is gender a social construct? Watch

Poll: gender, what is with that stuff?
i am a man and i think it is 100% social construct (5)
3.55%
i am a man and i think it is 100% nature (28)
19.86%
i am a man and i think it is mostly social construct (18)
12.77%
i am a man and i think it is mostly nature (33)
23.4%
i am a woman and i think it is 100% social construct (9)
6.38%
i am a woman and i think it is 100% nature (7)
4.96%
i am a woman and i think it is mostly social construct (22)
15.6%
i am a woman and i think it is mostly nature (19)
13.48%
Arturo Bandini
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 5 years ago
#61
Behaviour is influenced by hormones, which are vastly different in males and females. So although obviously many traits are socially constructed, ultimately men and women are fundamentally different.
0
reply
GrumpyCat
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#62
Report 5 years ago
#62
(Original post by Arieisit)
I can back it up actually but I can't be bothered to.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I've seen alot of evidence against it being 100% social, alot.

All ive seen for it being social is a bunch of nutty feminists.
0
reply
callmemorbid
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#63
Report 5 years ago
#63
(Original post by thoyub)
Well it wasn't the case in the past but now women have been masculinised, they are the same as men inside. They act like men.
And my last sentence isn't ridiculous, it is a realistic scenario which could happen soon.
but it wont......men and women are obviously physically different for a reason(repopulating the human race???????)
0
reply
callmemorbid
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#64
Report 5 years ago
#64
(Original post by Ham22)
I think he's taking the piss.
hope so
0
reply
Jones Ardent
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 5 years ago
#65
(Original post by Classical Liberal)
(Original post by Watch Key Phone)
So you can make a guess about their geographical origins based on a factual trend. Personality is much more vague and variable than where people live.
Men are more likely to be aggressive - how about that one? Men are more likely to be competitive?
(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I am saying you should assume things about people. You said you shouldn't. and I gave an example to explain why you are wrong.
It doesn't seem as if you have clear definition of what the difference between gender and sex are, so let me clear that up for you.

Sex is the biological identity of a person, whereas gender is the psychological identity. While the biological makeup of men and women is extremely similar, it's different; for example, they both have different levels of hormones. One could argue the minor biological differenes is what influences a certain sex to be predisposed to a certain behaviour. So if man was more likely to be aggressive, it does not neccessarily mean it's a direct result of his sex, but his sex could influence it. His personality is what the major influence is if a man is aggressive or not. If a person identifies themselves as a female trapped in a man's body the biological makeup could have influences on how the person behaves, but the behaviour is mostly defined by the personality. A person who is physically male may be likely to be more aggressive but that doesn't mean the psychological identity/the personality is more likely to be aggressive.

According to your argument, every person who is a psychological male is more likely to be aggressive because personality isn't vague and that personalities can be defined by a general trend, which is not true, atleast not in this case. You can be a woman in a man's body and still be more likely to be aggressive because it's a man's body, thefore subject to influence by a man's biological makeup. In this case, making the assumption the person is psychologically male is incorrect.

This is why you shouldn't make assumptions about gender and sex. A person can be influenced by their sex, but it certainly doesn't mean their personality/gender is more aggressive, merely the sex itself. Personality is always vague and variable; sex isn't.
1
reply
thoyub
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#66
Report 5 years ago
#66
(Original post by callmemorbid)
but it wont......men and women are obviously physically different for a reason(repopulating the human race???????)
I know but isn't it true that alcohol increases estrogen levels in men and testosterone levels in women? The amount some people drink, i'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
0
reply
techno-thriller
Badges: 14
#67
Report 5 years ago
#67
No, lol
0
reply
mimi112
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#68
looks like most men think it's nature and most women society. son i am surprise.
0
reply
Mankytoes
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#69
Report 5 years ago
#69
(Original post by mimi112)
i must say i am surprised how many people are voting for 100% anything.
I agree. If you know anything about different cultures you know gender roles and perceptions vary significantly, but there are definite trends. So the answer is clearly "some", but I wouldn't go too much further. I'd probably lean towards more nature than nurture.
0
reply
callmemorbid
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#70
Report 5 years ago
#70
(Original post by thoyub)
I know but isn't it true that alcohol increases estrogen levels in men and testosterone levels in women? The amount some people drink, i'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
beats me. im yet to see a drunk women turn into a man though
0
reply
DarthVador
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#71
Report 5 years ago
#71
(Original post by ArtGoblin)
It's a social construct. The traits we assign to men and women are not innate to each gender but are the result of the socialisation we receive throughout our lives. Boys and girls are treated differently from childhood and rewarded for different types of behaviour which create differences that were not there before/exacerbate differences that may already be there. It is undeniable that the our ideas of what each gender should be influences how people perceive and act out their own gender identity.
How can you be so goddamn moronic. Scientific studies have already proven that male children gravitate towards playing with plastic weapons, action figures and games that involve a lot of physical exertion. This without any adult pushing them to do these things.

