Results: Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves (1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development (DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2) neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.

Conclusions: Although the mechanisms remain to be determined, there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity.

That's not saying what you seem to be implying, and it's not contrary to what people mean when they say gender is a social construct.
Saying gender expression is not only performance is not really related to gender being a social construct.

What we define the genders to be is what is a social construct. The masculine gender encompasses a wide array of behaviours and expressions, as does the feminine. The behaviours and attitudes we assign to each gender is what's socially constructed. People tend to have a gender identity that matches their biological sex, and through acculturation we teach them the behaviors associated with each gender in our culture. Some people later realize that they're most comfortable conforming to a different gender than what matches their sex.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

I agree with you that the "gender is a social construct" is ultimately an ontological claim, about what gender is. When I hear "gender is just a social construct", especially from an anthropologist, I am entirely expecting a social constructionist account of gender, that's what they are communicating - what gender is.

Clearly there are social elements to gender, like the color we associate with a gender, which has changed over time and is arbitrary. There is nothing intrinsic about gender-color associations, no reason "blue" means "boy" and "pink" means "girl".

Regarding gender expression not only being performance: some people use Butler's performative theory of gender as a social constructionist account of gender. It's not really a coincidence in my mind that Butler shares some intellectual roots with the psychoanalytical sexologists who popularized social constructionist views in the 1960s, so while I'm sure you could parse several social constructionist accounts I don't think it's unfair to lump them together as a broad camp. The Julia Serano article I linked even does this:

Look, I know that many contemporary queer folks and feminists embrace mantras like "all gender is performance," "all gender is drag," and "gender is just a construct." They seem empowered by the way these sayings give the impression that gender is merely a fiction. A facade. A figment of our imaginations.

Notice how she lumps together views like "all gender is performance" and "gender is just a construct". I think this article is a relevant response to "gender is a social construct".

And yes, it depends somewhat on what people actually mean when they say "gender is a social construct", but I generally take them to mean that they believe in a social constructionist account of gender, i.e. that gender is entirely arbitrary, the result of how we are raised, and the result of socialization. If you are raised a boy, you are a boy because of how you were raised.

The idea that gender identity is biological, which is what that Safer meta-analysis concludes, contradicts the social constructionist account because it claims that a person's gender is intrinsic to them in some way, for example you can't just take a boy and raise them as a girl without problems (as the case of David Reimer illustrates, when the sexologist, John Money, who believed gender was just a construct and tested that theory by trying to have a boy raised as a girl).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

You're putting far too much thought into what other people mean by the phrase, particularly in the context of a joke.
Most people are not referring to several different anthropological, sociological, and feminist theories/philosophies.

When you disagree with "gender is a social construct" in a casual setting, intentionally or not, you're conveying the statement "gender is innately tied to biological sex, there are precisely two, and trans people are invalid".

It's better to take the phrase as meaning "having a vagina doesn't mean you're a hot pink wearing pretty princess, nor does a penis imply you aren't. Gender is more complicated than a binary, and we're better off raising children as little people who tell us who they are than spending too much time being concerned that they only play with plastic figurines compatible with their genitals and playacting the right chores".

It's a joke about tricking people into attending an event usually focused on baby genitals, and then instead giving them cake that isn't coded to the babies genitals with a lecture about how they don't tell you as much about who this little person will be as people think.

[–] Bacano 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When you disagree with “gender is a social construct” in a casual setting, intentionally or not, you’re conveying the statement “gender is innately tied to biological sex, there are precisely two, and trans people are invalid”.

Wild to see such a binary view on this given the context. How can this be taken to be any less constraining (to someonen who views gender as a spectrum) than the view that "there are only two biological genders"?

Dandelion is giving examples on how it is not necessarily a social construct and providing examples and sources. That portions of gender have a propensity to be tied to biological sex.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think there's a conflation of terms here. There's Big G Gender, and little g individual-gender-identity.

Genders are social constructs. "Girls like pink and ponies" is not tied to anything except culture.
Your gender identity however, is absolutely not a social construct. Otherwise people wouldn't be raised as one gender, live that way for decades and then figure out that the reason things have felt "wrong" is because they've been living a gender that doesn't fit.

The given examples were about gender identity, how that's correlated with biology, and how it's more than just how you present yourself to the world.

Conflating Gender and gender identity can lead to a lot of confusion.

[–] Bacano 2 points 1 week ago

My comment was more toward the first influencing an individuals relationship with the second if that makes sense.

load more comments (6 replies)