What are immutable differences between men and women?

[SimonDoom]

Men don't identify as women because the defining characteristic of men is that they identify as men. Men identify as men.

Women don't identify as men because the defining characteristic of wkmen is that they identify as women. Women identify as women.

I'll say again: this doesn't mean anything at all. It's essentialism become surrealism.


And I'll respond to it with an empirical question: how do you know this? What's your evidence that the most important thing about a man is that he identifies as a man? Prove it. That's not science; it's ideology.

I'll wager that 95% of the people on this planet think your way of thinking is ridiculous and obviously wrong. I do. So how do you prove that they are wrong? You can't just say things. You have to prove them with reason and evidence.

I don't believe "you are what you identify as." That's not something people have ever believed, until now. And they STILL don't believe this principle about most things.

If you are a white person and you suddenly choose to identify as a black person, does that make you black? I think most people, including left-wing people, don't believe that. If you identify as a dog, it doesn't make you a dog. In almost every situation, we recognize that this is crazy thinking. How is gender different? Empirically, it's not. The only difference is ideology.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Removing load-bearing words from the OP's question hijacks the conversation in favor of your head canon. What if we removed the words Men and Women and instead focused on Dogs and Cats? What are we doing?

Men identify as men, and Women identify as women. Anything past that is a problem.

I don't understand why you don't see the problem with where this topic went? Go back to the original post and you will see that the OP asked the question from the point of view of sexuality, attraction and libido. There were no gender politics anywhere until they were inserted into the discussion, and yeah, they do not belong here, as gender politics are still politics and they belong in the politics board if anywhere.

This place is as free as it can possibly be. There is no patriarchy here nor any intolerance towards any kind of diversity that I've seen in all my time here. As far as I have seen, people feel free to express their orientations and sexual kinks, as extreme as they are sometimes, without any judgment whatsoever (apart from the occasional thread about rape stories)
So people should take their activism and preach it in the places where it actually matters, which clearly isn't here. This is a place where people come in good part to get away from politics and the bullshit of the real life. There is really no need to keep forcing any kind of activism into discussions that are mostly about erotica and writing.
I know many of you feel fired up about these issues but that's no reason to keep forcing them upon the rest of us and to trigger our reactions. If we started including politics in these threads, we would soon find out how different our political views were and it would lead to endless heated debates, which would definitely undo what this place is. I am sure you can see the wisdom in keeping this place clean.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I don't understand why you don't see the problem with where this topic went? Go back to the original post and you will see that the OP asked the question from the point of view of sexuality, attraction and libido. There were no gender politics anywhere until they were inserted into the discussion, and yeah, they do not belong here, as gender politics are still politics and they belong in the politics board if anywhere.

This place is as free as it can possibly be. There is no patriarchy here nor any intolerance towards any kind of diversity that I've seen in all my time here. As far as I have seen, people feel free to express their orientations and sexual kinks, as extreme as they are sometimes, without any judgment whatsoever (apart from the occasional thread about rape stories)
So people should take their activism and preach it in the places where it actually matters, which clearly isn't here. This is a place where people come in good part to get away from politics and the bullshit of the real life. There is really no need to keep forcing any kind of activism into discussions that are mostly about erotica and writing.
I know many of you feel fired up about these issues but that's no reason to keep forcing them upon the rest of us and to trigger our reactions. If we started including politics in these threads, we would soon find out how different our political views were and it would lead to endless heated debates, which would definitely undo what this place is. I am sure you can see the wisdom in keeping this place clean.

Because it is a rare person that sees the problem with their own point of view. It's when people disagree with them that they see a problem.

 

[SamBomb]

I didn't know transphobes posted here. That sucks. I'm out.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I'll say again: this doesn't mean anything at all. It's essentialism become surrealism.


And I'll respond to it with an empirical question: how do you know this? What's your evidence that the most important thing about a man is that he identifies as a man? Prove it. That's not science; it's ideology.

I'll wager that 95% of the people on this planet think your way of thinking is ridiculous and obviously wrong. I do. So how do you prove that they are wrong? You can't just say things. You have to prove them with reason and evidence.

I don't believe "you are what you identify as." That's not something people have ever believed, until now. And they STILL don't believe this principle about most things.

If you are a white person and you suddenly choose to identify as a black person, does that make you black? I think most people, including left-wing people, don't believe that. If you identify as a dog, it doesn't make you a dog. In almost every situation, we recognize that this is crazy thinking. How is gender different? Empirically, it's not. The only difference is ideology.

