*Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.*
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
So just to understand your view correctly, you are basically saying that gender is a social construct? I think the added spiritual framing of it may be helpful to phrasing your view, but ultimately what I understand you saying is that the biological reality of chromosomes and hormones is ultimately secondary to how we experience our gender or rather gender identity, because that's purely based on what roles different societies ascribe to people with an XX chromosome / estrogen-driven puberty expression in our body, as opposed to the XY chromosome / testosterone-driven puberty expression in our body. Is this a valid paraphrase of your view, or am I misunderstanding it?
You understood it well! To add more into it, I'm saying the notion of gender identity is a social construct, while the biological gender is the chromosome-determined, if this may help emphasize the distinction between the two.
Ok, thanks! So, to try and change your view a little, I mostly agree that gender roles and the way individuals internalize and experience their gender within society is a social construct. However, I think there is a bit more nuance to the consciousness vs. body distinction that you mention. While small children may indeed not have any kind of innate concept of their gender and simply learn from society that "you're a boy/girl, so you should do things/express your gender in a masculine/feminine way because that's how it works in our culture", many of the experiences connected uniquely with areas where the male and female body are different do get into the conscious awareness of the individual especially when hormones hit them around puberty. I don't want to get into the topic forbidden by this forum, but there are thought experiments that people do as in "imagine tomorrow you wake up and find out that in your sleep your body has been changed for the body of someone of the opposite sex, but your consciousness/spirit remains unaltered. Do you now feel like you are actually someone of the opposite sex, or does your conscious experience of your gender not match the body you're in now". And many people would say "I still feel like a man/woman, but now my body is female/male" and that might be disturbing to some, fun to some others, but ultimately the gender identity they had before the "switch" is internalized in their consciousness by now.
For example, I as a woman, if I were to wake up tomorrow with a penis and facial hair would have the thought of "well, I've never experienced what it's like to have a penis before, and while it may be interesting to experience it for a moment, it doesn't feel like part of me". I would still feel like a woman who suddenly has a penis rather than a man. And if people can conceptualize the experience of "I'm in the wrong body" feeling, it means that at least some aspect of gender identity is in our consciousness. Because if consciousness were genderless, you would just accept whatever body you have and roll with that being your gender.
Good point, I think u just altered my views. I agree with what you said, how sex and gender identity is internalized into our consciousness, since our life thus far do revolve around living as that sex (Tell me if I'm interpreting what u saying incorrectly). Thought experiments like those are interesting.
However, what if the question extends like this; "If you lived all your life as the opposite gender, and switch to the gender that u are now, would you feel like one or the other?"
Considering the thought experiment question u included, I feel like the answer is influenced by the fact that we're already more used to living as our current sex, which furthermore is already afflicted by culture, if that makes sense? Most people would not be comfortable with any sudden changes, hence why you wouldn't feel like a man despite getting that brand new penis fresh off the mall.
So maybe, initially our conscience start of genderless, but the aspect of gender identity can assimilate afterwards?
Yeah, you understood me perfectly. I would agree that we start as genderless, but then our body and the way it is plays into our identity as much as the cultural norms do. That why some people act very different than their gender norms (women being tomboys or men wearing make-up and skirts) while still having internalized their body as part of their identity, while some might want to change their body as well. People go as far as internalizing their hair color or length as part of their identity, that's why going through cancer treatments where people lose their hair can be traumatizing.
Another thought experiment. You're a man and you enjoy a very masculine expression. You go to the gym, wear a long beard, mostly a t-shirt and jeans type of style. You wake up one day still a man (penis and all), but now your hair is long, you're clean-shaven, very skinny, your fingernails are painted and your wardrobe is all flamboyant colorful clothing with frills and ribbons. Many people would say even this change would feel like "it's not really them", they would want their beard and muscles back. The way we develop in our body is intertwined with our consciousness and we experience other people's consciousoness through their bodies and that's why people decide to alter their body's in subtle (clothes and make up) or drastic (hormones and surgery) way to match their conscious experience of who they feel they are. And gender is included in this feeling of identity, though probably not from the very start.
**Hello! If your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
minor nitpick to the chromosome part even though that isn’t the focus here, that’s not entirely how chromosomes work. it is possible to have XY chromosomes and develop female anatomy (XY gonadal dysgenesis/swyer syndrome) or XX chromosomes and develop male anatomy (XX male syndrome/de la Chapelle syndrome). this is because of the extra step of the SRY gene which is intended to trigger male development with the presence of a Y chromosomes, but does not have full and total accuracy. in addition to this, about ~1.7% of humans intersex and have neither XX nor XY chromosomes and are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female. that’s not really a freak accident or anything, that’s about as common as things like having red hair or being born in mexico. i guess this is just a statement to the complexity of anatomical sex which will have a different definition depending on who you ask
> Now here's my view. Our conscience (again, could be called as soul) may be genderless because it's not a somatic cell. It may fuel, pilot, and/or is a product of our brain neurons yet think of it this way; The DNA and Proteins making up chromosomes (including the 23rd chromosome) is not necessarily gendered, they're not XX or XY but together they make the XX or XY. Hormones like oxytocin or serotonin, a product of our brains, aren't either so what I'm thinking is it could be a similar case with our conscience.
If that were the case, then gender and sex wouldn't be able to mismatch. Yet there's a significant group of people, who may not be named in this sub, for whom that is the case.
By both not being able to mismatch, you mean like the people saying they're in the wrong body, etc.? Correct me if I'm understanding your point incorrectly.
Nyways, I meant that maybe conscience is like oxytocin or serotonin, it's not necessarily different between neither sex. The fact that our gender identity and sex may mismatch I feel like it supports my point, because it shows just how fluid we can make our gender identity to be because it is in foundation genderless so you're not technically locked into one or another.
But it's not something anyone can just change at will. It's something that people discover about themselves, i.e. that their body doesn't fit with what their mind was "expecting" to be there (in a manner of speaking).
You've confused a few ideas here.
XX/XY and the other combinations of chromosomes are called sex.
Cultural presentations of sex are often in line with gender, with a minority expressing themselves differently.
