, those same little boys may later chose to be one "gender" or the other, often in conflict with what society tells them they "should be". So, their "sex" (unless they get a sex change) is one thing, their "gender" is another. Children that begin to model the behaviors and characteristics attributed to the opposite sex, have already been exposed to the "gendered" social constructs that we are all exposed to at a very young age. Again, for biological reasons, they identify with the opposite sex, and emulate the behaviors they observe.
So it's nature AND nurture. And biologists agree.

Yuvon-Basically we are agreed, it's just that I believe (and this is based on what I've read about the topic, from an evolutionary/biological stance, to a social science stance) that "SEX" is mental, too. Well, actually "brain-based" is a better term. The brain is physically and chemically constructed toward one "sex" or the other (to varying degrees) according to genetic ques, and according to exposure to certain hormones in the womb. Often this is in direct contrast to what society sees as acceptable gender identification...yet it IS physical, nonetheless. Again, it's hormonal and brain-based. "GENDER" is the social construct that tells those individuals with the sex organs of one sex and the brain structure of another, that they have to "be" what their genitalia dictates. When they choose the gender that their "brain dictates" they are bucking the social norm, and thus they are ostracized...even though their choices are actually quite "natural" (in that that "choice" IS biological-not much of a "choice," really.) It's the strict social roles that claim they are "unnatural" that are actually unnatural. Without the strict gender roles that we have, these individuals would not be seen as "abnormal," just a variation on a theme, so to speak. So, I think our disagreement is basically a matter of semantics..."sex" is biological (whether it be outwardly physical, or brain-based), and "gender" is the social influence that causes us to engage in some behaviors. Many behaviors ARE biologically dictated...many are not.

2007-03-18 01:25:01 · answer #1 · answered by wendy g 7 · 4 1

I guess the first thing that comes to my mind is "What do we mean when we say that gender is a social construct?". Are we saying that an individual person's gender is something that is socially constructed, or that the way a person behaves/feels is adopted by society and given a gender label?

If it's the former, then you're right, it can't be true. People have feminine or masculine behaviorisms and identities, or ones that lie somewhere in-between on the spectrum, and that can happen naturally, in a vaccuum- alone and isolated from society, a man can nonetheless have his own gender, be it male or female or something else altogether. And this must come down to genetics, there is simply no doubt about it.

But if we're talking about the latter, which is what I think is the original intent, we're saying that the actual categories of "male" and "female" gender is socially constructed. That is to say, there is no genetic basis that says penis = masculine (trucks, beer, and aggression) and vagina = feminine (dolls, gentleness, and mothering). Instead, it's when we see a certain body type, we relate it to a certain type of behavior, even though the vast number of people who transgress genders (not necessarily transsexuals) and our ever-evolving concept of what it means to be a man or a woman (compare the woman of centuries ago to the women of today!) should be more than enough to prove that gender truly is at least partially socially constructed. I guess what I'm saying is that these boys feel like they are girls because their feminine behavior, in this society, has been deemed to be belonging to women, and as such, they feel that "woman" best describes who they are and what they feel they are because of it.

I don't know if that made any sense, but I hope it did.

2007-03-21 20:07:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

You are absolutely correct and thanks for an honest and interesting question. Having studied Biology I understand that the female/male labels can often be misleading and that there are far more combinations than most people can understand.
What labelling does is exclude people who don't fit into the neat little boxes that society assigns for sex and gender from feeling part of the whole. Since sex is either or with no compromise people that are transgendered are probably marginalized more than any other group.
I wish there was more education out there so that this very real experience can be more accepted and people with this experience can be free to act in ways that they find comfortable with no worry of recrimination.
The book by Jeffery Euginedes, entitled Middlesex, is a good example of how our society disenfranchises those who may be different from the perceived norm. If you have not read this I urge you to as it is informative in describing the feeling and emotions experienced by someone who doesn't fit the accepted definitions of our culture.

2007-03-24 01:43:06 · answer #3 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 1 1

The fact that these young 'transgendered' girls and boys feel compelled to act in ways typically attributed to their opposite sex only serves to prove that 'gender' is not innate to biological sex. You must also take into account the children who prefer more androgynous models of play (i.e, playing with toy dinosaurs, switching between 'boy' and 'girl' toys). They (and the other many exceptions to the gender 'rules') prove that gender is transient and not neccessarily a product of sex (and thus, not biological). I have to take issue with the way your question is worded: Simply because a child exhibits a preference for play/etc typically attributed to girls and women/boys and men doesn't mean that the child feels 'like a woman' or 'like a man', it simply means that the child prefers play/behaviors normally relegated to women/men ...

You can't use exceptions to prove the rule. This is ridiculous!

(Oh - and to the moron who claims that anyone who asserts that gender is solely a product socialization doesn't deserve oxygen .... I think it's pretty apparent that at some point in your development your brain didn't get ENOUGH oxygen! So do us all a favor and hush it; you're trying to hard with the whole thinking thing.)

2007-03-20 11:12:09 · answer #4 · answered by Cristy 3 · 2 1

Gender and sexuality are two different animals. Sex is that thing that is in the lower part of your abdomen and nestles between where your legs conjoin. Gender is a mindset that can be construed in at least five different genders.
I see the Zealot Christians arguing only two genders. where does the intersexed individual fall in that spectrum. Intersexed is when both genitalia are present at birth or the genitalia are highly ambiguous.
Today when a child is born they can do blood test to determine whether the anatomy matches the hormones.
We have only begun to look at the tip of the iceberg in regards to gender. What really needs to happen is we need to educate the masses.

2007-03-25 03:44:40 · answer #5 · answered by CheryllDianne 3 · 0 0

Gender is not a construct. It is biological. Gender identity, on the other hand, is on a continuum. On one end is the knuckle dragging extra-masculine male to the "southern belle" type on the other end. In between are all manner of viewpoints and life styles. These are most likely related to the biology of the individual. I seriously doubt that society has much to do with this. However, society does affect the outward display of behavior.

2007-03-18 05:28:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

i have reason to beleive gender is BOTH biological AND socialy constructed.

its biological for obvious reasons i am not even gonna go into to it because you can find proof just by googling it. but it is also socialy contructed in a sense that society labels one gender weak and the other strong. however gender roles ARE socialy constructed. the only thing about gender that is socialy constructed is the subjective views given to them. neither is superior, they are both different but neccessery.

2007-03-17 22:25:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

The "nuture not nature" people are as full of it as the "global warming" people. Most of the nurture group are religious fanatics that refuse to accept anything other than pure hetrosexuality as normal. "god wouldn't do that", "the bible says..." and "it's un-natural" are their mantras. The intolerant end up loosing or disowning their child. It's a loose-loose situation.

2007-03-17 22:23:38 · answer #8 · answered by John S 6 · 1 1

Sure, it's nature and nurture, but it's more nature than nurture. The example boy who wanted to be a girl just had a FEMALE brain and a MALE body. His brain quite probably didn't get enough testosterone during his fetal stages.

Anybody who says gender is only a social construct in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary does not deserve oxygen.

2007-03-18 03:16:03 · answer #9 · answered by Robinson0120 4 · 2 5

sex is your biological makeup (xx or xy) . gender is how you identify yourself. and i personally don't believe that your gender is determined only by society. i believe there are also genetic factors involved. i believe that must be how people who have sax changes must. i don't know from experience, but i imagine it must be like me feeling like i do as a woman, but looking in the mirror and seeing a dude. it must be very tough and confusing.

2007-03-25 02:32:16 · answer #10 · answered by Jay 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers