Gender Identity/Stereotypical Gender Roles
 

This is a thread which was brought to mind due to the topic presented here.

To begin, what role do you believe sex plays in the development of an individual?

I propose that sex is a merely biological function, which due to hormonal differences lends a predisposition towards certain patterns of behavior, but which does not dictate these patterns. The labelling of certain actions and emotions as masculine or feminine seems unfair to me, and taking on gender roles seems at best a certain railroading of personal development along a narrower path than necessary, and at worst rather fucking confusing.

I believe that gender is not an innate, physical capacity. That we identify with whatever role our experiences and decisions have brought us to believe in most. I feel that society often puts too much pressure on young people to conform to stereotypes, and that through this conformity we lose a lot of our potential as human beings.

For example, certain daily activities were at one time considered "women's work." And the belief was widely held that menial household labor was beneath men. Today (for the most part...) we don't hold these views openly anymore, and yet we still cling to certain roles and methods of sexuality. It seems a strange fact to me that we can share the chore of washing the dishes now, but we as a society still can't accept certain traits in people simply because they are not the "correct" gender.

I feel this leads to a certain desperation in some, who identify with their antithetical nature on the feminity/masculinity scale. Instead of being happy with who they are, they seek to change who they are. To more fully emulate the opposite gender, however this should never be a motivation.

It feels like we're just forcing ourselves to coincide with societal stereotypes far too much.

Perhaps this is a less specific phenomenon however, perhaps the true root is a lack of a strong enough individualistic urge in most persons. The addage that "no man is an island" holds far more weight than perhaps such a simple statement should. However, I'll just end here for now and see if anyone else has any thoughts on the matter.

pretty open ended I suppose, feel free to take it and run with it.

Some comics help relate to the matter:

Venus Envy
Misfile

I agree with the concept of society having a harsh definition of gender and sex roles, still present today. Some argue these are needed, some argue they hinder progress. There are a lot of people who stress the differences between males and females rather than the similarities.

So there is a question over whether there really is much difference inherently or if it's imposed on us through expectations and a self-fufilling prophecy.

I too agree that sex is merely a biological function. Sex is set in stone, you are either male or female. I pretty much agree with everything you said about sex. End of story.

But I find it interesting that you essentially define 'gender' and 'gender role' as essentially the same thing. To me, 'gender' is no different than sex. 'Gender role' however, is clearly social and psychological in nature. Is a task or behavior determinate on whether you are male or female? No. The presence of the TDF gene on the Y chromosome (or even sometimes on the X chromosome) makes you male or female.

If you are a guy and like what society has determined to be girly things, does that make you less of a guy? No. You are still a guy. The lottery of biology has determined as such.

And no, don't tell me I'm wrong about my definition of gender. Its a perfectly acceptable definition of gender. You might say 'well psychologists think gender is a psychological thing', but then I can say 'biologists think gender is a biological thing'. Just because you like to use the psychological definition does NOT mean I have to.

Therefore, gender and sex are the exact same thing and are purely physical. Gender roles are a set of expectation society place on people of both genders. Gender roles are subject to change, and are quite subjective. Gender/sex is not.

Leaping over from the other thread with sensational responses and insight!

Maybe it didn't come across as I intended, but I've always been under the impression that gendered pronouns referred to biological sex rather than gender roles. I wouldn't feel correct referring to an extremely feminine man as "she".

Swordchucks, if I've been understanding you correctly, we agree on the actual concepts of what's biological and what's societal, there's just a schism as far as what actual terms to use to describe them?

Since both definitions are correct, I've got no problem using Gender Role to describe societal expectations based on sex if it means clearing up any potential confusion.

This is a psychological matter, as such, the psychological definition of gender is preferred. Biologists probably simplify it to gender = sex since they have no interest in what happens in the mind and most of the time, it does hold true.

Now please, please, understand that your biological definition of gender isn't appropriete here.

And it's only true that sex is "set in stone" to the effect that they can't create a fertile version of a sex-change operation.

Biologically yes. There's more to it than that though. It all depends on what perspective you are analyzing it from.

These people exist too, but they aren't the same as a transexual. They fall under the category of transgender, of which transexuals make up a part. There are people who still feel they are gender A, though they do things more in accordance with gender B, may crossdress, do activites that seem to be in the sphere of gender B, and all to different degrees. This is different from someone who is gender B but sex A.

Ah, and here, I understand a little more where you're coming from, with the way you approach it.

Here is how the transgender community views it (including psychiatrists, clinicians, and patients)

Sex: physical anatomy.
Gender: Personal identity
Gender Role: Society's expectations of gender.

