A contradiction in the liberal view of gender

[shadow]

I meant that as in: I don't really think it really makes a difference what gender someone is either way, and I'd try to treat someone the same way regardless of what gender they are or want to be treated as.

Would that include imagining that theres some contradiction between being a male, sexually, and wanting to be treated as a male, as a matter of gender?  Would you treat me the same as you treat a girl?  OFC not.  We incredibly capable of treating people as our traditional gender roles define...but as soon as something deviates we start looking for "contradictions".

I think it's important to consider why we'd treat a guy different from a girl. Gender may not be the best metric for that, because it stereotypes (sort of a judgement shortcut). There's a reason we'd treat genders differently, and that has to do with the characteristics of that gender. For example, scientifically, women are on average naturally less muscular than men, so it reasons that they may be less capable at self defense. We can generalize, and that's where we get our societal gender stereotypes from, and maybe they aren't valueless. But, they don't really address the actual issue in this case, which is strength. So they aren't as accurate a way of judging someone as looking at the actual characteristic that influences how we treat someone.

All this to say... I think we generally treat guys differently from girls for a reason, and that reason at it's core isn't as simple as gender. It's a characteristic that is grouped under gender, that may or may not be accurate for an individual. It's a judgement shortcut that, while easy, isn't as valid. So I wouldn't treat a guy differently from a girl for arbitrary gender reasons, but for the characteristics of that guy that form his gender. That is the extent to which I agree with A. 

The "liberal view" of these gender constructs is that they exist - and that they are arbitrary - further, that regardless of which -if any- of these gender constructs a person chooses to identify as - they have every right to do so and you have an ehtical compulsion to afford them that dignity.  Pretty easy stuff, right?

I have no problem with that. But that's a different thing from changing from one gender extreme to another. It's not that I see it as wrong, just unnecessary if you believe gender constructs aren't valid in the first place.

---

I know there's probably some extreme liberals who believe every gender role is imposed by society rather than being a biological tendency, and biological sex doesn't exist which is something I would argue against.

Those people were the entire class I was in, prof included. I don't agree with that extreme of a view (because it seems unscientific), but they pretty much had decided gender was entirely invented by society and sex wasn't related to it at all - that biological sex meant nothing. This is the view I found contradictory to their support of transgender people.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's important to consider why we'd treat a guy different from a girl. Gender may not be the best metric for that, because it stereotypes (sort of a judgement shortcut). There's a reason we'd treat genders differently, and that has to do with the characteristics of that gender. For example, scientifically, women are on average naturally less muscular than men, so it reasons that they may be less capable at self defense. We can generalize, and that's where we get our societal gender stereotypes from, and maybe they aren't valueless. But, they don't really address the actual issue in this case, which is strength. So they aren't as accurate a way of judging someone as looking at the actual characteristic that influences how we treat someone.

If we're going to continue this discussion you'll have to find a way to add fidelity, perhaps refer to sex instead of gender.  If you're talking about biological females being less muscular on average then you're talking about sex.  

All this to say... I think we generally treat guys differently from girls for a reason, and that reason at it's core isn't as simple as gender.

It is. It's just not as simple as -sex-.

It's a characteristic that is grouped under gender, that may or may not be accurate for an individual. It's a judgement shortcut that, while easy, isn't as valid. So I wouldn't treat a guy differently from a girl for arbitrary gender reasons, but for the characteristics of that guy that form his gender. That is the extent to which I agree with A. 

You say you wouldn't, but have you ever wondered whether or not you do?  

I have no problem with that. But that's a different thing from changing from one gender extreme to another. It's not that I see it as wrong, just unnecessary if you believe gender constructs aren't valid in the first place.

It doesn't matter what you or I or "liberals" believe about the validity of gender constructs - and again, you're the one calling them invalid.  They exist. If a person wishes to conform to one of them, then they should go do that, and other people should stop looking for problems where there aren't any.

I could accurately sum up your entire position thusly-

"If wishes were horses, ergo liberals hold contradictory positions"

[Brian37]

I think you're confusing gender with gender role. It's not the same thing. Transexuals do not reject the gender roles that come with whatever anatomy they're born with, but rather they identify with a different gender.

A transwoman may love baking and sewing or she may love playing sports and being the sole breadwinner. Those are socially imposed gender roles that are arbitrary. Identifying as a certain gender has nothing to do with identifying with arbitrary gender roles.

BINGO.