Gender cannot be essentialist because gender is not essential in the way melanin is. Gender is not like race, it is a social construct we make up. I am not the same kind of woman my mother was. My dad was not the same kind of man his dad was. Concepts of gender, men and women as differentiated from the male and female sex, are not immutable. They change constantly.

Like this:

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't understand why you don't see the problem with where this topic went? Go back to the original post and you will see that the OP asked the question from the point of view of sexuality, attraction and libido. There were no gender politics anywhere until they were inserted into the discussion, and yeah, they do not belong here, as gender politics are still politics and they belong in the politics board if anywhere.

This place is as free as it can possibly be. There is no patriarchy here nor any intolerance towards any kind of diversity that I've seen in all my time here. As far as I have seen, people feel free to express their orientations and sexual kinks, as extreme as they are sometimes, without any judgment whatsoever (apart from the occasional thread about rape stories)
So people should take their activism and preach it in the places where it actually matters, which clearly isn't here. This is a place where people come in good part to get away from politics and the bullshit of the real life. There is really no need to keep forcing any kind of activism into discussions that are mostly about erotica and writing.
I know many of you feel fired up about these issues but that's no reason to keep forcing them upon the rest of us and to trigger our reactions. If we started including politics in these threads, we would soon find out how different our political views were and it would lead to endless heated debates, which would definitely undo what this place is. I am sure you can see the wisdom in keeping this place clean.

I'm glad you said this because it brings it back to a legitimate conversation within the boundaries of the thread, which shouldn't be about politics. Although, it's hard if you're being intellectually honest NOT to acknowledge the political implications of this topic.

Trying to confine the subject to erotica, I'd say this. I read and write erotica from the point of view of a heterosexual male. I'm attracted to women and I like to write about women. I don't think of somebody with a penis as a woman. I don't think of someone with a functioning vagina and uteris as a man. That's not a phobic, hostile, or discriminatory view. It's a view shared by the vast majority of people, and a view supported by biological evidence and thousands of years of culture. Should we tolerate people with different points of view? Of course. But my view should be tolerated as well. It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I don't understand why you don't see the problem with where this topic went? Go back to the original post and you will see that the OP asked the question from the point of view of sexuality, attraction and libido. There were no gender politics anywhere until they were inserted into the discussion, and yeah, they do not belong here, as gender politics are still politics and they belong in the politics board if anywhere.

This place is as free as it can possibly be. There is no patriarchy here nor any intolerance towards any kind of diversity that I've seen in all my time here. As far as I have seen, people feel free to express their orientations and sexual kinks, as extreme as they are sometimes, without any judgment whatsoever (apart from the occasional thread about rape stories)
So people should take their activism and preach it in the places where it actually matters, which clearly isn't here. This is a place where people come in good part to get away from politics and the bullshit of the real life. There is really no need to keep forcing any kind of activism into discussions that are mostly about erotica and writing.
I know many of you feel fired up about these issues but that's no reason to keep forcing them upon the rest of us and to trigger our reactions. If we started including politics in these threads, we would soon find out how different our political views were and it would lead to endless heated debates, which would definitely undo what this place is. I am sure you can see the wisdom in keeping this place clean.

Gender is inherently political.

 

[AwkwardMD]

.Although, it's hard if you're being intellectually honest NOT to acknowledge the political implications of this topic.

You're one step away from getting there. I believe in you.

 

[SimonDoom]

Gender is not like race, it is a social construct we make up.

Says who? Prove it. Many people believe race IS a social construct. People have said that in this forum. I don't believe gender is entirely a social construct. Gender is far more genetically based than race. Your assertion is belied by the fact that for most people there's no difference between sex and gender. If you are being empirical rather than ideological, the statement "gender is a social construct" is a very debatable statement. You can't just say it and expect people to accept it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Gender is inherently political.

This is an example of a statement that I describe as "trivially true." It's true if your concept of what is "political" is so all-embracing that everything is political, in which case it's just a truism or tautology. But it's not a meaningful empirical statement. One could equally well say of all things "X is inherently political." Gender, broadly defined, has political aspects, but that doesn't refute the position that it has biological aspects as well. Race is inherently political. That doesn't mean it's valid to say you are whatever race you think you are. Class is inherently political. That doesn't mean you're a rich person just because you think you are.

 

[AwkwardMD]

This is an example of a statement that I describe as "trivially true." It's true if your concept of what is "political" is so all-embracing that everything is political, in which case it's just a truism or tautology. But it's not a meaningful empirical statement. One could equally well say of all things "X is inherently political." Gender, broadly defined, has political aspects, but that doesn't refute the position that it has biological aspects as well. Race is inherently political. That doesn't mean it's valid to say you are whatever race you think you are. Class is inherently political. That doesn't mean you're a rich person just because you think you are.