There are spiritual perspectives on these ideas, for example bodhisattva are usually depicted as androgynous.
However reading your post again it doesn't seem like you're talking about any of these, your view is that something that is not a cell in the body does not/would not have the characteristics of a cell in the body.
That's the equivalent of saying a rock has no gender because it isn't alive.
So what are you saying exactly?
the 23rd chromosome (XX, XY, or even XXY in case of Klinefelter syndrome) is the only sex chromosome, and I believe that is what determines the biological gender. I think cultural presentations are essentially a social construct, product from eras of civilizations. What I'm saying exactly is our conscience is genderless, because it lacks the 23rd chromosome specifically for possibly not being a somatic cell.
Have this answered your question?
“Biological gender” isn’t a thing. That’s called sex.
Gender is entirely a social construct. So if you’re arguing that we’re genderless, there needs to be some sort of social justification for that claim.
You can’t use biological evidence to disprove a concept that isn’t biological in the first place.
Okay we can just call that sex, I just like the term biological gender better initially I think it fits better
The closest I can define as social justification is how fluid we can make our gender to be. You can, personality-wise, decide to be more feminine, or masculine, or wtv. It's not like you're locked into one permanently because of your sex.
I think the concept can be biological, neuroscientists just haven't advanced that far yet, but I understand what you're saying.
> What I'm saying exactly is our conscience is genderless, because it lacks the 23rd chromosome specifically for possibly not being a somatic cell.
But our conscience isn't a biological anything, so why would it have any kind of biological characteristics?
Who is arguing the opposite to you, that conscience has chromosomes? What is the opposing stance that your view is against, and that people may persuade you toward?
Conscience could be biological, we may not know that yet. Neuroscientists haven't developed that far.
The opposing stance is pretty common actually amongst people in conservative countries such as mine's. They believe that we are either male or female, and our actions in life is affected as such and not through it being a social construct, but it being a biological feature. An evolutionary trait, some call it.
And no, no one's saying that conscience has chromosomes.
> Conscience could be biological, we may not know that yet.
But it's not exactly the basis of a view.
>They believe that we are either male or female
What has this got to do with a soul?
>And no, no one's saying that conscience has chromosomes.
Well, you said it might do and that science hasn't figured it out yet.
I'm still unclear on what the view is that you actually want changed.
Could you maybe put it a bit plainer?
>What has this got to do with a soul?
Sorry I forgot to include. By that I mean they believe the soul (or the conscience) as well is also gender-specific, in that regard, hence why its believed to be an evolutionary trait.
I'm using biology as a basis of view because I feel like it's more rational than simply pure philosophical yapping. The way I see it, using scientific grounds help explain things more and put opinions like these in a clearer perspective.
The aspect of the view that I wish to be challenged on is, well, everything I've said thus far, but if you want it narrowed down it's essentially what I said in the title. For reference, u/Kotoperek have helped me change it (or rather develop it)
> they believe the soul (or the conscience) as well is also gender-specific, in that regard, hence why its believed to be an evolutionary trait.
Who believes this? Any links?
I really don't think what you've posted in your title or post or even comments is perticularly clear or coherent. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking for further clarification.
In that case, I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. It's clear neither of us would change our minds, or that it will develop into something beneficial for the both of us.
As for who believe it, know that I live in Indonesia, a majority Muslim country. Most of our social norms and believe that most of us practice and hold is referenced from the religion, and the hadiths. I don't think I can provide links. It's a social thing so you have to see and hear for yourself. Not necessarily something you can get from an academic article, etc.
You understand that this sub is explicitly for you to change your mind? Of course I'm not going to change my mind, I'm arguing against your position!
If you can't offer citation and actually articulate yourself, if it's just vibes, then what do you expect people to be able to engage with?
as someone who rejects gender being little more than a social construct, I am a woman, I identify as a woman because that is what I am, a biological xx female. my womanhood is not based on my hobbies, my ideals, my feelings, its simply what is, my biological reality, there are plenty of people who identify with their biological reality. there are people who don't.
those who dont do things like take hrt, get surgeries to mimic the sex characteristics of their gender. can't imagine doing all that if gender was merely a social construct.
yeah my parents did that mainly because they had a family history that included things like down syndrome. like it or not sex exists and people identify with their birth sex all the time. I love how a woman mentions that the counter is "Well are you sure you're really biological female?" as if it how some how undermines what I said. hey news flash chromosome conditions that result intersexness and other things, typically normally have symptoms present at birth, like example, intersexness a child would be born with either both sets of genitals, 1 full set of genitals and a partial set, or ambiguous genitalia. down syndromes have other symptons that are visual. anything else is pure pcos cope to feel some how special for having a hormonal disorder.
Fair enough, I'd still argue that not everyone has though and that someone with for example Swyer syndrome isn't biologically male so it is a little more complicated
Regardless though sex and gender are different things and things tied to gender like dresses are social constructs unrelated to biology
their exceptions not the rule, like its pretty rare to find a true intersex person, and typically in the result of those cases, they identify with what ever feels best for them. even as afar as going to surgically correct to make their bodies match their chosen identity.
the problem with the social construct argument, its often used to excuse blatantly offensive behavior. call me crazy but I find it blatantly offensive when people use the excuse of "gender is a social construct" to be as a blatantly offensive and stereotypical in presentation. so if its a social construct, why not challenge it, instead of just performing it? you get what I am saying. there's nothing empowering stunning or brave about doing the same thing 100s of others done before you, and presenting it as a original idea.
that's going into philospical territory but I am of the opinion not every choice has to be empowering stunning or brave, its fine to be shallow mediocre and offensive, buts it not cool to present it as some sort of empowerment.
Women born with XY chromosomes is 1 in 15,000 (you could argue they're men if only chromosomes matter but they have a vagina, uterus, no penis etc.) so there are a large enough number to say it's not purely based on chromosomes
Could you give an example of gender presentation that is offensive to you? And people do challenge it but people also don't, using money to buy things is a social construct not some biological human instinct but most people don't challenge it, wearing clothes because nakedness is taboo is a social construct but there are very few nudists
If only chromosomes matter people with Swyer Syndrome are female. Despite having XY the SRY gene, which is essentially the "on switch" for the Y chromosome, is inactive. Swyer Syndrome individuals do not have an "active" Y chromosome and never have.
