Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j7uwgbs wrote

>For Butler, it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings.

Can someone elaborate on this. Isn't biological sex based on biology that doesn't rely on social meanings?

8

InterminableAnalysis t1_j7v38yr wrote

The issue is that the establishment of the concept of biological sex is not divorced from social meanings, so that any physical trait as signifying a sex characteristic is socially established (what counts as a sex characteristic? Why? Who decides, and on what basis?)

Some people take this to mean that Butler thinks that hormones and such aren't real or have no effect on bodies, but all it means is that sex is a social classification and so established as meaningful socially

5

JCPRuckus t1_j7vl9vw wrote

Reproductive organs exist and separate the behaviors and life cycles of the members of a species... whether or not human culture exists to assign them significance.

So if the argument is that sex characteristics, of which reproductive organs most certainly are one, have no meaning or power outside of that which society places on them, then it's obviously false. Because we see throughout the animal world that sexual characteristics drive and define behavior even in species with nothing we would recognize as a society.

There is significance to sex and sex organs/characteristics outside of what society places upon them. Because sex is how (many) species reproduce, and most individuals have a strong biological drive to reproduce (or at least to take part in the sex act which would normally risk reproduction). Whatever else society does or doesn't pile on top of this, this significance predates both it, and society itself.

6

the-willow-witch t1_j7vc079 wrote

Our concepts of gender have evolved over the years due to the roles that people who were able to have children had vs those of the people who can’t have children. Our ideas of what makes a woman is steeped in the history of what has been forced on birth givers, our ideas of what makes a man is steeped in the history of what has been forced on people with penises. They are intrinsically linked but many theories on gender state that just because they’re linked doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

Butler is saying that there’s no point in making a distinction between the two because ultimately, gender only exists because of sex. They obviously don’t think sex and gender are the same thing, because they are nonbinary. But in discussions of sex vs gender the idea is that they’re linked enough that we don’t need to make any distinctions.

At least that’s what I made of it. As always, I could be completely wrong and if I am, hopefully someone will set us both right!

4

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j7vg071 wrote

>Butler is saying that there’s no point in making a distinction between the two because ultimately, gender only exists because of sex.

That's where I'm confused, isn't the quote from the article is the other way round. In that sex comes from the the "social meanings"/gender?

Also isn't that the right's position, in that gender comes from sex or that they are highly linked.

3

the-willow-witch t1_j7vj8us wrote

I mean, they are linked. I think the right’s position is that they’re the same. That there are two sexes so there are two genders.

5

the-willow-witch t1_j7vk8wf wrote

“ For Butler, it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings. If there is such a thing, we can’t encounter it, because we are born into a world that already has a particular understanding of gender, and that world then retrospectively tells us the meaning of our anatomy.”

We literally can not exist outside of gender and sex because of the way society forces it on us. From a young age we are dressed and treated a certain way based on our genitals. To say that sex and gender aren’t linked is to ignore this fact. They’re not saying sex and gender are the same thing but that they belong in the same conversation. Because our sex affects our gender whether they’re the same or not. Because our experiences form our perspectives in our society.

It’s like how race is made up and a social construct, but that doesn’t mean that race doesn’t affect our lives and perspectives.

I hope I’m making sense.

1

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j7vlq49 wrote

>We literally can not exist outside of gender and sex because of the way society forces it on us.

Let's say aliens that are asexual came to earth and studies humans or other manuals.

Do you think these aliens would come up with similar/same ideas as sex as us?

I think they would, which would suggest it's something more innate to the biology rather than something society has told us.

4

the-willow-witch t1_j7voqbi wrote

I don’t understand. What does asexuality have to do with gender? That’s a sexuality.

I think they’d observe the same ideas we have about sex in regard to humans, yes, but they wouldn’t adopt the ideals because they’re not human.

Overall I’m really confused about your comment

−2

Kiltmanenator t1_j7xmqkd wrote

I think they mean asexual reproduction. For the hypothetical to make sense, the person you responded to is trying to imagine an utterly alien observer whose judgement of human sexuality would not be influenced by their own alien sexual biology.

4

InspectorG-007 t1_j7z0fr8 wrote

So, basically, it's an expression of the Persona? The individual forms a Persona that may blend/contrast with the local group Persona?

1

Doobledorf t1_j7zmijs wrote

Coming in here late, but here's what they're saying:

Ideas of gender arose from sex differences in the past. There COULD be a natural difference in how those sexes act, but because we live in a world that is already constantly defining and redefining gender roles from a cultural perspective, you are very unlikely to find it. It's like talking about "true human nature". You will never find what that means outside of the context of the world today because every human alive is influenced by countless generations of culture that have shaped how they see the very idea of "human being".

They aren't saying sex plays absolutely no part in how one feels they should express their gender, they are saying it is a pointless question that can't be answered at the end of the day.

1

SnapcasterWizard t1_j7vhy7k wrote

> Isn't biological sex based on biology

Butler takes the post modernist stance that "biology" as a group of rules and ideas is inherently made up and therefore meaningless.

They do not believe that because we observed reality and constructed these rules and ideas from these observations, that it means there is any validity to these rules.

The central tenant of post modernism is that the human subjective makes any sort of objectivism impossible (some even go further and claim that objectiveness is impossible itself)

Of course, this is why these kinds of ideas are limited to philosophy and other related fields - scientific theory is predicated on the idea that objectiveness does exist and is achievable to some degree.

2