Back in the late 90s when I was working at a mom and pop radio station I had an old couple come in, I cant remember how it ended up on gender roles, but the old lady said, "It is the man's job to take care of the woman."

And all I could think was, "How convenient for you."

The plumbing one is born with is not the thing that goes into a relationship. Sexual identity is not the thing that goes into a relationship. Sexual preference is not the thing that goes into a relationship. 

Ultimately what matters between two people isn't who does what, or who is in the lead, or who is the support, or that they have equal income. What matters ultimately is what works and consent. So unless you are in that relationship, you really have no say. If it works, and nobody is being abused, it is not your business.

[shadow]

I have no problem with that. But that's a different thing from changing from one gender extreme to another. It's not that I see it as wrong, just unnecessary if you believe gender constructs aren't valid in the first place.

It doesn't matter what you or I or "liberals" believe about the validity of gender constructs - and again, you're the one calling them invalid.  They exist. If a person wishes to conform to one of them, then they should go do that, and other people should stop looking for problems where there aren't any.  

I could accurately sum up your entire position thusly-

"If wishes were horses, ergo liberals hold contradictory positions"

You know, I don't really think you're understanding my argument. But appreciate that you took the time to discuss this with me, so thanks.

By the way, I'm not trying to say 'liberals hold contradictory positions' at all. I don't mean for this to be a political thing, it's more of an academic thing.

[bennyboy]

I think it's important to consider why we'd treat a guy different from a girl. Gender may not be the best metric for that, because it stereotypes (sort of a judgement shortcut). There's a reason we'd treat genders differently, and that has to do with the characteristics of that gender. For example, scientifically, women are on average naturally less muscular than men, so it reasons that they may be less capable at self defense. We can generalize, and that's where we get our societal gender stereotypes from, and maybe they aren't valueless. But, they don't really address the actual issue in this case, which is strength. So they aren't as accurate a way of judging someone as looking at the actual characteristic that influences how we treat someone.

All this to say... I think we generally treat guys differently from girls for a reason, and that reason at it's core isn't as simple as gender. It's a characteristic that is grouped under gender, that may or may not be accurate for an individual. It's a judgement shortcut that, while easy, isn't as valid. So I wouldn't treat a guy differently from a girl for arbitrary gender reasons, but for the characteristics of that guy that form his gender. That is the extent to which I agree with A. 

When we try to rationalize, we take instinct as arbitrary. But it's not even arbitrary. For the most part, girls make me feel mushy and I want to make happy chirping sounds. For the most part, other guys make me want to thump my chest and say grrrrrr!

If there's a girl in the office having trouble, I'm pretty likely to come in like a knight in shining armor to unjam the copier or whatever. If there's another guy in trouble. . . dude I have my OWN problems.

I think stereotypes are mainly despised precisely BECAUSE they capture some real part of our experience. If I ask any guy I know a yes / no question, he'll answer with a yes or a no.
Me: Dude, you want a Coke?
Friend: Sure, dude. Thanks!

If I ask my wife that question, it goes more like this:
Me: Hey, you want a Coke?
Wife: Well. . . last time I drank a Coke, I was in the mall with Jenny, and I was a little bloated, so. . .
Me: *start throwing furniture through windows)

Now, there are exceptions, but overall it's been my experience that way more girls are going to scream and stand on a chair around spiders, and men are more likely to hit walls and doors or to throw furniture when they feel frustrated. And that's one thing I don't like about the modern narrative-- that stereotypes are evil. It's expecting people to CONFORM to stereotypes, or assuming in particular cases that they must have conformed to them, that is evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, I don't really think you're understanding my argument. But appreciate that you took the time to discuss this with me, so thanks.

By the way, I'm not trying to say 'liberals hold contradictory positions' at all. I don't mean for this to be a political thing, it's more of an academic thing.

:checks OP title, again:

I do understand your argument.  I really do.  I think that you don't, which is what I've been trying to emphasize. Let me try to bring you round another way. If we lived in a world in which there were no gender constructs, would it even make semantic (set aside the rational, for now) sense, to state that people had or ought to have "the right to live as whatever gender they identify as"?

[bennyboy]

Ultimately what matters between two people isn't who does what, or who is in the lead, or who is the support, or that they have equal income. What matters ultimately is what works and consent. So unless you are in that relationship, you really have no say. If it works, and nobody is being abused, it is not your business.

Fair enough, but there are trends.