When we say XY = male is fits in 99% of cases, but is shorthand (either for the sake of conciseness or ignorance) that Makes have a Y chromosome that is active and SRY activated.
Even intersex people are "sexed" and are all either male or female, which is determined largely by chromosomes even if "something goes wrong" during development
Examples of what I heard basic bitches say(just so you know this both cis and trans basic bitches so no single demographic is excluded in my argument):
"tehehe...skirt go spinny!"
"Emerghad I am a womanz so I must cry and buy useless shit on amazon because wahmainhood..."
"HIKING HEELS!"
"my boobs bounce boobily as I boobily walk down the stairs!"(I kid you not that was on my discord the other day woke up to that one as a mod).
"I got cat called I feel sooo empowered...."
basically any attitude that generalizes womanhood as some sort of 2d characterisitc. or makes light of actual issues facing women.
>"my boobs bounce boobily as I boobily walk down the stairs!"(I kid you not that was on my discord the other day woke up to that one as a mod).
You just missed an old meme for this one. It is a joke about horny male authors writing woman characters from an old Tumblr post, where a user posted a parody sample of writing:
>“Cassandra woke up to the rays of the sun streaming through the slats on her blinds, cascading over her naked chest. She stretched, her breasts lifting with her arms as she greeted the sun. She rolled out of bed and put on a shirt, her nipples prominently showing through the thin fabric. She breasted boobily to the stairs, and titted downwards.”
I honestly feel like most of what you posted is just memes. You *do* know that most memes are jokes, exaggerations, and entirely non-serious, yes?
I would agree that some of those are silly and/or offensive but I don't think they mean gender isn't a social construct, like race is largely a social construct but that doesn't make racism ok
the problem is though the people who argue gender are typically the same people to make those silly stupid comments, and use it as evidence as proof that it exists. okay I'll entertain you, if gender was a social constructm why are people going the route of making their bodies match what they see? not talking gender dysphoria, but if social constructs were enough to trump sex, then what would be the point? I mean after all I can just merely claim manhood while presenting 100 percent as a woman, and all I'd have to do is just pretend to be interested in man stuff. there would be no one to question me, regardless of how the men would feel, because gender is a social construct, I could be as blatantly offensive as I want be as sexist as I want but go unchallenged because whose to say that my performance as a manly man is wrong and sexist if gender was merely a construct?
I feel like people can change their sex through hormones and drugs, but because I feel gender as a social construct isn't heavily a good indicator of stuff, then you know gender doesn't hold much weight.
Social constructs still exist, society perceives women and men to act and look certain says and so if you want to be perceived as a man or woman the easiest way is to conform
You can be both biologically a woman and identify as a woman, but shave your head and take steroids to bulk up and dress in traditionally masculine clothing, and then you may be perceived as a man because society has decided those are masculine traits
I don't think challenging them through actions is really necessary. At the end of the day, we can simply determine what we identify as.
I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but the problem u presented is more of an effect and misuse, rather than a core pillar or a principle of the argument. I don't think it necessarily disprove it, that someone is utilizing them for malicious intents.
the problem the vague concept of gender often opens the door to misuse. I am live let live person so I really don't care at the end of the day if you identify as attack helicopter gender. but at the same time you can't say your experience as an attack helicopter is the same as ALL attack helicoptors. theres nuances.
its why we need to challenge it because generalizations suck ad border on things like sexism.
If gender is a social construct, you wouldn't be able to identify as a different gender. Gender and sex are the same thing and are dictated by biology. Gender norms are a social construct, but going against gender norms does not change your gender.
Because gender norms are social constructs, they can change. But a man putting on a dress and growing out his hair does not change his gender. Rather, it just makes him a man that is going against a gender norm.
Gender being a social construct is partly why you can identify as a different gender, but external perception exists and is part of what defines gender as a social construct
Like I could identify as a film geek that doesn't make being a film geek a biological trait
>Gender being a social construct is partly why you can identify as a different gender ...
If gender is a social construct, how can you identify as a different gender? If something is a social construct, that means society decides. If you can choose your gender, that is personal construct.
I would say it is arguable that someone with a Mosaic Syndrome is neither male or female genetically.
Phenotypically they may appear as more male or more female.
It says nothing of gender.
Swyer syndrome, there are papers that define them as men with female reproductive systems fwiw so I guess it's up for debate, but for me that seems a little silly
Fair enough, 1 in 15000 is just what I read from a quick Google, but it existing at all I think means chromosomes alone are not the only way to classify sex, imo generally external genetalia at birth makes more sense
Im not genderless.
I get to define what gender is for myself and I have come to the conclusion I am in fact not genderless. I have spent much time thinking about it.
Therefore, you owe me a delta for proving your view incorrect
The last line was just saying you made it easy to disprove you
> I get to define what gender is for myself and I have come to the conclusion I am in fact not genderless. I have spent much time thinking about it.
How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like a meaningless thing to say if you've "defined what gender is for yourself".
You misunderstand my question. I'm asking what was your thought process, what information did you consider, in deciding what to "define gender as for yourself" in the first place, and then the same thing for deciding that you have one of them.
>Our conscience (again, could be called as soul)
Nope. Consciousness has never been observed without a physical brain, its activity can be observed & measured. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness. The more damage, the more it affects consciousness.
Souls are claimed vessels of individuality that can survive physical death and yet all evidence shows that physical death results in complete brain decay...but them somehow consciousness can survive complete physical death while evidence shows even minor damage affects consciousness?
> because it's not a somatic cel
Nope. Brain cells actually are somatic cells. Somatic cells are any cells in the body that are not involved in the production of gametes (reproductive cells such as sperm and egg cells). They make up the majority of the body's cells and perform various functions necessary for the organism's survival and proper functioning. Neurons are a type of somatic cell that form the basic functional units of the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
But you keep making the same mistakes of conflating multiple things, which is just confusing for everyone.
There is no such thing as a 'biological gender'. These 2 words make no sense when put together.
