WMN: t3_2174z5_t1_cgac616

[TITLE]

Gender is unnecessary and inherently oppressive, and its removal from society should be sought. CMV.

[tezzet]

I realize that this is a very radical view and that there are many people who are more knowledgeable who definitively disagree with it, which is why I'm wary. My view stems from a difficultly answering the question "What is a man?" Obviously a man is not simply a person with a penis (transphobes need not apply to this discussion; you aren't convincing anyone). Simply saying that a man is someone who identifies as such doesn't help, because that's circular. I can take your word for it that you're a man, but that doesn't help me understand what a man is. I can't leave it at just saying that there's some "internal feeling" of manhood, because any "internal feeling" must be a quale. Qualia like red can be shared and referred to with a common language because there's an external referent. We can point to something and agree that it's color is called "red", regardless of our own perceptions of red. There's no obvious, physical referent for manhood, so one must've been socially constructed. While statements like "men are strong," "men are brave," "men wear pants," and even "men have penises" are bullshit, those statements as a whole form a generalized referent for manhood. Genders cannot exist independent of oppressive, stifling boxes that people are forced into, because genders *are* those boxes. Is there any way to define genders except as references to oppression? Is there a benefit to having genders that outweighs this oppressiveness? EDIT: I'm not saying we should eliminate the concept of sex. It *is* useful for medicine, clothing, and other body-specific services, but we don't need to attach gendered behaviors and attitudes to it. EDIT 2: I realized my opening line may not have communicated what I meant and changed it.

[chevybow]

Gender is a social construct. Its removal in society should not be sought after because there would be no point. There is still biological difference in sex which would be considered "oppressive". Removing it would change nothing.

[namae_nanka]

The arguments that you are using is nothing new. [STA-CITE]> "And so there are no men and there are no women! W. L. George says that this is the revolutionary biological principle upon which the feminist propaganda rests. I should say that it is about the best example of biological bosh that I have ever encountered in cold type." [END-CITE]-George McAdam New York Times 1914 [STA-CITE]>Now Mr. Robertson falls foul of Ferri on the ground of his using the general terms “woman” and “man,” his plea being that these terms are abstract, and, therefore, “medieval” (as he calls it) since no two concrete men and no two concrete women are exactly alike. I confess, on reading this, I fairly gasped at the straits to which Feminist advocates can be reduced for an argument, and the recklessness with which a usually telling and logical thinker will throw his reputation into the breach on behalf of the cause he has espoused – when it is that of the fair sex. To read Mr. Robertson one would think he were in a state resembling Mr. Jourdain’s, before he had discovered that he had been talking prose all his life without knowing it. [END-CITE]http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1902/12/feminism.htm [STA-CITE]>While most people agree (myself included) [END-CITE]They don't. [STA-CITE]>Genders cannot exist independent of oppressive, stifling boxes that people are forced into, [END-CITE]The 'oppression' seems to be the problem of the exceptions to the rule, the uncommon and the outliers, and they seek to make it so that everybody be level with them. [STA-CITE]>My view stems from a difficultly answering the question "What is a man?" [END-CITE]Try it on other things and you'd find a great difficulty answering that too.

[tezzet]

[STA-CITE]>The arguments that you are using is nothing new. [END-CITE]So? [STA-CITE]>The 'oppression' seems to be the problem of the exceptions to the rule [END-CITE]So? Shouldn't our goal as a society be to make everyone as happy as possible? [STA-CITE]>Try it on other things and you'd find a great difficulty answering that too. [END-CITE]How so? Water is H2O. Cotton swabs are sticks with bits of fiber tangled about each end. There are entire books listing answers to these kinds of questions and they're called dictionaries, but their answer to my question is generally the transphobic one or the circular one.

