[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 214 KB, 958x729, .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7065806 No.7065806[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Scientifically speaking, is gender a social construct?

>> No.7065808

>>7065806
>Scientifically speaking
Let's test this, then

>a social construct?
Wait, we can't test this.

Scientifically speaking, I couldn't tell you.

>> No.7065811
File: 18 KB, 300x265, 1408817120952.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7065811

>>7065808

>> No.7065813

it is, gender is whatever retarded belief you have about what you are, and it seems that belief doesn't need to correspond to reality in any way. There is only sex, everything else is your retardation. A bug in your code if you will, imagine you made a robot to do some one thing, but the robot then does something completely retarded and different from that one thing. Is that a good robot? No, it's a broken one.

>> No.7065815

For organizing and sanctioning the sexes into different roles in society, it stretches what "social construct" means. But yes, if you want to define certain things certain ways.
Males are more physically fit on average compared to females, and are better suited to manual labor. Mothers are hormonally driven to care and dote on children. For a shallow definition of gender and gender roles like that, then it's pretty much biologically determined.
For things like pants vs skirts, makeup, high heels, shaving certain parts of the body, it's social. Men proposing to women or vice versa, stay-at-home mothers/fathers with much lower manual labor focused jobs, and applying color to genders can be in between, with some biological factors and some arbitrary depending on the culture.

>> No.7065816

>>7065806
Biological Sex is a scientific fact, but at the same time there are always mixed combinations of genes/developmental issues. I see gender identity in the same light it just has more to do with your Bio/Psycho/Social development as well, not just your genetics....

Anyway...

Yes gender is a social construct, but it is a social construct based off of merit and what has worked in the past.

>> No.7065905

your need to ask this question is a social construct.

>> No.7065922

>>7065813
I prefer to read this as a response to typical masculine/feminine genders rather than jumping the gun and arguing against third or whatever the fuck other genders people use the social construct argument like a crutch for.
Roomba, go clean the living room
>No, master. Must lift weights
Put those down. What's wrong with you?
>Must become babe electromagnet. Must get swole

>> No.7065969

None of that is biologically determined, it's only biologically correlated. And the correlations are pretty weak: the standard deviation within one gender is much larger than the difference between the male and female medians.

>> No.7065970

>>7065806
Gender is a differentiation put on words. Gender literally doesn't exist for people if you're saying that Gender =/= Biological Sex.

>> No.7065971

>>7065969
None of what is determined?

>> No.7065977

>>7065806
usually depends on testosterone and oestrogen levels in the brain. So no, its not social construct.

>> No.7065978

XX
XY
End of discussion.

>> No.7065982

>>7065977
I think it more so goes back to developmental biology. There are certain proteins/metabolites that serve as markers for when to turn expression of a certain gene on or not.

Say I want the genes for a "Male" I have to first define what male is. ie take a normal male sample or a collaboration of male genes and normalize them.

Then I would see where along the path way of developing to that standard things go not accoring to planned.

Idk its too much to explain for me

>> No.7065984

>>7065971
Meant as a reply >>7065815

>>7065978
There are more chromosomal patterns than that. Biological sex isn't binary, it's just a sharply bimodal distribution. This is true no matter of you look at chromosomes, genitals, or secondary characteristics.

>> No.7065997

>>7065984
In a ADN analysis to determine the sex¿ which genetically characteristics will you look first?
I know there are more genetically characteristics that determine the sex, but all depend basically on XX and XY.

>> No.7065999

>>7065997
Eh, the other patterns are all weird anyway, they almost all have major flaws.

>> No.7066005

I think peeps still dont know the difference between sex and gender.

>> No.7066007

>>7065978
>End of discussion
... because baffled by YY
Lrn2genetics, pleb

>> No.7066008
File: 40 KB, 604x404, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7066008

>>7066007

>> No.7066013

No.

>> No.7066017

>>7065978
Not what we're talking about in this context, but even in the context you're on about, that don't work.

Google: Gonadal Dysgenesis

>> No.7066025

>>7066017
What are you trying to say with that?You know what a genetic disorder means?
All must be analysed from a statistic point of view. The development of sexual characters and hormones associated of sexes depends in many cases from the appearance of XX or XY, and hormones affect a lot in our behaviour, in how our bodies developed etc
There are socially behaviours that are culturally, but in the bottom you cant reneggate from those who are inspired by you hormones and you ADN.