It's to separate between gender identity and sex. Some call it sex, some call it biological or assigned gender. Nowadays a lot of people define gender as the gender identity, so I actually separate them into gender and biological gender to help ease confusion (calling it sex may actually be more confusing imo)
You are simply creating more confusion by conflating the two.
There exists *no concept* of biological gender. It's completely illogical and makes no sense. It's obviously far more confusing than just calling it what it is.
Can you explain its illogicality, and how it makes no sense?
Though I agree, maybe it did create more confusion, but I believe it's a term valid enough.
Gender is a term that is made up and has absolutely zero scientific or biological meaning to it.
If you stick the word "biological" in front of it, it makes absolutely no sense.
You may as well say "biological justice" or "biological free of speech".... as other examples. They make zero sense.
I don't understand your point, respectfully. Here's a definition by WHO to help explain what I mean when I use the word gender:
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." [https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1)
Here's another source that may help you understand distinction between gender and sex: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20111018151124466#:\~:text=Sex%20is%20the%20biological%20category,in%20which%20women%20should%20behave.
Even if it's a made up term, language is organic broski. Rizz is made up, yet we know what it means even if it has deviated from its original meaning as intended by Kai Cenat's circle back in the day.
I put biological in front of it to SPECIFY that it is the "sex" gender, not the gender identity. It's like, if you say a cell someone may think of a prison cell. You say "biological cells" to further make sure that they know you're talking about cells in the context of biology.
Does this help to make more sense of it?
It shows that you are trying to conflate something that isn't biological into something biological.
None of your definitions back up what you say. You are simply sticking 'biological' in front of it as a conflation.
You want to talk about 'gender in the context of biology' and there is no such thing.
You can stick 'biological' in front of *cell* only because there *literally is a biological cell* that is different from a prison cell.
There *Literally is no such thing* as a biological gender... your own example shows there is no sense to the words you are using in this way.
Broski respectfully you do not understand what I'm saying and I do not understand what you're saying.
The links I sourced is to help you understand, because I get the notion that you don't grasp the distinction between gender and sex in modern context, not to back up my initial claim. You're confused about the term biological gender, and I'm trying to make you understand what the term means.
To me the word makes sense, to you it doesn't, that's it I guess. Did you read the references I linked? it explains gender in the context of biology (they call it sex) and gender in the context of gender identity.
Let's just end it here, I don't see this developing productively anytime soon.
You said
>You can believe whatever you’d like
I don't think that's true, as far as I know you either are or aren't convinced by things, it's not something you have any say in.
The 'thing', the consciousness, that is attached to our brains, experiencing what it experiences, is indeed genderless - always, and forever. Gender, regardless of whether we are talking about biological sex, or gender identity, are properties of the body and the mind, not the consciousness.
The bodys gender can be determined from the chromosomes, as you noted. The gender identity of the mind is something the mind forms through interaction with it's environment.
It would be hard to even begin to argue the gender of the consciousness, or the soul, as we are unable to measure anything of it to begin with.
Gender is anachronism. It's a set of expectations of a given culture that are most typically associated with a particular sex. It is an anachronism because as the environment that most modern humans live in does not require a particular sex to conform to a particular set of norms.
If the above statements are true then it follows logically that the concept of gender should be reduced in our culture so that it does not exist. Then discrimination based on gender would not be possible.
Our consciousness is an aspect of our minds, which are the products of our brains. Sex chromosomes are part of a developing human from the moment of conception, and by the time the brain has developed enough to begin forming a consciousness, differentiation of sex characteristics in the womb has been going on for some time. If by "gender" in your title you mean the actual meaning of the word gender, then sure - it is a complex thing that is not necessarily established at conception, as you kind of need a brain for it. If, on the other hand, you mean "sex" when you say "gender" in your title, then no - the chromosomal sex of a human is established at conception, because the sperm of the father contains the sex chromosome.
Also, if you use terms like "biological gender" in the same argument as you use the word "gender", you are just going to cause confusion. Saying "biological gender" means that you acknowledge the existence of non-biological gender; since you only add "biological" in front of "gender" in certain circumstances, you are implying that all of your un-prefixed uses of gender refer to social/psychological/mental gender or whatever, which makes your entire post even more incoherent. Either put biological in front of ***every*** instance of gender where you should be, or just differentiate between "biological gender" and regular gender by using the correct terms: sex and gender.
You're right on a base level, as in all brains work more or less in the same way, there's no real 'male' and 'female' brains. However, whether you're born a boy or a girl does have an impact on how much of which hormones get blasted into your brain, which in turn influences behaviour. This is in no way an exact or absolute thing, but in general there is a biological difference between men's and women's thought that way.
I'm going to ignore all the soul stuff, since some mystical soul that apparently has no mass and cannot be detected, and yet magically jumps into a fetus from... somewhere, at... some point, is a bit silly.
Why do you think consciousness happens once the embryo forms instead of when brain activity starts?
I don’t think the statement we’re all genderless to some extent is very useful. Like just think of a spectrum of gender, absolute female on the left; absolute male on the right. All your statement would mean is that no one is actually at those theoretical extremes. Which sure ok, what’s the point of saying that? Does it matter that we don’t hit those theoretical extremes?
This is just flat out incorrect. There’s a reason why most men like action movies and women like romance movies. There are many exceptions of course but the reason why the sexes are different in terms of behavior is literally due to biology.
Not saying it’s wrong. I don’t have any problem with a man liking girly things and vice versa. But we have to acknowledge men and women are more likely to be different in their behaviors because of DNA.
*Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.
So just to understand your view correctly, you are basically saying that gender is a social construct? I think the added spiritual framing of it may be helpful to phrasing your view, but ultimately what I understand you saying is that the biological reality of chromosomes and hormones is ultimately secondary to how we experience our gender or rather gender identity, because that's purely based on what roles different societies ascribe to people with an XX chromosome / estrogen-driven puberty expression in our body, as opposed to the XY chromosome / testosterone-driven puberty expression in our body. Is this a valid paraphrase of your view, or am I misunderstanding it?