[namae_nanka]

[STA-CITE]>So? [END-CITE]It is not radical, nor are knowledgeable people unsure of it. It's incredibly stupid however. [STA-CITE]>So? Shouldn't our goal as a society be to make everyone as happy as possible? [END-CITE]Heh, in theory whatever works, in practice it only means that the majority is harmed by this nuisance. So nope. The happiness of the exception in reducing the normal to its own level is abhorrent. [STA-CITE]>How so? [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>Water is H2O [END-CITE]LOL, the chemical formula is not the only thing that makes water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water nevermind the bait and switch of using H20 vs. something far more complicated as in gender. [STA-CITE]>There are entire books listing answers to these kinds of questions and they're called dictionaries [END-CITE]which are written by some spaghetti monster? [STA-CITE]>but their answer to my question is generally the transphobic one or the circular one [END-CITE]Their answer isn't to your liking and therefore is oppressive or wrong. It's a trite argument and I am amazed how many times I've seen it brought up. http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1r8bet/how_trp_misidentifies_the_cause_of_reproductive/cdkooqu

[tezzet]

[STA-CITE]>nor are knowledgeable people unsure of it. [END-CITE]That's exactly the opposite of what I meant, but I see how what I wrote might've been confusing and have changed it. [STA-CITE]>nevermind the bait and switch of using H20 vs. something far more complicated as in gender. [END-CITE]If your point wasn't "all things are difficult to define" then what was it? "Complicated questions are difficult to answer"? I'm willing to cede that. [STA-CITE]>Their answer isn't to your liking and therefore is oppressive or wrong. [END-CITE]The answers aren't to my liking *because* they're oppressive and/or wrong, and I've explained why I believe that they're oppressive and/or wrong in my OP. Maybe you should address that.

[fghtthpwr]

While I don't like *most* forms of genderization (clothing differences, speech differences, whatever), I think it's inherent that there actually *is* an internal feeling in men that makes them manly or in women that makes them feminine. That's because, evolutionary speaking, it just makes sense for there to be. We wouldn't have thrived as well without it. Now, you could argue that in the future, we will be heading towards a society where differences between sexes won't matter, and that in order to benefit mankind, we should shed gender stereotypes. But that's kinda separate, because they way things are now, women and men are innately different, and people are going to act on that. But I think we're headed that way regardless. More people are conscious about feminism. You see people wearing what they want and doing what they want, you see less slut shaming towards women and less virgin shaming towards men, etc.

[RempingJenny]

men have a penis works 99% of the time. introducing extremely convoluted and complex categorisation system or pretending gender doesn't exist entirely are counter-productive, there is no reason to do so to please the 1% of the people who are not happy with the definition. [STA-CITE]>Genders cannot exist independent of oppressive, stifling boxes that people are forced into [END-CITE]nor can any definition of anything. needless to say not having definitions for the laws of gravity won't allow you to flap your arms and fly.

[tezzet]

[STA-CITE]>men have a penis works 99% of the time. [END-CITE]Then that's not a definition. It should be logically impossible for a definition to be untrue, because that's the point of definitions. [STA-CITE]>pretending gender doesn't exist entirely [END-CITE]Of course gender exists. I wouldn't be worried about getting rid of something that doesn't exist. [STA-CITE]>there is no reason to do so to please the 1% of the people who are not happy with the definition. [END-CITE]I think the existence of that 1% is a good reason. What do you do intend to do with the people who don't fit into your categorization scheme? Ignore them?

[winteronmars]

Stereotypes dont make a person male or female, anatomy does. Male or female and man or women, are under the category of sex. Masculine or feminine, and other similar words, are categorized under gender. Otherwise when someone says they're a male, how would you know if they're talking about their gender or their sex?

[MontiBurns]

[STA-CITE]>I think the existence of that 1% is a good reason. What do you do intend to do with the people who don't fit into your categorization scheme? Ignore them? [END-CITE]No, accept those people. Let them define themselves. We're getting better at it, but you'll still see most men gravitate towards some things, and those will invariable be associated as "male" , and women gravitate towards other things, which will be considered more "female". Like the OP said, you can't just will gender away overnight because a small minority doesn't fit into the definition.

[tezzet]

[STA-CITE]>you can't just will gender away overnight because a small minority doesn't fit into the definition [END-CITE]I'm not just talking about queer and intersex people. Cis-men and cis-women who feel pressured to normatively perform their gender are also suffering under this system. Just because they're good at fitting into the boxes doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off outside the boxes.

