• Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    They’ve actually found that trans individuals have brain structures that match their identity rather than their sex at birth.

    So while the way genders are supposed to act is a social construct, gender is very much biological as well.

    The truth is at this stage we don’t fully understand it.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Before people start thinking there is an innately male or female brain, please remember that environmental conditions including social ones influence the way the brain is structured due to neuroplasticity.

      And think about how boys are encouraged to eat and girls are encouraged to watch their weight, and how child body growth relies on building up periodic fat reserves in order to happen, and you need to eat a lot of protein when building muscle mass, and what the physical implications for that are and how it contributes to our social definition of sex. And how that contributes to cis women being more vulnerable to physical violence.

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Biological sex is also a social construct lmao, this is a very conservative framing of gender

    Read Judith Butler

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Biological sex is also a social construct lmao

      What? No.

      This is the kind of shit that makes trans activism completely ridiculous.

      • Gladaed@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Only for they gave inadequate context. Biological sex and genome expression is much more complicated than m/f but that discussion is not really in the scope of the thread.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I would suggest reading “Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of Sex” from Judith Butler.

          Pointing out how intersex people don’t fit into the constructed binary is easy to dismiss, sex essentialists just call those people defective men and women.

          (Which gets into how if you can’t have kids or you can but you don’t look a certain way you’re “defective”, which is a value judgement and doesn’t have some universal or biological basis)

          • Gladaed@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.

            I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.

              That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Actually the idea comes from feminism from literally the 1980s-1990s, from well respected feminist theorists. But thank you for illustrating how tied together the rights and oppression of cis women and trans people are.

        Read “Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of Sex” from Judith Butler.

        Also understand the definition of a social construct. Social construct doesn’t mean fake, it means falling into a classification scheme that is socially manufactured. Something that is 12 inches long isn’t “fake” in its 12 inch longness because measuremenr systems are socially constructed, it just means that it can become 10 inches long or 14 inches long if the length of an inch is redefined. And you would be wrong if you told someone that no, it is incorrect to call it 30.48 centimeters long. People can apply different classification schemes/social constructs to the same physical object and still be correct. They could also call it ten blagards long and be internally consistent within their classification scheme, but that wouldn’t have utility within a social context because the meaning of blagard hasn’t been socially constructed.

        An inch isn’t some innate objective truth, it is a common standard.

        The sex binary is a commonly applied standard, but it is arbitrary and harmful (see how women are treated rooted in myths around sex, the prolific mutilation of intersex infants, and the “trans panic defense”). If inches being the length they were started resulting in engineering failures that killed people we would change how we measure things.

        Well, it does and we don’t, but you get the point.

        • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          An inch isn’t some innate objective truth, it is a common standard.

          Do you mean that just like we have defined inch the length that is exactly 25.4mm (where mm is the length light travels in 1/299792458 seconds in a vacuum, seconds being whatever the fuck they are), we have also defined animals with XX chromosome females, and if they’re human, women, while recognizing that there are rare exceptions?

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Do you mean that just like we have defined inch the length that is exactly 25.4mm (where mm is the length light travels in 1/299792458 seconds in a vacuum, seconds being whatever the fuck they are), we have also defined animals with XX chromosome females, and if they’re human, women, while recognizing that there are rare exceptions?

            Two things:

            A) you’re not thinking procedurally. Doctors do not generally check chromosomes when they determining sex generally. So it would be more accurate to say “in infants, doctors define sex by looking at genitals, in adults, by looking at a variety of characteristics. We use chromosomes in medical circumstances to look for potential conditions that may explain symptoms, and sometimes we can use that as a category in determining sex” The definition you are using is really most applicable in people who are doing research, not clinical work, or interacting with human beings in a social context.

            B) cool, so we’ve established that is what you think sex is. Other communities define sex differently. You can’t claim inches are some universal innate biological truth and those heathens over there using centimeters are wrong and need to accept the wisdom of inches. And while inches might be more useful to you, centimeters may be more useful to them.

            I would really suggest that you read “Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of Sex” from Judith Butler. She literally has a PhD in philosophy and has devoted her life to analysis of the way we as a society conceptualize sex.