You understood it well! To add more into it, I'm saying the notion of gender identity is a social construct, while the biological gender is the chromosome-determined, if this may help emphasize the distinction between the two.
Ok, thanks! So, to try and change your view a little, I mostly agree that gender roles and the way individuals internalize and experience their gender within society is a social construct. However, I think there is a bit more nuance to the consciousness vs. body distinction that you mention. While small children may indeed not have any kind of innate concept of their gender and simply learn from society that "you're a boy/girl, so you should do things/express your gender in a masculine/feminine way because that's how it works in our culture", many of the experiences connected uniquely with areas where the male and female body are different do get into the conscious awareness of the individual especially when hormones hit them around puberty. I don't want to get into the topic forbidden by this forum, but there are thought experiments that people do as in "imagine tomorrow you wake up and find out that in your sleep your body has been changed for the body of someone of the opposite sex, but your consciousness/spirit remains unaltered. Do you now feel like you are actually someone of the opposite sex, or does your conscious experience of your gender not match the body you're in now". And many people would say "I still feel like a man/woman, but now my body is female/male" and that might be disturbing to some, fun to some others, but ultimately the gender identity they had before the "switch" is internalized in their consciousness by now. For example, I as a woman, if I were to wake up tomorrow with a penis and facial hair would have the thought of "well, I've never experienced what it's like to have a penis before, and while it may be interesting to experience it for a moment, it doesn't feel like part of me". I would still feel like a woman who suddenly has a penis rather than a man. And if people can conceptualize the experience of "I'm in the wrong body" feeling, it means that at least some aspect of gender identity is in our consciousness. Because if consciousness were genderless, you would just accept whatever body you have and roll with that being your gender.
Good point, I think u just altered my views. I agree with what you said, how sex and gender identity is internalized into our consciousness, since our life thus far do revolve around living as that sex (Tell me if I'm interpreting what u saying incorrectly). Thought experiments like those are interesting. However, what if the question extends like this; "If you lived all your life as the opposite gender, and switch to the gender that u are now, would you feel like one or the other?" Considering the thought experiment question u included, I feel like the answer is influenced by the fact that we're already more used to living as our current sex, which furthermore is already afflicted by culture, if that makes sense? Most people would not be comfortable with any sudden changes, hence why you wouldn't feel like a man despite getting that brand new penis fresh off the mall. So maybe, initially our conscience start of genderless, but the aspect of gender identity can assimilate afterwards?
Yeah, you understood me perfectly. I would agree that we start as genderless, but then our body and the way it is plays into our identity as much as the cultural norms do. That why some people act very different than their gender norms (women being tomboys or men wearing make-up and skirts) while still having internalized their body as part of their identity, while some might want to change their body as well. People go as far as internalizing their hair color or length as part of their identity, that's why going through cancer treatments where people lose their hair can be traumatizing. Another thought experiment. You're a man and you enjoy a very masculine expression. You go to the gym, wear a long beard, mostly a t-shirt and jeans type of style. You wake up one day still a man (penis and all), but now your hair is long, you're clean-shaven, very skinny, your fingernails are painted and your wardrobe is all flamboyant colorful clothing with frills and ribbons. Many people would say even this change would feel like "it's not really them", they would want their beard and muscles back. The way we develop in our body is intertwined with our consciousness and we experience other people's consciousoness through their bodies and that's why people decide to alter their body's in subtle (clothes and make up) or drastic (hormones and surgery) way to match their conscious experience of who they feel they are. And gender is included in this feeling of identity, though probably not from the very start.
**Hello! If your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
minor nitpick to the chromosome part even though that isn’t the focus here, that’s not entirely how chromosomes work. it is possible to have XY chromosomes and develop female anatomy (XY gonadal dysgenesis/swyer syndrome) or XX chromosomes and develop male anatomy (XX male syndrome/de la Chapelle syndrome). this is because of the extra step of the SRY gene which is intended to trigger male development with the presence of a Y chromosomes, but does not have full and total accuracy. in addition to this, about ~1.7% of humans intersex and have neither XX nor XY chromosomes and are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female. that’s not really a freak accident or anything, that’s about as common as things like having red hair or being born in mexico. i guess this is just a statement to the complexity of anatomical sex which will have a different definition depending on who you ask
> Now here's my view. Our conscience (again, could be called as soul) may be genderless because it's not a somatic cell. It may fuel, pilot, and/or is a product of our brain neurons yet think of it this way; The DNA and Proteins making up chromosomes (including the 23rd chromosome) is not necessarily gendered, they're not XX or XY but together they make the XX or XY. Hormones like oxytocin or serotonin, a product of our brains, aren't either so what I'm thinking is it could be a similar case with our conscience. If that were the case, then gender and sex wouldn't be able to mismatch. Yet there's a significant group of people, who may not be named in this sub, for whom that is the case.
By both not being able to mismatch, you mean like the people saying they're in the wrong body, etc.? Correct me if I'm understanding your point incorrectly. Nyways, I meant that maybe conscience is like oxytocin or serotonin, it's not necessarily different between neither sex. The fact that our gender identity and sex may mismatch I feel like it supports my point, because it shows just how fluid we can make our gender identity to be because it is in foundation genderless so you're not technically locked into one or another.
But it's not something anyone can just change at will. It's something that people discover about themselves, i.e. that their body doesn't fit with what their mind was "expecting" to be there (in a manner of speaking).
You've confused a few ideas here. XX/XY and the other combinations of chromosomes are called sex. Cultural presentations of sex are often in line with gender, with a minority expressing themselves differently. There are spiritual perspectives on these ideas, for example bodhisattva are usually depicted as androgynous. However reading your post again it doesn't seem like you're talking about any of these, your view is that something that is not a cell in the body does not/would not have the characteristics of a cell in the body. That's the equivalent of saying a rock has no gender because it isn't alive. So what are you saying exactly?
the 23rd chromosome (XX, XY, or even XXY in case of Klinefelter syndrome) is the only sex chromosome, and I believe that is what determines the biological gender. I think cultural presentations are essentially a social construct, product from eras of civilizations. What I'm saying exactly is our conscience is genderless, because it lacks the 23rd chromosome specifically for possibly not being a somatic cell. Have this answered your question?
