Turn on thread page Beta

Most Teens aren't heterosexual and don't believe in gender study shows. watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annaew)
    Yeah that was my point, I agree with your views about gender.

    What I don't get either is that when gender is a social construct how could transgendered people exist?

    Or why is sexuality fluid and a social construct for everyone, except for homosexuals?
    (I personally think gender has biological bases but is a largely social construct.)

    Because transgendered people are people whose gender doesn't align so to speak to their sex (XY for boys, XX for girls) assumed at birth. Their psychological make-up is one typical for e.g. a female when they have a (mostly) male body.

    So the sense of self of a person who is male at birth is that of someone female.

    (Mind transgender is different from intersex.)

    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Because they subscribe to the social construct with the existence of gender but do not feel that their sex matches their gender.

    Homosexual, heterosexual etc are binary sexualities. Fluidity is the non binary "here nor there" sexualities.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would have thought that fluidity wouldn't be "here nor there", because they still have a certain (category for a) sexuality at a fixed point in time.

    So it's not here nor there, because it changes over time.

    Does my view make sense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annaew)
    I believe in gender but it seems the fast majority of young people don't,
    like i said even Zara launched a gender neutral collection, more people see clothes as just clothes, a lot of people see sexuality now as something fluid a similar YouGov poll showed that 51 percent of young people in the UK don't see themselves as completely straight either so there is clearly a changing culture there.
    i would argue that its not that we dont believe in gender, more that we acknowledge that it can be a complex issue and that we consider it to be rather less important than our parents did, or as strict and simple as our grandparents.

    i hypothesise that sexuality exists on a sliding scale, a continuum that can be represented as a percentage of preference for one gender or the other, and that the majority of people fall into the middle 90%, the section considered bisexual,

    also that the majority of people in this group exist closer to either end than the middle, with almost no-one sitting at a perfect 50/50 split.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    (I personally think gender has biological bases but is a largely social construct.)

    Because transgendered people are people whose gender doesn't align so to speak to their sex (XY for boys, XX for girls) assumed at birth. Their psychological make-up is one typical for e.g. a female when they have a (mostly) male body.

    So the sense of self of a person who is male at birth is that of someone female.

    (Mind transgender is different from intersex.)



    I would have thought that fluidity wouldn't be "here nor there", because they still have a certain (category for a) sexuality at a fixed point in time.

    So it's not here nor there, because it changes over time.

    Does my view make sense?
    Your view makes a lot of sense and how do you view sexuality do you think most people are sexual fluid or do you think for most people it is binary?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    Sex is determined by biology, basically whether you have XY or XX chromosomes alongside physical characteristics that I need not explain. SEX is concrete.

    Gender, is fluid because as you mentioned, it is a social construct. It doesn't exist, it was created. Gender is a frame of mind, a sense of being that cannot be determined by a stringent set of laws.

    Thus why in your passport it asks for SEX and not GENDER. There have been numerous psychological studies that disagree with you so I think I'll leave it to the experts to determine whether you're wrong or not. (But… you're wrong as far I am aware)
    umm, just because its a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as you rightly said it is a frame of mind, its a socially imposed set of expected behaviours, thus it is a creation of society, not something natural. it lacks substance and purpose but it exists. also, sex isnt concrete anymore, something i am rather pleased about even though it does not affect me personally
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonbass3)
    umm, just because its a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as you rightly said it is a frame of mind, its a socially imposed set of expected behaviours, thus it is a creation of society, not something natural. it lacks substance and purpose but it exists. also, sex isnt concrete anymore, something i am rather pleased about even though it does not affect me personally
    I revised that statement a bit later on I referred to gender as more of a scale, with acknowledgement of my confusing use of the word 'exist'.
    And if you don't mind me asking, how is sex not concrete?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annaew)
    Your view makes a lot of sense and how do you view sexuality do you think most people are sexual fluid or do you think for most people it is binary?
    I think for most people it seems to be stuck for life. Then I think only a minority of people have sexual fluidity. Like I haven't met anyone who is, but I'm not going to be skeptical of those who say it's true on the internet because there's over 7 billion of us, and so feels likely some are going to be different. Perhaps not particularly scientific, but meh. But yeah, that sums up my views about sexual fluidity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annaew)
    Yeah that was my point, I agree with your views about gender.

    What I don't get either is that when gender is a social construct how could transgendered people exist?

    Or why is sexuality fluid and a social construct for everyone, except for homosexuals?
    well, almost every aspect of modern life is in some way socially constructed, humanity is by its nature diverse. the construction of gender is that it is a set of behaviours we associate as being, for example, male, for the majority of people the set of behaviours that feels most natural and normal for them happens to be the same as their biological sex, transgender people are people for whom the set of behaviours that feels natural and normal happens to be different to their sex. they still adhere to the social construction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    I revised that statement a bit later on I referred to gender as more of a scale, with acknowledgement of my confusing use of the word 'exist'.
    And if you don't mind me asking, how is sex not concrete?
    surgery and chemicals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonbass3)
    surgery and chemicals.
    There are arguments that suggest surgery and chemicals do not modify sex. For example, the XY/XX chromosomes will not change, and many use that as an indicator.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    There are arguments that suggest surgery and chemicals do not modify sex. For example, the XY/XX chromosomes will not change, and many use that as an indicator.
    hmm, hadnt thought of that... i wonder would it be possible to engineer a retrovirus or gene therapy to alter that aspect as well?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt it, maybe in a few centuries! That will be an extremely laborious process considering the amount of DNA combinations… just thinking about it makes me want to cry
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    There are arguments that suggest surgery and chemicals do not modify sex. For example, the XY/XX chromosomes will not change, and many use that as an indicator.
    And yet society assigned sex before anyone even knew about the existence of chromosomes - and sex assignment of babies isn't based on chromosome tests.

