I think an argument could be made that since gender is a social construct anyways, the idea of “alpha”, “beta”, and “sigma” males are different genders.
The idea that gender is entirely socially constructed is easily the greatest misconception about gender that gets repeated time and again – almost always by cis people, who never think too much about it because they’ve never had to reconsider their own gender.
Gender roles and gender stereotypes really are socially constructed, like the idea that some clothes are feminine and others are masculine, just to name one example. Gender identity, however, is not. If that was true, like the previous commenter was saying, conversion therapy for trans people would work, when it’s been shown it absolutely doesn’t. Gender dysphoria isn’t a social construct either. Many trans people see their own lives improve considerably after taking HRT (hormone therapy) and having gender-affirming surgeries – how can that be explained socially? Also, we know there is a genetic component to being trans as well, because of twin studies. All of which shows there really is a biological component to gender – just not in the “gender = genitals” way that transphobes think.
Your quote reminds me of one of the biggest misconceptions about Judith Butler’s work who wrote so much about gender…
People constantly misquote them and say that Butler wrote that “gender is a performance” and assume that Butler meant that gender is fake.
What Butler Butler actually wrote is that “gender is performative”, ie. it involves a performance that communicates our gender identity to others without the performance being the end-all-be-all of gender.
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.
The rationale that many people follow is that if gender is socially constructed, it can be socially changed as well (through conversion therapy) to make your kid align with their assigned gender at birth, which doesn’t work in reality.
Those people should probably read more. While a social construct does not have an absolute origin, that something is a social construct has never implied that it’s “fake.”
Especially at the level of the individual, where the gender “construct” becomes a monolith and internal and external perceptions belong to one person, it contains the entire definition for that individual at a point in time. So for the individual at a point in time, the construct is not only real, it’s literally all there is.
hey! the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed is also advanced by agender enbys like young me who simply never experienced a feeling of gender in their lives, and thus agreed with fellow enby Judith Butler that gender is a funny silly game we play for no reason. do not go around presuming those people are cisgender or that everyone biologically feels gender like you do
I can see why this idea would seem appealing to agender people. But that’s taking one’s personal case and turning it into a statement about gender as a whole. Gender having a biological component isn’t at odds with agender or NB people, but claiming gender is socially constructed is indeed problematic, like I said before.
I think an argument could be made that since gender is a social construct anyways, the idea of “alpha”, “beta”, and “sigma” males are different genders.
I’ll just copy-paste what I said last time:
Your quote reminds me of one of the biggest misconceptions about Judith Butler’s work who wrote so much about gender…
People constantly misquote them and say that Butler wrote that “gender is a performance” and assume that Butler meant that gender is fake.
What Butler Butler actually wrote is that “gender is performative”, ie. it involves a performance that communicates our gender identity to others without the performance being the end-all-be-all of gender.
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
Why does gender identity being a social construct mean conversation therapy would work? I don’t follow the logic behind that assertion.
I see no reason why you can’t be biologically predisposed to identify as things that are socially constructed.
The rationale that many people follow is that if gender is socially constructed, it can be socially changed as well (through conversion therapy) to make your kid align with their assigned gender at birth, which doesn’t work in reality.
Those people should probably read more. While a social construct does not have an absolute origin, that something is a social construct has never implied that it’s “fake.”
Especially at the level of the individual, where the gender “construct” becomes a monolith and internal and external perceptions belong to one person, it contains the entire definition for that individual at a point in time. So for the individual at a point in time, the construct is not only real, it’s literally all there is.
Changing the social definition of the concepts of gender, and how people view themselves are completely distinct.
I can paint new directions on the face of a compass , but it’s still going to point where it was going to point regardless.
North is a social construct, but no amount of conversation therapy is ever going to move the north star.
hey! the idea that gender is entirely socially constructed is also advanced by agender enbys like young me who simply never experienced a feeling of gender in their lives, and thus agreed with fellow enby Judith Butler that gender is a funny silly game we play for no reason. do not go around presuming those people are cisgender or that everyone biologically feels gender like you do
I can see why this idea would seem appealing to agender people. But that’s taking one’s personal case and turning it into a statement about gender as a whole. Gender having a biological component isn’t at odds with agender or NB people, but claiming gender is socially constructed is indeed problematic, like I said before.