[MontiBurns]

I don't think gender roles are the hard boxes you think they are. "I'm a man, men like sports, so i have to like sports" is not the reality we live in. Women are free to like and play sports, and men are free to like fashion and art. People pick and choose the types of things they do and like, and the definition of what it means to be a man or a woman is changing. My wife worked all day yesterday, so I cleaned the house, did the laundry, and had dinner ready for her when she got home. Does that make me any less of a man? or make me question my identity as a male? No, it doesn't.

[RempingJenny]

[STA-CITE]> Then that's not a definition. It should be logically impossible for a definition to be untrue [END-CITE]do cats have 4 legs? because not all cats have 4 legs [STA-CITE]>I think the existence of that 1% is a good reason. [END-CITE]you are suggesting people pretend gender didn't exist even though it most certain does.

[spazdor]

I think gender can be and will be recycled, after it ceases to be a culturally-imposed hegemony, and kept alive as a purely voluntary affectation. RuPaul said "We're born naked. After that, everything is drag" and I take that to heart. But here is RuPaul, someone who had to completely break out of her own gender box, and is presumably no longer shackled by it, and yet *performs gender as a deconstructed art form!* I think that's the future. When the oppression is taken out of gender, it will just look like any other archetypal language in the shared cultural consciousness, from which people pick and choose, or not, at will. Maybe we'll detach it entirely from anatomical femaleness or malenessand impose it on no one, but there will probably still be people who want to self-identify as 'femme' or 'butch' long afterwards, and we will probably find that there *are* certain constellations of personality traits and interests and so on which tend to go hand in hand and form an intelligible gestalt of "masculinity" or "femininity". tl;dr gender will one day be useful as a matter of semiotics and performativity, after it has ceased to be a system of oppression.

[tezzet]

I like you a lot. You're nice. [STA-CITE]>we will probably find that there are certain constellations of personality traits and interests and so on which tend to go hand in hand and form an intelligible gestalt of "masculinity" or "femininity". [END-CITE]I find that difficult to believe. Couldn't it be more likely that any such gestalts are self-fulfilling prophecies sustained by a social expectation that they're true?

[spazdor]

I like you too! [STA-CITE]>Couldn't it be more likely that any such gestalts are self-fulfilling prophecies sustained by a social expectation that they're true? [END-CITE]Yeah, I think that's certainly likely as an explanation. But 'geek' has persisted as its own self-perpetuating thing for, well, at least a decade or two after its heyday as a schoolyard 'oppressed class', and I know some people who make a point of always dressing like partygoers from the 1920's. I think people like to keep anachronistic things alive for lots of reasons - sometimes just for fun, sometimes because they're representative of struggles they've faced in the past, and because they aren't developed in vacuums in the first place. If they are self-fulfilling prophecies after gender hegemony, it will be for the opposite reasons to why they're self-fulfilling now: If people who want to wear pretty sparkly things hang out together and teach each other an appreciation for Disney animated musicals, then a cultural association between those things will persist, whether we decide to refer to that association by a historically-evocative name like "feminine" or something new and postmodern like "disneysparkleness". The people will have sought out the label and its trappings, not the other way around. People who participate voluntarily in gendering themselves will keep those associations alive, though i'm certain they'll evolve and eventually be unrecognizable.

[tezzet]

∆ I can buy that historically-oppressive labels can grow to have non-oppressive uses. It's possible that if gender becomes devalued to the point of being a fashion or artistic statement, then its potential for oppression fades away.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/spazdor. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/spazdor)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[spazdor]

Cheers, and thank you for the interesting OP!

[tezzet]

Thank *you* for being a beacon of hope amid a dark cloud of transphobia.

[Wazula42]

I'd give you a delta if I didn't already agree with you. Very well said. In my own anecdotal experience, this is already happening in small ways. Me and my guy friends, for instance, often decide we want to have a "manly" night and go watch explosion movies with naked women in them. It's all just a big dumb bonding experience, and the silliness is part of the fun. We recognize the artificiality of being "real men" for a night, and we indulge in it. Then we go back to being just people. I'd be a happy clam if we could apply that logic to everything with gender currently assigned to it.