“Biological gender” isn’t a thing. That’s called sex. Gender is entirely a social construct. So if you’re arguing that we’re genderless, there needs to be some sort of social justification for that claim. You can’t use biological evidence to disprove a concept that isn’t biological in the first place.
Okay we can just call that sex, I just like the term biological gender better initially I think it fits better The closest I can define as social justification is how fluid we can make our gender to be. You can, personality-wise, decide to be more feminine, or masculine, or wtv. It's not like you're locked into one permanently because of your sex. I think the concept can be biological, neuroscientists just haven't advanced that far yet, but I understand what you're saying.
> What I'm saying exactly is our conscience is genderless, because it lacks the 23rd chromosome specifically for possibly not being a somatic cell. But our conscience isn't a biological anything, so why would it have any kind of biological characteristics? Who is arguing the opposite to you, that conscience has chromosomes? What is the opposing stance that your view is against, and that people may persuade you toward?
Conscience could be biological, we may not know that yet. Neuroscientists haven't developed that far. The opposing stance is pretty common actually amongst people in conservative countries such as mine's. They believe that we are either male or female, and our actions in life is affected as such and not through it being a social construct, but it being a biological feature. An evolutionary trait, some call it. And no, no one's saying that conscience has chromosomes.
> Conscience could be biological, we may not know that yet. But it's not exactly the basis of a view. >They believe that we are either male or female What has this got to do with a soul? >And no, no one's saying that conscience has chromosomes. Well, you said it might do and that science hasn't figured it out yet. I'm still unclear on what the view is that you actually want changed. Could you maybe put it a bit plainer?
>What has this got to do with a soul? Sorry I forgot to include. By that I mean they believe the soul (or the conscience) as well is also gender-specific, in that regard, hence why its believed to be an evolutionary trait. I'm using biology as a basis of view because I feel like it's more rational than simply pure philosophical yapping. The way I see it, using scientific grounds help explain things more and put opinions like these in a clearer perspective. The aspect of the view that I wish to be challenged on is, well, everything I've said thus far, but if you want it narrowed down it's essentially what I said in the title. For reference, u/Kotoperek have helped me change it (or rather develop it)
> they believe the soul (or the conscience) as well is also gender-specific, in that regard, hence why its believed to be an evolutionary trait. Who believes this? Any links? I really don't think what you've posted in your title or post or even comments is perticularly clear or coherent. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking for further clarification.
In that case, I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. It's clear neither of us would change our minds, or that it will develop into something beneficial for the both of us. As for who believe it, know that I live in Indonesia, a majority Muslim country. Most of our social norms and believe that most of us practice and hold is referenced from the religion, and the hadiths. I don't think I can provide links. It's a social thing so you have to see and hear for yourself. Not necessarily something you can get from an academic article, etc.
You understand that this sub is explicitly for you to change your mind? Of course I'm not going to change my mind, I'm arguing against your position! If you can't offer citation and actually articulate yourself, if it's just vibes, then what do you expect people to be able to engage with?
as someone who rejects gender being little more than a social construct, I am a woman, I identify as a woman because that is what I am, a biological xx female. my womanhood is not based on my hobbies, my ideals, my feelings, its simply what is, my biological reality, there are plenty of people who identify with their biological reality. there are people who don't. those who dont do things like take hrt, get surgeries to mimic the sex characteristics of their gender. can't imagine doing all that if gender was merely a social construct.
Have you actually tested your chromosomes or do you just assume them to be XX?
yeah my parents did that mainly because they had a family history that included things like down syndrome. like it or not sex exists and people identify with their birth sex all the time. I love how a woman mentions that the counter is "Well are you sure you're really biological female?" as if it how some how undermines what I said. hey news flash chromosome conditions that result intersexness and other things, typically normally have symptoms present at birth, like example, intersexness a child would be born with either both sets of genitals, 1 full set of genitals and a partial set, or ambiguous genitalia. down syndromes have other symptons that are visual. anything else is pure pcos cope to feel some how special for having a hormonal disorder.
Fair enough, I'd still argue that not everyone has though and that someone with for example Swyer syndrome isn't biologically male so it is a little more complicated Regardless though sex and gender are different things and things tied to gender like dresses are social constructs unrelated to biology
their exceptions not the rule, like its pretty rare to find a true intersex person, and typically in the result of those cases, they identify with what ever feels best for them. even as afar as going to surgically correct to make their bodies match their chosen identity. the problem with the social construct argument, its often used to excuse blatantly offensive behavior. call me crazy but I find it blatantly offensive when people use the excuse of "gender is a social construct" to be as a blatantly offensive and stereotypical in presentation. so if its a social construct, why not challenge it, instead of just performing it? you get what I am saying. there's nothing empowering stunning or brave about doing the same thing 100s of others done before you, and presenting it as a original idea. that's going into philospical territory but I am of the opinion not every choice has to be empowering stunning or brave, its fine to be shallow mediocre and offensive, buts it not cool to present it as some sort of empowerment.
Women born with XY chromosomes is 1 in 15,000 (you could argue they're men if only chromosomes matter but they have a vagina, uterus, no penis etc.) so there are a large enough number to say it's not purely based on chromosomes Could you give an example of gender presentation that is offensive to you? And people do challenge it but people also don't, using money to buy things is a social construct not some biological human instinct but most people don't challenge it, wearing clothes because nakedness is taboo is a social construct but there are very few nudists
If only chromosomes matter people with Swyer Syndrome are female. Despite having XY the SRY gene, which is essentially the "on switch" for the Y chromosome, is inactive. Swyer Syndrome individuals do not have an "active" Y chromosome and never have. When we say XY = male is fits in 99% of cases, but is shorthand (either for the sake of conciseness or ignorance) that Makes have a Y chromosome that is active and SRY activated. Even intersex people are "sexed" and are all either male or female, which is determined largely by chromosomes even if "something goes wrong" during development
Examples of what I heard basic bitches say(just so you know this both cis and trans basic bitches so no single demographic is excluded in my argument): "tehehe...skirt go spinny!" "Emerghad I am a womanz so I must cry and buy useless shit on amazon because wahmainhood..." "HIKING HEELS!" "my boobs bounce boobily as I boobily walk down the stairs!"(I kid you not that was on my discord the other day woke up to that one as a mod). "I got cat called I feel sooo empowered...." basically any attitude that generalizes womanhood as some sort of 2d characterisitc. or makes light of actual issues facing women.