Sigma grind bros would tell you class is a mindset, but no. It's essentialist. It's a function of wealth. You can't just identify as having wealth the same way you can say "You know what, I don't want you to call me Jonathan, I'd rather go by Jon." That's identity, and it's just a thing you decide for yourself.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Says who? Prove it. Many people believe race IS a social construct. People have said that in this forum. I don't believe gender is entirely a social construct. Gender is far more genetically based than race. Your assertion is belied by the fact that for most people there's no difference between sex and gender. If you are being empirical rather than ideological, the statement "gender is a social construct" is a very debatable statement. You can't just say it and expect people to accept it.

You are correct that there is a strong correlary between sex and gender, but a strong correlary is not enough to qualify as "immutable". There's a strong correlary between men and heterosexuality, but that doesn't make attraction to women an immutable truth for men.

My whole point has been that this was a wrongheaded and exclusionary conversation from the start when there was no need for it to be exclusionary. Almost everything that people listed as being universally true for women wasn’t true for me. Does that make me not a woman?

 

[AwkwardMD]

This is what Sam meant about transphobia. Lots of people throwing around "You're only a woman if X is true" is pretty exclusionary. It doesn't feel good to see others agree with those things that are not true for me even when, in their head, they have grace for the wording and do as you suggested, reading immutable instead as a statistical probability.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Just as a quick follow up, hopefully this gets in and sinks in, you don’t see me doing this on most threads like this. There's tons of threads *like* this, that aren't exclusionary from jump, and they're fine. I don’t drop into those with any hot takes. This one, though, is wrong.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This is what Sam meant about transphobia. Lots of people throwing around "You're only a woman if X is true" is pretty exclusionary. It doesn't feel good to see others agree with those things that are not true for me even when, in their head, they have grace for the wording and do as you suggested, reading immutable instead as a statistical probability.

Tolerance means having to see things that don't make you feel good.

 

[burgwad]

I'm sure the conversation will have marched on in the time it takes me to write this. Oh well! Gotta' love arguing gender politics on an erotica forum on my one day off.

Gender has been studied as a social construct since at least the 1940s, when it was first described as "the socialized obverse of sex" (American Journal of Psychology, vol. 58; c/o OED). Of course, it's also long been interchangeable with 'sex,' and confusingly, still largely is. To be clear, though, the OED defines 'gender' in the psychological or sociological sense as:

The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

But now let's assume you disagree with the legitimacy of a psychological or sociological definition of 'gender' to begin with. Your linguistic standards are stricter than the OED's. You have no time to peruse decades of research and debate into questions of gender. You can tell without getting up from your armchair that anyone who bothers to ask if gender is distinct from sex is party to a counter-intellectual woke agenda dating back to FDR's America. The burden of proof is on queer and trans advocates, for whom this is a life and death matter, to change your mind.

And pfffft, is this the best we can do? Birth a field of academic study dedicated entirely to questions of gender? Conduct nearly a century of research and debate into same? Engage in staunch, urgent political activism at risk of grievous bodily harm? Cite our sources and meet you where you're at in every conceivable venue? Try hopelessly to convince you we are aware of Jordan Peterson, we've heard him out, and we can assure you he is a reactionary, brittle-tempered grifter? I mean, come on! Steven fucking Universe and his fucking three and a half Moms? And we let KIDS watch this?!

/s

The usually-transphobic argument from biological/philosophical intuition isn't inherently dumb or even always transphobic. There is something interesting to be explored there. Natalie Wynn, of Contrapoints, spelunks as deep as humanly possible into these ideas, and she's funny while she's at it. There are possibly even minds to be opened down that route. But too often, it is the first and last refuge of close-mindedness and, ultimately, transphobia. As such, whether you identify as transphobic or not, you hunker down in opposition to the realities of trans experiences at peril to your intellectual and moral integrity.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I'm sure the conversation will have marched on in the time it takes me to write this. Oh well! Gotta' love arguing gender politics on an erotica forum on my one day off.

Gender has been studied as a social construct since at least the 1940s, when it was first described as "the socialized obverse of sex" (American Journal of Psychology, vol. 58; c/o OED). Of course, it's also long been interchangeable with 'sex,' and confusingly, still largely is. To be clear, though, the OED defines 'gender' in the psychological or sociological sense as:


But now let's assume you disagree with the legitimacy of a psychological or sociological definition of 'gender' to begin with. Your linguistic standards are stricter than the OED's. You have no time to peruse decades of research and debate into questions of gender. You can tell without getting up from your armchair that anyone who bothers to ask if gender is distinct from sex is party to a counter-intellectual woke agenda dating back to FDR's America. The burden of proof is on queer and trans advocates, for whom this is a life and death matter, to change your mind.