Girls gravitate towards different activities, like playing with dolls or playing dress up. This is genetic, not social conditioning, and if you can't accept that, you should kill yourself you brainwashed idiot.
0
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#72
Report 5 years ago
#72
(Original post by DarthVador)
How can you be so goddamn moronic. Scientific studies have already proven that male children gravitate towards playing with plastic weapons, action figures and games that involve a lot of physical exertion. This without any adult pushing them to do these things.

Girls gravitate towards different activities, like playing with dolls or playing dress up. This is genetic, not social conditioning, and if you can't accept that, you should kill yourself you brainwashed idiot.
Studies have also proven that people will act differently towards newborn babies based on whether they are told the babies are male or female. You don't think that social conditioning has an affect from birth?
0
reply
ooerr
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#73
Report 5 years ago
#73
(Original post by ArtGoblin)
It's a social construct. The traits we assign to men and women are not innate to each gender but are the result of the socialisation we receive throughout our lives. Boys and girls are treated differently from childhood and rewarded for different types of behaviour which create differences that were not there before/exacerbate differences that may already be there. It is undeniable that the our ideas of what each gender should be influences how people perceive and act out their own gender identity.
Brilliantly explained, but I ran out of rep
0
reply
TheBritishArmy
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#74
Report 5 years ago
#74
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
Hmm. I'm actually thinking mostly nature - cases where children have been raised as the opposite gender have nearly always resulted in sex reassignment surgery as they didn't feel like they were in the right body. That heavily implies that gender is a naturally occurring thing.

Obviously there's gender roles, blah blah blah sexism, but that can't account for people like David Reimer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer . It just doesn't make sense when you have cases like that.

Not to mention things like men being better at navigating using compass directions, which has been tested a bunch of times. Radical differences between genders like that support that it's nature. No one taught men how to navigate while the women were out of the rhetorical room.
Glad to see someone mention the David Reimer case. It pretty much disproves the "gender is a social construct" hypothesis, and it's unsurprising to see all TSR's proponents of this hypothesis conveniently ignore it.

Of course, many aspects of gender roles are socially constructed. But there's absolutely no doubt that biology has an impact on whether you display masculine or feminine personality traits. And there's no doubt that, in the majority of cases, men display masculine traits and women display feminine traits as a result of biological differences.
0
reply
DarthVador
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#75
Report 5 years ago
#75
(Original post by Watch Key Phone)
Studies have also proven that people will act differently towards newborn babies based on whether they are told the babies are male or female. You don't think that social conditioning has an affect from birth?
Yeah, let's disregard millions of years of evolution and focus on how people 'act' towards newborn babies.

This is why all the social sciences are complete jokes that are to be disregarded then discarded.
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#76
Report 5 years ago
#76
(Original post by TheBritishArmy)
Glad to see someone mention the David Reimer case. It pretty much disproves the "gender is a social construct" hypothesis, and it's unsurprising to see all TSR's proponents of this hypothesis conveniently ignore it.

Of course, many aspects of gender roles are socially constructed. But there's absolutely no doubt that biology has an impact on whether you display masculine or feminine personality traits. And there's no doubt that, in the majority of cases, men display masculine traits and women display feminine traits as a result of biological differences.
Glad to hear someone supports it! I was surprised no one had mentioned it already. It sort of kicks the arse out of any other argument.
0
reply
Raiden10
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#77
Report 5 years ago
#77
The question is vague. What EXACTLY is meant by gender?
1
reply
Watch Key Phone
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#78
Report 5 years ago
#78
(Original post by DarthVador)
Yeah, let's disregard millions of years of evolution and focus on how people 'act' towards newborn babies.

This is why all the social sciences are complete jokes that are to be disregarded then discarded.
Oh yes, because ~'actions'~ are just nonexistent and meaningless things with no basis in reality or ability to be caused by evolution and biology. :facepalm:
0
reply
A Perfect Circle
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#79
Report 5 years ago
#79
It's incredible that people have voted for 100% social construct - it's by far and away the stupidest option one could pick.

The bottom line is that biology (more specifically genetics) has a say in everything. Even in a nature vs nurture debate, you could argue that the effects that appear to be induced by nurture (conditioning) are in fact predetermined by nature (genetics), which makes the 100% nature option a lot more sensible.

The only people who seem to push for these sociological ideas are modern day feminists (in a well intended but ultimately silly attempt to make everything equal) and people who study sociology.

Biology > Sociology. Fin.
3
reply
lucas13
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#80
Report 5 years ago
#80
how can it be a social construct, its obviously nature, ie for reproduction
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (491)
31.1%
The paper was reasonable (608)
38.51%
Not feeling great about that exam... (258)
16.34%
It was TERRIBLE (222)
14.06%

Watched Threads

View All