>> No.7066027

Scientifically speaking, is 0.999... =1 a social construct?

>> No.7066029

No.

Back to leddit.

>> No.7066031
File: 7 KB, 200x252, george arms crossed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7066031

>>7066007
YY doesn't exist...

>> No.7066098

>>7065808
This.
Logically though, of course it is a social construct because gender is comperable to a name. It is just what one identifies as. You can't "test" for gender. Sex is the scientific equivalent.

>> No.7066121

>>7065978
/thread

>> No.7066162

>>7065816
>Biological Sex is a scientific fact
yes yes good for you *pats on head*
>developmental issues
since when did evolution have issues, are you telling me evolution knows what its doing or are you implying that the science of evolution is more valid than the case of evolution as it occurs?

lol

but seriously, gender is just as much a scientific fact as it is statistically true, and statistics deviate often. It's more correct to assert that all genders exist, but only two of them succeed at fucking each others brains out.

Just try to differentiate between "facts" and conclusions.

>> No.7066164

>>7065806
yes but ONLY scientifically speaking.

>> No.7066389

>>7066027
It's a lame real construct

>> No.7066419

>>7065806
>Wait, we can't test this.
you could always look at the feral children

>> No.7066439

Gender is a word category. Applying it to people is insanity. People have sexes.

>> No.7066458

>>7065922
I'm not sure what the exact point of the second half of your post is, but I like it.

>> No.7066632

>>7066162
>but only two of them succeed at fucking each others brains out

Speak for yourself ;)

>> No.7066638

>>7066439
Sex is "Do you have a dick or a vagina"

Gender is "What kind of clothes do you wear, do you wear makeup, what social role are you expected to fill, how are you expected to behave sexually, yadda yadda yadda"

Sex is whether or not you have tits. Gender is whether you should make me a sandwich or not.

>> No.7066653

>>7066638
>Baiting this obviously.

>> No.7066677

>>7065806
That's not really a thing science can talk about. It's a question of definition, so it goes to the linguists.

By some definitions, gender is socially constructed, because by those definitions "gender" refers to everything that differentiates masculinity and feminimity besides biological features. (And these do exist - there is no biological reason that having a dick excludes you from wearing a dress).

By other definitions, gender also includes biological differences, and is therefore not wholly a social construct.

All science can say is that, biologically speaking, some people have dicks, and some people have vaginas. Social "science" can chime in with analysis of how the social roles of men and women differ in our culture and others.

>> No.7066698

Scientifically speaking, is sucking a feminine dick gay?

>> No.7066739

>>7065978
xxy? xyy? what about those?

>> No.7066774
File: 35 KB, 567x414, X300_039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7066774

>>7066739
Having the x-gene doesn't make you a different gender it makes you a mutant.

>> No.7066778

>>7065978
What about XY females or intersex people in general? Genetic/developmental abnormalities, but they still exist.

Biological sex is one thing, but gender is defined culturally and personally. If someone feels like they're the wrong gender it's the result of something going on neurologically. This is the result of some kind of genetic and developmental processes that we don't yet understand.

Just saying "XY or XX" is a little bit of a simplification because there are plenty of genes on the X chromosome and some on the Y too, each of which has some variability in the population.

>> No.7066780
File: 307 KB, 836x477, Wolverine.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7066780

>>7066778
>abnormalities
MUTANT AND PROUD!

>> No.7067005
File: 127 KB, 600x682, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7067005

Gender is a social construct because gender denotes a set of societal and family roles which are not binary or sexually segregated in all societies.

Sex is a biological fact.

If you wanted a real answer is there you go. If your goal was to reveal how shallow the depth of scientific knowledge that STEM majors have in spite of their insufferable arrogance both online and IRL you have already accomplished that up-thread. Have a nice day.

>> No.7067071

Social construct theory puts the cart before the horse.

Social constructs had to be made by people who fall into either the category of men or that of women and so really social constructs are constructed from the genders not the other way around.

>> No.7067179

Will mankind ever find the functions of the whole human genome?

>> No.7067209

>>7066780
WE DEMAND TOILETS FOR MUTANTS AND MUTANT MARRIAGE!