[emjay]

I think it's important to consider why we'd treat a guy different from a girl. Gender may not be the best metric for that, because it stereotypes (sort of a judgement shortcut). There's a reason we'd treat genders differently, and that has to do with the characteristics of that gender. For example, scientifically, women are on average naturally less muscular than men, so it reasons that they may be less capable at self defense. We can generalize, and that's where we get our societal gender stereotypes from, and maybe they aren't valueless. But, they don't really address the actual issue in this case, which is strength. So they aren't as accurate a way of judging someone as looking at the actual characteristic that influences how we treat someone.

All this to say... I think we generally treat guys differently from girls for a reason, and that reason at it's core isn't as simple as gender. It's a characteristic that is grouped under gender, that may or may not be accurate for an individual. It's a judgement shortcut that, while easy, isn't as valid. So I wouldn't treat a guy differently from a girl for arbitrary gender reasons, but for the characteristics of that guy that form his gender. That is the extent to which I agree with A. 

When we try to rationalize, we take instinct as arbitrary. But it's not even arbitrary. For the most part, girls make me feel mushy and I want to make happy chirping sounds. For the most part, other guys make me want to thump my chest and say grrrrrr!

If there's a girl in the office having trouble, I'm pretty likely to come in like a knight in shining armor to unjam the copier or whatever. If there's another guy in trouble. . . dude I have my OWN problems.

I think stereotypes are mainly despised precisely BECAUSE they capture some real part of our experience. If I ask any guy I know a yes / no question, he'll answer with a yes or a no.
Me: Dude, you want a Coke?
Friend: Sure, dude. Thanks!

If I ask my wife that question, it goes more like this:
Me: Hey, you want a Coke?
Wife: Well. . . last time I drank a Coke, I was in the mall with Jenny, and I was a little bloated, so. . .
Me: *start throwing furniture through windows)

Now, there are exceptions, but overall it's been my experience that way more girls are going to scream and stand on a chair around spiders, and men are more likely to hit walls and doors or to throw furniture when they feel frustrated. And that's one thing I don't like about the modern narrative-- that stereotypes are evil. It's expecting people to CONFORM to stereotypes, or assuming in particular cases that they must have conformed to them, that is evil.

Stereotypes are a strange kind of self-reinforcing phenomenon; they start a statistical tool of the brain to identify and categorise the common features of something. But then on top of that, you get the social effect of people conforming to stereotypes, which reinforces them but kind of distorts the data set that they work on. So like a snowballing or gravity well effect they get stronger, at first relatively accurately, but later, less accurately as a result of this distortion.

When I first came out I played into the gay stereotypes big time. I don't know exactly why I wanted to pigeonhole myself like that but I did; I think it was probably to do with wanting to belong/fit in and to do with having solid and clear expectations. But as I've got older I don't do that any more... now I don't pigeonhole myself at all... I'm just me.

[shadow]

You know, I don't really think you're understanding my argument. But appreciate that you took the time to discuss this with me, so thanks.

By the way, I'm not trying to say 'liberals hold contradictory positions' at all. I don't mean for this to be a political thing, it's more of an academic thing.

:checks OP title, again:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your tone, but you seemed (earlier atleast) to be acting as though I am some sort of ideological warrior trying to hate on the left. I know you get those kind of people coming to this forum all the time. I'm not one of them in the slightest; I just want to reconsider my viewpoints. I realized the title of this might have given you the wrong impression, so I was clarifying my intentions.

I do understand your argument.  I really do.  I think that you don't, which is what I've been trying to emphasize.  Let me try to bring you round another way.  If we lived in a world in which there were no gender constructs, would it even make semantic (set aside the rational, for now) sense, to state that people had or ought to have "the right to live as whatever gender they identify as"?

No. So if you believe that there are no gender constructs, why would you encourage people to take one? The reason that comes to mind, like you've said, is that society is pressuring people to do so. So I understand why someone would want to (like the example of a trangender person emphasizing characteristics of the gender they want to be so people treat the that way). But if you believe that there are no gender constructs, it requires a certain contradiction of one's own principles to then assume one, even if it's convenient.

[The Grand Nudger]

I spent a large portion of my life playing into masculine gender roles which didn't fit...only to find out later that playing into those roles isn't masculine at all.

Had I rocked the pink, and shamelessly bumped every broadway number I love - maybe I wouldn't have had to encounter gender suspicion and doubt?  Yeah I like pastels and dance numbers, say some shit and I'll stab you.  I didn't realize it at the time, but I was drowning in pussy relative to to chestthumpers.