    If sex is defined by chromosomes then most people don't know their sex. Testing of chromosomes isn't routine or common.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    And yet society assigned sex before anyone even knew about the existence of chromosomes - and sex assignment of babies isn't based on chromosome tests.

    If sex is defined by chromosomes then most people don't know their sex. Testing of chromosomes isn't routine or common.
    They could assign sex because of the physical characteristics related to the chromosomes right? XX = female, XY = male, both have distinctly different appearances. If you have boobs and nothing down there, you're probably a female. Nothing scientific about that.

    Of course there wouldn't be an overwhelming need to determine what type of chromosomes people have because they should be physically apparent. Chromosomes -> appearance, after all.
    Think about it, when was the last time you saw someone and you were like: '…what sex are you?' and if you have, then all they have to do is drop their pants and be like 'I'm *insert sex* you sock.'
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    They could assign sex because of the physical characteristics related to the chromosomes right? XX = female, XY = male, both have distinctly different appearances. If you have boobs and nothing down there, you're probably a female. Nothing scientific about that.

    Of course there wouldn't be an overwhelming need to determine what type of chromosomes people have because they should be physically apparent. Chromosomes -> appearance, after all.
    Think about it, when was the last time you saw someone and you were like: '…what sex are you?' and if you have, then all they have to do is drop their pants and be like 'I'm *insert sex* you sock.'
    The link that you're assuming between chromosomes and genital appearance isn't as clear as you think. Some studies of the population to identify intersex conditions have found prevalence along the same proportions as the proportion of people with ginger hair. The proportions of people with "abnormal" genitalia at birth or who are identified as intersex due to fertility problems are a lot lower than the underlying population of people for whom chromosome == sex isn't an accurate assumption (although it is a common assumption).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inters...lation_figures

    The growing recognition of the number of people who don't fit into the sex binary is what I believe the person you responded to was referring to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    I doubt it, maybe in a few centuries! That will be an extremely laborious process considering the amount of DNA combinations… just thinking about it makes me want to cry
    too true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I apologise but for the majority of the population, sex can be easily determined. The extremely low percentages in the source you have presented shows that.
    Of course, there will be a few people here and there whose sex cannot be determined by physical appearance alone, but that doesn't mean the idea is no longer applicable to the majority of the population.
    If something was to be disregarded purely because of a minority that proves otherwise, conclusions could never be drawn from most scientific findings which by nature will almost always produce variable results.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    And yet society assigned sex before anyone even knew about the existence of chromosomes - and sex assignment of babies isn't based on chromosome tests.

    If sex is defined by chromosomes then most people don't know their sex. Testing of chromosomes isn't routine or common.
    umm, i don't need a DNA test to know that i carry the gene for brown hair, or for green eyes. i can see that i do by looking in a mirror. and anyone else can see that i do by looking at me directly. DNA tests arent common place because for the majority of the population they are not needed. the dominent allele is usually fairly prominent, that said, its not as simple with sex, i accept that.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by jonbass3)
    umm, i don't need a DNA test to know that i carry the gene for brown hair, or for green eyes. i can see that i do by looking in a mirror. and anyone else can see that i do by looking at me directly.
    And yet as many as 1.7% of people are intersex (around the same as the incidence of red hair)....how many have you spotted? how many do you know? how many would you be unable to recognise based on external appearance without a chromosome or DNA test?

    If sex is defined by appearance of genitalia then that means surgery and hormones can change sex.
    If sex is defined by chromosomes then you don't know you sex for certain without testing and a lot of people will not fit into the binary.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annaew)
    And would you say most people have a binary sexuality or most people are sexual fluid?

    Because surveys like this one show that the majority wouldn't call themselves really heterosexual anymore.
    Young people are stupid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarvee)
    Stupid reply. Since when is a single argument applicable to all concepts in the world? The notion ever crossed your mind that this whole gender/sex thing is independent from everything else? Is your thinking that insular?

    In any case, sex exists because we (the world) have determined the rules that result in 'sex' - rules that are universally accepted. May be different in other worlds, but I'm thinking about this one.

    You are arguing that gender has these same universal and stringent rules, and that simply isn't the case because of the different meanings the two terms hold. Gender is intertwined with masculinity and femininity (both social constructs as well), both of which vary globally. In one country one mindset could be feminine, whilst in another it can be masculine. This is all apart of gendering. Do you see what I'm saying? Gender varies.

    Additionally, if there was only 'sex' (which does exist, mind you, cos biology), why would we feel the need to create an entirely separate word - 'gender'?
    So you have just said thst gender exists...
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.