And pfffft, is this the best we can do? Birth a field of academic study dedicated entirely to questions of gender? Conduct nearly a century of research and debate into same? Engage in staunch, urgent political activism at risk of grievous bodily harm? Cite our sources and meet you where you're at in every conceivable venue? Try hopelessly to convince you we are aware of Jordan Peterson, we've heard him out, and we can assure you he is a reactionary, brittle-tempered grifter? I mean, come on! Steven fucking Universe and his fucking three and a half Moms? And we let KIDS watch this?!

/s

The usually-transphobic argument from biological/philosophical intuition isn't inherently dumb or even always transphobic. There is something interesting to be explored there. Natalie Wynn, of Contrapoints, spelunks as deep as humanly possible into these ideas, and she's funny while she's at it. There are possibly even minds to be opened down that route. But too often, it is the first and last refuge of close-mindedness and, ultimately, transphobia. As such, whether you identify as transphobic or not, you hunker down in opposition to the realities of trans experiences at peril to your intellectual and moral integrity.

Thank you

 

[Lifestyle66]

Well, after reading all of this, I guess the next time we're invited to a "gender reveal party', we should decline until they're more specific.

Is it a "chromosome reveal party" from an amniocentesis?
Or is it a protrusion or gap reveal party of a physical identity (subject to change) from an ultrasound?

We'll point out to the future parents that they can't know the gender until after years of consideration and a still pending decision by the fetus.

Sometimes you just need to sit back, chill, and have a drink (not a stiff one, unless you're into that sort of thing.)

 

[XerXesXu]

Here's a new question. Can you articulate what it is about another person that makes them sexually attractive to you?

Not articulate it particularly well, but I can give an example.

Recently, a group of 'uncontacted' people were filmed emerging from the Amazon rainforest onto a sandy shore. My immediate impression of the group was how 'attractive' they looked, in the sense that I would happily swim in their gene pool.

Stand outside your front door and watch the people who pass by. Compare and contrast.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I'm sure the conversation will have marched on in the time it takes me to write this. Oh well! Gotta' love arguing gender politics on an erotica forum on my one day off.

Gender has been studied as a social construct since at least the 1940s, when it was first described as "the socialized obverse of sex" (American Journal of Psychology, vol. 58; c/o OED). Of course, it's also long been interchangeable with 'sex,' and confusingly, still largely is. To be clear, though, the OED defines 'gender' in the psychological or sociological sense as:


But now let's assume you disagree with the legitimacy of a psychological or sociological definition of 'gender' to begin with. Your linguistic standards are stricter than the OED's. You have no time to peruse decades of research and debate into questions of gender. You can tell without getting up from your armchair that anyone who bothers to ask if gender is distinct from sex is party to a counter-intellectual woke agenda dating back to FDR's America. The burden of proof is on queer and trans advocates, for whom this is a life and death matter, to change your mind.

And pfffft, is this the best we can do? Birth a field of academic study dedicated entirely to questions of gender? Conduct nearly a century of research and debate into same? Engage in staunch, urgent political activism at risk of grievous bodily harm? Cite our sources and meet you where you're at in every conceivable venue? Try hopelessly to convince you we are aware of Jordan Peterson, we've heard him out, and we can assure you he is a reactionary, brittle-tempered grifter? I mean, come on! Steven fucking Universe and his fucking three and a half Moms? And we let KIDS watch this?!

/s

The usually-transphobic argument from biological/philosophical intuition isn't inherently dumb or even always transphobic. There is something interesting to be explored there. Natalie Wynn, of Contrapoints, spelunks as deep as humanly possible into these ideas, and she's funny while she's at it. There are possibly even minds to be opened down that route. But too often, it is the first and last refuge of close-mindedness and, ultimately, transphobia. As such, whether you identify as transphobic or not, you hunker down in opposition to the realities of trans experiences at peril to your intellectual and moral integrity.

You are seriously claiming there are "decades of research and debate?"
Debate isn't possible when you immediately label anyone who disagrees with you as "transphobic".
Perhaps we should examine that "research".
What experiments have been conducted to determine the nature of "gender"?
Where is the science that supports your theories?
But, the experts and science have spoken, how dare we question it.
Then again, the DMS once listed gender disphoria as a mental illness. It was okay to question the experts then... strange how that works.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

 

[AlinaX]

Yes, how dare you. How dare you. Hush.