[thewoodenchair]

Pretty interesting viewpoint. Would this be like if everyone is cosplaying or dressing up for Halloween 24/7, except the outfits aren't based on a fictional character and not that outlandish?

[spazdor]

Yeah, that's kind of like I see it. I think eventually various gender archetypes will fit alongside concepts like "preppy" or "indie rocker" and it'll be seen as equally normal to identify visually and personally with one or more of these tropes, a little or a lot, or to abstain from the whole business altogether.

[noncommunicable]

Abolishing characterization groups because it hurts people's feelings is an altogether useless exercise. You can argue all you want that this is fighting oppression, but really it isn't. There has hardly been any level of "gender recognition" in the world until recently outside of differentiating people by sex, and oppression has for the entirety of recorded history. Abolishing the ability to characterize groups which, by the way, is a totally impossible effort (like telling everyone that black people are all of the sudden not black people anymore), will not improve any kind of lot for different genders in life. Oppression exists because humanity has a power-complex that naturally involves uplifting those most similar to yourself, and throwing down those most different. This will not change because you make a piece of paper that says calling someone a man/woman is wrong.

[AloneIntheCorner]

[STA-CITE]>genders as references to oppression [END-CITE]What oppression is that, specifically?

[tezzet]

The pressure to normatively perform your assigned gender.

[QueenSpicy]

I think there are a certain number of biological differences, as well as social differences that make this more difficult than you think. Not to mention this is fairly utopian in nature, and goes against human nature for the most part. Women seem to like confidence and men to approach them (in heterosexual relationship), meaning they need men to be the more "masculine" of the two. I hear the argument that this is the way it is due to the current social structure; but I would also make the claim that men have a higher sex drive generally (prostitution, porn, etc) leading to men having higher demand than there is supply. The need plays into the whole dynamic of life. Women have a bigger investment if they have sex (babies, menstruation, etc), which requires them to be much more choosey when it comes to a mate. Men can just "pump and dump", with little investment. Anthropologists seem to find that two parents do better than one, although there is no really strong evidence that it needs to be male and female, as long as there is a discipline and nurture element to it. Unless you can rewire biology, I don't see this, or any egalitarian notion coming true, although it can be shifted. Gender can change, but can never be flat and equal. Males and females simply fit different functions, that doesn't mean their worth is somehow lesser. Women need me to reproduce, even though their investment is much higher. Women therefore need a male to protect them, (or something strong) while they come to term and can give birth. More primitive species do not have the luxury of thinking past biology, I don't really think an argument can be made where humans can feasibly think past our biological components. No matter how much we think we can, we are all still a series of drives and desires.

[Joined_Today]

Gender is an effective tool for categorization. You can define a "woman" and a "man" through physical characteristics. Men and women have clear differences physically. By categorizing people based on these characteristics, you can make things a lot easier. For example, you have "women's clothing" and "men's clothing", each category indicates a subgroup of clothing that has been made with the physical characteristics of a gender in mind. You could argue that clothes should be categorized by specific characteristic (clothes made to accommodate for breasts, or for a male upper torso, etc.) but the gender categorization is an easy way to narrow down subcategories by a half. Similarly, since women and men have different biological structures, medicine and cosmetics benefit from separating people based on gender. Anything from shampoo to medical drugs may be different for a man and women, and gender categorization makes it easier to separate products based on their intended target. At the base of it, it's rather easy to define genders based on physical characteristics. Oppression doesn't come because of gender, it comes out of societal tendencies. If you get rid of genders, you'd still have people simple identifying themselves through traits.

[tezzet]

I'm not saying we should get rid of sex. Acknowledging bodily diversity is fine, but I'm arguing that attaching genders to various bodies is bad. [STA-CITE]>If you get rid of genders, you'd still have people simple identifying themselves through traits. [END-CITE]That's exactly what I'm advocating for. Having and acknowledging distinct traits is, of course, a good thing, but I don't see why we should organize traits into big, gendered clumps.