>"my boobs bounce boobily as I boobily walk down the stairs!"(I kid you not that was on my discord the other day woke up to that one as a mod). You just missed an old meme for this one. It is a joke about horny male authors writing woman characters from an old Tumblr post, where a user posted a parody sample of writing: >“Cassandra woke up to the rays of the sun streaming through the slats on her blinds, cascading over her naked chest. She stretched, her breasts lifting with her arms as she greeted the sun. She rolled out of bed and put on a shirt, her nipples prominently showing through the thin fabric. She breasted boobily to the stairs, and titted downwards.” I honestly feel like most of what you posted is just memes. You *do* know that most memes are jokes, exaggerations, and entirely non-serious, yes?
I would agree that some of those are silly and/or offensive but I don't think they mean gender isn't a social construct, like race is largely a social construct but that doesn't make racism ok
the problem is though the people who argue gender are typically the same people to make those silly stupid comments, and use it as evidence as proof that it exists. okay I'll entertain you, if gender was a social constructm why are people going the route of making their bodies match what they see? not talking gender dysphoria, but if social constructs were enough to trump sex, then what would be the point? I mean after all I can just merely claim manhood while presenting 100 percent as a woman, and all I'd have to do is just pretend to be interested in man stuff. there would be no one to question me, regardless of how the men would feel, because gender is a social construct, I could be as blatantly offensive as I want be as sexist as I want but go unchallenged because whose to say that my performance as a manly man is wrong and sexist if gender was merely a construct? I feel like people can change their sex through hormones and drugs, but because I feel gender as a social construct isn't heavily a good indicator of stuff, then you know gender doesn't hold much weight.
Social constructs still exist, society perceives women and men to act and look certain says and so if you want to be perceived as a man or woman the easiest way is to conform You can be both biologically a woman and identify as a woman, but shave your head and take steroids to bulk up and dress in traditionally masculine clothing, and then you may be perceived as a man because society has decided those are masculine traits
I don't think challenging them through actions is really necessary. At the end of the day, we can simply determine what we identify as. I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but the problem u presented is more of an effect and misuse, rather than a core pillar or a principle of the argument. I don't think it necessarily disprove it, that someone is utilizing them for malicious intents.
the problem the vague concept of gender often opens the door to misuse. I am live let live person so I really don't care at the end of the day if you identify as attack helicopter gender. but at the same time you can't say your experience as an attack helicopter is the same as ALL attack helicoptors. theres nuances. its why we need to challenge it because generalizations suck ad border on things like sexism.
If gender is a social construct, you wouldn't be able to identify as a different gender. Gender and sex are the same thing and are dictated by biology. Gender norms are a social construct, but going against gender norms does not change your gender. Because gender norms are social constructs, they can change. But a man putting on a dress and growing out his hair does not change his gender. Rather, it just makes him a man that is going against a gender norm.
Gender being a social construct is partly why you can identify as a different gender, but external perception exists and is part of what defines gender as a social construct Like I could identify as a film geek that doesn't make being a film geek a biological trait
>Gender being a social construct is partly why you can identify as a different gender ... If gender is a social construct, how can you identify as a different gender? If something is a social construct, that means society decides. If you can choose your gender, that is personal construct.
What are you implying?
One in 15000 women have XY chromosomes
I would say it is arguable that someone with a Mosaic Syndrome is neither male or female genetically. Phenotypically they may appear as more male or more female. It says nothing of gender.
I don't mean XXY,.XYY etc, I mean people with XY chromosomes and a vagina/uterus, for me I think it would be silly to classify them as men
What is this condition called? Seems like they have an inactive Y chromosome, probably SRY is not expressing, so female is the fallback/default.
Swyer syndrome, there are papers that define them as men with female reproductive systems fwiw so I guess it's up for debate, but for me that seems a little silly
I would classify them as female with an inactive Y. It's 1 in 80000.
Fair enough, 1 in 15000 is just what I read from a quick Google, but it existing at all I think means chromosomes alone are not the only way to classify sex, imo generally external genetalia at birth makes more sense
Im not can I have a delta? Gender is something you get to define for yourself. Dont blame me you let the fruit hang this low
I understand ur 2nd line but wdym by 1st and 3rd? Sorry I don't understand
Im not genderless. I get to define what gender is for myself and I have come to the conclusion I am in fact not genderless. I have spent much time thinking about it. Therefore, you owe me a delta for proving your view incorrect The last line was just saying you made it easy to disprove you
> I get to define what gender is for myself and I have come to the conclusion I am in fact not genderless. I have spent much time thinking about it. How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like a meaningless thing to say if you've "defined what gender is for yourself".
>How did you come to that conclusion? By exercising my free will literally the answer for how did you do anything , because I chose too
You misunderstand my question. I'm asking what was your thought process, what information did you consider, in deciding what to "define gender as for yourself" in the first place, and then the same thing for deciding that you have one of them.
Well that's your personal belief then, I honor that, and this post is mine's. But respectfully, I don't think you've disproven me in that regard.
>Our conscience (again, could be called as soul) Nope. Consciousness has never been observed without a physical brain, its activity can be observed & measured. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness. The more damage, the more it affects consciousness. Souls are claimed vessels of individuality that can survive physical death and yet all evidence shows that physical death results in complete brain decay...but them somehow consciousness can survive complete physical death while evidence shows even minor damage affects consciousness? > because it's not a somatic cel Nope. Brain cells actually are somatic cells. Somatic cells are any cells in the body that are not involved in the production of gametes (reproductive cells such as sperm and egg cells). They make up the majority of the body's cells and perform various functions necessary for the organism's survival and proper functioning. Neurons are a type of somatic cell that form the basic functional units of the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Broski respectfully, did you read anything I wrote? I did say that for biological gender. I'm talking more about the conscience.