*after reading ninja-post by DFM*

I think the thing lacking here is the concept of personal identity, which has kinda been glossed over or either lumped with the other two. That is the crucial point here, how a person views themself.

Well, sure it's lacking a concept of personal identity, it's just a two letter pronoun. It's a quick way to give someone's sex.

This though, I'd like to hear more about transgender vs transexual since it all seems very muddled and the same to me.

This is what I always learned, and I think it lends itself far more easily to this type of discussion, even if it's not as mainstream as I thought it was.

Yeah, swordchucks, you're using the improper definition of a term relative to the subject matter. This isn't a biological discussion. Not everything relates to our own personal areas of expertise, it's often times appropriate to forego particular jargon when working outside one's own field. Just FYI.

And to take this along a narrower path, discussing sex change. There isn't an operation extant which could actually be deemed a true sex change. Your innate biological make up doesn't actually change, only relatively superficial things such as hormone levels and external physical appearance. On a genetic leve you are still male, or female as the case may be.

I would find this to be not worth the effort really. There's nothing inherently wrong with either sex. Whatever bits we've got between our legs really shouldn't determine what sort of lifestyle we lead, which is really the basis of my instigating this topic. In terms of personal appearance, if you want to be pretty be pretty (I try to be at least!) if you are attracted to a certain gender, both genders or no gender, then act in accordance with your innate drives. But you don't have to make these superficial changes to cement who you are, the only real reason I can see is that you'd be able to blend in, perhaps, a bit better. You wouldn't have to put so much work into defining who you are to others, they would see the outward gender and then treat you as such, but that to me seems entirely wrong.

My point is that we should treat every gender, sex, what have you the same. But that doesn't happen, and that I believe is the source of the confusion. Yes, you may very well be predominately feminine and more closely identify with the stereotype of a woman, but you are not a stereotype. We are all individuals and should be treated (and treat ourselves) as such.

Then again, perhaps it all boils down to an aesthetic, which I highly doubt. Still, the possibility is there. Though I don't think most people would fundamentally change their physiology for the sake of appearance alone.

I think I'm rambling now...

I just have a small question here... how does one determine a personal identity outside of society's expectations? I mean, you feel like a girl because society says that the way you feel is girly. You're still defining yourself based upon what society says, making it still a very environmental rather than biological event.

So basically you're saying 'I'm a girl because of the way I feel, and society defines the way I feel as girlish'? Personal identity is very much based upon what society imposed on you to begin with, so I don't see a distinction between between your definition of gender and gender role. You're basically saying that 'My gender does not conform to the gender role society has implanted, therefore I must be a different gender. My body must have been put together wrong."

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, its society thats wrong, and not you at all? Maybe you're built EXACTLY how you were meant to be, and society just doesn't know shit? Maybe you really ARE a guy, and society just doesn't actually know what a guy is!

Well here's an FYI... since when is determining whether something is male or female not biological? You opened up the whole biological aspect in your first post. I'm using perfectly acceptable definitions of the term. Maybe not the psychological definitions, but that doesn't make mine any less right.

Its amusing how well that can work both ways.

Gender roles are in a tumultuous process of changing right now. When my mom was growing up, there was a clear distinction between "men's work" and "women's work" around the house. It never got breached, with the exception that my grandma mowed the lawn, and only occasionally, because she enjoyed it. Jobs were also very segregated. A secretary was always a woman, a doctor was always a man, etc. These things have since broken down and we're now dealing with society trying to catch up.

However, when it comes to gender identity, I believe a lot of it is genetic. I believe people are born gay or straight, just like they're born male or female. Their environment does a lot to influence it, which is understandable given how gay people are treated, but I believe that it starts with genetics.

As for transgender people, I believe the same way. Some people are just born that way, and there's an environmental influence. I'm sure there are people with transgender genes who end up living as your garden variety gay person, and there are probably garden variety gay people who end up feeling they were born the wrong sex.

It's not, because it doesn't. The subject determines what focus on definitions is relevant. Now the fact that there's a genetic notion of sex is solid gold in biology*, but while it doesn't stop to be true in any subject, it's actually pretty useless here, and is no substitute for the concept of gender as a psychological construct.

So when the topic is gender, it's actually not the equivalent of anything else to decide that gender is the irrelevant thing.

I really regret if anyone takes that "FYI" for anything more than fluff. The original post sets male/female stuff pretty clearly fucking apart outside of the subject. Feminity and masculinity are not strictly synonyms to female and male, which have strictly sexual, biological connotations.

Now the really funny thing is very, very close you are from being in agreement.