 

[burgwad]

You are seriously claiming there are "decades of research and debate?"
Debate isn't possible when you immediately label anyone who disagrees with you as "transphobic".
Perhaps we should examine that "research".
What experiments have been conducted to determine the nature of "gender"?
Where is the science that supports your theories?
But, the experts and science have spoken, how dare we question it.
Then again, the DMS once listed gender disphoria as a mental illness. It was okay to question the experts then... strange how that works.

Serious academic discussion of gender as a social construct dates back to the 1940s. That first usage I cited above is from a paper published in a scientific journal in 1945. For nearly a century, it has been a subject of exhaustive study. Since you were nice enough to ask, I have Google Scholared 'gender identity experiment' for you. Here are 290 results published from 1940 to 1950; 462 results published from 1950 to 1960; 1,240 results published from 1960 to 1970; 6,020 results published from 1970 to 1980; 17,000 results published from 1980 to 1990; 58,800 results published from 1990 to 2000; 19,300 results published from 2000 to 2010; 26,000 results published from 2010 to 2020; and 18,800 results published from 2020 to 2024.

But you're probably much better off starting at ContraPoints, the YouTube channel I mentioned earlier. She is a trans woman. She is funny. She is a wizard of the video essay format.

The latest edition of the DSM still lists gender dysphoria. It can be a helpful diagnosis when it's an accurate description of a client's crisis. Please understand not all trans folks suffer gender dysphoria, and not all clients diagnosed with gender dysphoria are trans.

The director of a renowned transgender clinic in my city also once explained to me that the gender dysphoria diagnosis, while less than ideal when given to those who don't fully meet the criteria, can still be useful for getting insurance to cover life-saving services. Life-saving mental health services? Yep, they're a thing. Transitional care in general is understood to be life-saving, given its profound efficacy in improving welfare in a population orders of magnitude likelier to complete suicide if left unserved. Transitional care in modern medicine is also holistic by design, so any single patient has a whole team of interdisciplinary specialists seeing to their care. Because health insurance doesn't always cover mental health services unless there is a stated diagnosis, 'gender dysphoria' has become a popular write-in, even among doctors and patients who know better.

Finally, it was rude of me to label you - and whomever else - transphobic without having met you, or heard you out. It's a catch-all term for me, shorthand for anyone who defaults to a trans-questioning, trans-ignorant, or trans-dismissing stance. But I know better than to deploy it like I did, and still I did it. Sorry about that.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Implicit in Kumqatqueen's comment is the assumption (as I read it) that only one camp wants to treat people in terms of the groups they belong to. That's manifestly not so. I can tell you from conversations I've had with my recently college-graduated kids (as well as general reading) that young, left-of-center people are much more likely to think in terms of groups than they were when I was in college. Affirmative action, reparations for slavery, cultural misappropriation, hate speech regulations-- these are all concepts that treat people as members of groups rather than as individuals. They're based on concepts of equity (whatever that is--I'm not sure), rather than the classical liberal concept of equal treatment of individuals under the law.

I'm not going to ask what you mean by 'one camp' because I suspect you mean a political division and I was hoping to stay away from politics here (as I'm sure was the AH mod). No, treating people as groups is a fallacy anyone can fall into. Sometimes people need to be grouped - how do you decide who goes into what class at school? Or insurance risks? But most of the time you're dealing with individuals.

Affirmative action and the other concepts you list I recognise as loaded terms used in political arguments, and I don't know enough about what they actually mean (especially in a US context) to say whether they have merit or are a pile of gobshite student bollocks (or both, even gobby student twats are right occasionally...) We don't do affirmative action in Britain - positive discrimination is illegal, though positive action (eg advertising an opportunity to audiences who haven't historically used it much) is legal and encouraged.

 

[SimonDoom]

You are correct that there is a strong correlary between sex and gender, but a strong correlary is not enough to qualify as "immutable". There's a strong correlary between men and heterosexuality, but that doesn't make attraction to women an immutable truth for men.

We agree about the problematic use of the word "immutable." I said that above. My point is that classifications can be valid even if only based on statistics and correlations, rather than immutable traits.

These debates tend to go off the rails because people get hung up on definitions and classifications rather than real-world concerns about how to treat people. I don't see any of the comments in this thread as motivated by "phobia" or "hatred" and I think that characterization is wrong. As a practical matter, I think there's less disagreement in this thread than it might seem, EXCEPT to the extent that the original post in the thread, and the posts that followed, are focused on simply asking people what their subjective perceptions and preferences are. And there's nothing wrong if we disagree about that. That's what makes things interesting.