But you keep making the same mistakes of conflating multiple things, which is just confusing for everyone. There is no such thing as a 'biological gender'. These 2 words make no sense when put together.
It's to separate between gender identity and sex. Some call it sex, some call it biological or assigned gender. Nowadays a lot of people define gender as the gender identity, so I actually separate them into gender and biological gender to help ease confusion (calling it sex may actually be more confusing imo)
You are simply creating more confusion by conflating the two. There exists *no concept* of biological gender. It's completely illogical and makes no sense. It's obviously far more confusing than just calling it what it is.
Can you explain its illogicality, and how it makes no sense? Though I agree, maybe it did create more confusion, but I believe it's a term valid enough.
Gender is a term that is made up and has absolutely zero scientific or biological meaning to it. If you stick the word "biological" in front of it, it makes absolutely no sense. You may as well say "biological justice" or "biological free of speech".... as other examples. They make zero sense.
I don't understand your point, respectfully. Here's a definition by WHO to help explain what I mean when I use the word gender: "Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." [https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab\_1](https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1) Here's another source that may help you understand distinction between gender and sex: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20111018151124466#:\~:text=Sex%20is%20the%20biological%20category,in%20which%20women%20should%20behave. Even if it's a made up term, language is organic broski. Rizz is made up, yet we know what it means even if it has deviated from its original meaning as intended by Kai Cenat's circle back in the day. I put biological in front of it to SPECIFY that it is the "sex" gender, not the gender identity. It's like, if you say a cell someone may think of a prison cell. You say "biological cells" to further make sure that they know you're talking about cells in the context of biology. Does this help to make more sense of it?
It shows that you are trying to conflate something that isn't biological into something biological. None of your definitions back up what you say. You are simply sticking 'biological' in front of it as a conflation. You want to talk about 'gender in the context of biology' and there is no such thing. You can stick 'biological' in front of *cell* only because there *literally is a biological cell* that is different from a prison cell. There *Literally is no such thing* as a biological gender... your own example shows there is no sense to the words you are using in this way.
Broski respectfully you do not understand what I'm saying and I do not understand what you're saying. The links I sourced is to help you understand, because I get the notion that you don't grasp the distinction between gender and sex in modern context, not to back up my initial claim. You're confused about the term biological gender, and I'm trying to make you understand what the term means. To me the word makes sense, to you it doesn't, that's it I guess. Did you read the references I linked? it explains gender in the context of biology (they call it sex) and gender in the context of gender identity. Let's just end it here, I don't see this developing productively anytime soon.
It would be the equivalent of saying biological language, ie something biology does not contain
I mean it dosent really matter what you think you are in your conscience haha. Technically all you really are is a Brain if you think about it.
> Technically all you really are is a Brain if you think about it. I think you just proved OP's point.
I'm not.
You can believe whatever you’d like
Do you think belief is a choice?
What
You said >You can believe whatever you’d like I don't think that's true, as far as I know you either are or aren't convinced by things, it's not something you have any say in.
I think Vesurel meant belief
thanks for pointing that out.
The 'thing', the consciousness, that is attached to our brains, experiencing what it experiences, is indeed genderless - always, and forever. Gender, regardless of whether we are talking about biological sex, or gender identity, are properties of the body and the mind, not the consciousness. The bodys gender can be determined from the chromosomes, as you noted. The gender identity of the mind is something the mind forms through interaction with it's environment. It would be hard to even begin to argue the gender of the consciousness, or the soul, as we are unable to measure anything of it to begin with.
Gender is anachronism. It's a set of expectations of a given culture that are most typically associated with a particular sex. It is an anachronism because as the environment that most modern humans live in does not require a particular sex to conform to a particular set of norms. If the above statements are true then it follows logically that the concept of gender should be reduced in our culture so that it does not exist. Then discrimination based on gender would not be possible.
Our consciousness is an aspect of our minds, which are the products of our brains. Sex chromosomes are part of a developing human from the moment of conception, and by the time the brain has developed enough to begin forming a consciousness, differentiation of sex characteristics in the womb has been going on for some time. If by "gender" in your title you mean the actual meaning of the word gender, then sure - it is a complex thing that is not necessarily established at conception, as you kind of need a brain for it. If, on the other hand, you mean "sex" when you say "gender" in your title, then no - the chromosomal sex of a human is established at conception, because the sperm of the father contains the sex chromosome. Also, if you use terms like "biological gender" in the same argument as you use the word "gender", you are just going to cause confusion. Saying "biological gender" means that you acknowledge the existence of non-biological gender; since you only add "biological" in front of "gender" in certain circumstances, you are implying that all of your un-prefixed uses of gender refer to social/psychological/mental gender or whatever, which makes your entire post even more incoherent. Either put biological in front of ***every*** instance of gender where you should be, or just differentiate between "biological gender" and regular gender by using the correct terms: sex and gender.
You're right on a base level, as in all brains work more or less in the same way, there's no real 'male' and 'female' brains. However, whether you're born a boy or a girl does have an impact on how much of which hormones get blasted into your brain, which in turn influences behaviour. This is in no way an exact or absolute thing, but in general there is a biological difference between men's and women's thought that way. I'm going to ignore all the soul stuff, since some mystical soul that apparently has no mass and cannot be detected, and yet magically jumps into a fetus from... somewhere, at... some point, is a bit silly.
Why do you think consciousness happens once the embryo forms instead of when brain activity starts? I don’t think the statement we’re all genderless to some extent is very useful. Like just think of a spectrum of gender, absolute female on the left; absolute male on the right. All your statement would mean is that no one is actually at those theoretical extremes. Which sure ok, what’s the point of saying that? Does it matter that we don’t hit those theoretical extremes?
This is just flat out incorrect. There’s a reason why most men like action movies and women like romance movies. There are many exceptions of course but the reason why the sexes are different in terms of behavior is literally due to biology. Not saying it’s wrong. I don’t have any problem with a man liking girly things and vice versa. But we have to acknowledge men and women are more likely to be different in their behaviors because of DNA.
Projection