[Evan_Th]

[STA-CITE]> That's exactly what I'm advocating for. Having and acknowledging distinct traits is, of course, a good thing, but I don't see why we should organize traits into big, gendered clumps. [END-CITE]But, by and large, those traits do come in clumps. Take pants, for an example. Currently, we have (in general) two types of pants: pants that have room for a man's crotch and man's muscles, and pants without either but with woman's hips. We could theoretically have eight lines of pants that mix-and-match these traits, but most people would just go on buying the same two that're sold today because those are the two that most people fit into. Or, think of the layout of clothing stores. Currently, men's shirts and pants are displayed close to each other because, the vast majority of the time, someone who fits in men's shirts will also fit in men's pants. Without organizing traits into clumps, shoppers would need to There'll always be some people who don't have all the traits associated with a gender. But most people do, so gender remains a useful way of classification.

[tezzet]

That's not gender, that's sex. I'm fine with sex categories existing, I just don't think gendered behaviors and attitudes should be attached to them.

[sheep74]

but don't the two massively overlap when you hit things like clothes? What would the female-sex clothes look like if gender didn't exist? Wouldn't they look vaguely similar, wouldn't that be telling about the traits expected of people who wear those clothes and then don't we just get back to gender again? Don't we end up just shoving all the generalised personality traits onto sex rather than gender - we end up loosing the difference in language. edit: submitted before i meant to. Currently we have a situation where a person can have the female sex but be a boy. If we take out that second bit as in the person is female (sex) but then nothing. How do we target this person via advertisement? We have to have vague clusters of people to target that we attribute vague likes and dislikes (the youth like X, old people like Y) now we're no longer discriminating by gender - so it must be sex. Well the female sex likes floral patterns - boom some floral blouses for women. But no gender. But its the same.

[Wazula42]

[STA-CITE]> How do we target this person via advertisement? We have to have vague clusters of people to target that we attribute vague likes and dislikes (the youth like X, old people like Y) now we're no longer discriminating by gender - so it must be sex. [END-CITE]Perhaps these things need to become more specific. Couldn't you find it stifling if assumed your race all enjoyed a certain food? Why discriminate at all? There's a strong correlation between physical sex and gender, and some broad strokes we can draw in regards to the body types of the sexes. But when has it ever been a good idea to lump the outliers in with the majority? Shouldn't the goal be to give everyone equal value, even if you don't conform to the standard?

[sheep74]

well i mean clothing and gender is very different to race. clothing is fitted to certain body shapes. as soon as you produce a top with a cut for a waist and boobs you're clearly targeting the female sex. At the moment these clothes also target the female gender which may or may not correlate with sex. If we loose gender we loose the distinction: this clothing is now for the female sex only. Well now it's the same thing as before, now sex is just standing in for gender. If anything its more oppressive as now, rather than having the distinction between sex and gender, we only have one thing to target and design for: sex. At the moment we can understand that some sex-males will want to wear girl-gender clothes and accommodate for that. but if we don't have the distinction then the sex-male only has sex-male clothes because gender doesn't exist. he is his sex: he doesn't have boobs and a waist.

[Wazula42]

He can wear whatever he wants, regardless of who the clothes are designed for. But if we open up the options so that clothes are just clothes and not inherently gendered, then he has more options, not less. He can dress for comfort or style or both, ideally without having to deal with the stigma of breaking gender lines. I mean, I love wearing my girlfriend's shirts because they tend to be softer, even if they hang a little loose in the front.

[sheep74]

but like I said, people still have to make clothes. Now they're not gendered, but they're still sexed. And the 6ft crossdressing dude isn't going to fit into sex:female shoes necessarily.

[Wazula42]

First of all, its unlikely he could even when shoes were gendered. Secondly, if there's demand, someone will make it. If there's a market for bigger high-heels for bigger people, someone will starting making them. Eliminating gender could make bigger people more likely to dress however they want, and that could mean more high heels.