>> No.7067216

>>7065969
Thanks for the correction. And yes, that is certainly true. But I think the difference is still big enough that if a given society has to divide up daily tasks, the more physically demanding tasks are done by males, and more delicate tasks and childcare are done by females. This is the image I have in my mind, and I may be missing something. I can't think of many examples of women predominantly farming or hunting while men stay behind to do needlework and cook. And of the examples that I can think of when largely women farm or work in factories, it's in a time of war when the men are off fighting.
I'm not trying to say that this is the way it should be, just that the difference between the averages are the reason tasks are divided up into masculine and feminine roles.

>> No.7067337

>>7067216
But that's post-hoc reasoning. You can't first divide men and women, take statistics, and then conclude men and women are fundamentally different because the medians are different.

Say for example you look at everyone's height in the US. It's true that on average men are taller than women. But because the difference is smaller than the separate standard deviations, height is statistically unimodal. Not bimodal. Saying "men and women are different because we sampled them separately and the medians are different" is circular reasoning: you only see this difference because you sampled them separately from the beginning. Of you just took a sample of human heights, you'd see a single mode and therefore you have no reason to think that height divides people into two groups, even statistically.

Compare this to say, amount of facial hair. Even though there are women who have more facial hair than some men, statistically the distribution will have two modes so you would have a good reason to separate humans into two groups, statistically speaking. This isn't circular reasoning because you see the separation even if you don't start our separating men and women.

Almost everything social is unimodal. Women are maybe more likely to raise kids than men, but you would never see this difference statistically unless you separate your statistics from the beginning and use circular reasoning. It only looks like men and women are socially different because we assume they're different from the beginning and then compare them afterwards.

This same fallacy applies to 99% of /pol/ "statistics".

>> No.7067362

>>7067337
Eh.

Social science (that ends up published) has already shown that all it cares for is what conforms to prevailing notions at the time. A sort of warm reading of what their grant writers want to hear.

If you wanna know what's really up you want unpublished corporate/military research for sure.

>> No.7067375

>>7067362
You mean, in the social sciences, many researchers and editors have only a marginal understanding of statistical science? Even though statistics is the only thing linking social science to the scientific method?

Shocking :|

>> No.7067795

>>7067337

>It's true that on average men are taller than women
>Of you just took a sample of human heights, you'd see a single mode and therefore you have no reason to think that height divides people into two groups, even statistically.

It seems to me you're just arguing against using a method that finds the accurate result. Averages are what we are interested in because they tell us about a general trend. Men being significantly stronger than women on average for example is useful data that we can use and extrapolate from. You're talking as if this type of data is useless when it is not.

>Women are maybe more likely to raise kids than men, but you would never see this difference
>It only looks like men and women are socially different because we assume they're different from the beginning and then compare them afterwards.

So is there a difference or not? You seem to be confused.

>> No.7067892

>>7067337
Please take a course in statistics.

>> No.7067898

>>7067795

Longpost may be incoming. Dunno. Gonna start writing and see how long it gets. (This isn't about gender or sexuality, it's about stats, which incidentally are relevant to this gender discussion.)

>> No.7067926

>>7067337
>height is a social construct

>> No.7067947
File: 39 KB, 838x1300, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7067947

>>7067898

[1] Starting out: Men are, on average, taller than women. I'm not trying to argue they arent. On to the real post:

[2] If you take a room full of people and divide by, say, whether they were born on an odd or an even day, then measure heights, one of those groups will be taller (on average) than the other. Much like (but not identical to) a group divided by anything else.

[3] So if you divide the group by genders and see that one sub-group is taller, on average, than the other, well no shit. One sub-group will always be taller than the other unless you painstakingly manage to divide people by height exactly to match up.

[4] If you want to prove a pre-conceived notion, you start by dividing into two groups (Republicans/Democrats) find all the places where there's a difference (Every single thing you measure unless it's a binary value) and then say "We see these groups are different! X percent of my political opponents belive in Y terrible ideal, while only Z (Z<X) percent of my political allies do! Vote for us!"

[5] If you want to find novel data and new ideas, that's not what you do. If you want to find novel data, you do like pic related.

[6] Figure 1 is the dollar value of the items immediately near me. It is very easy to see that this is not a cohesive group - the graph has spikes and no cohesion. There is room for further study.

[7] Figure 2 is the height of a group of 1000 male and 1000 female americans aged 20-29.

[8] The two graphs are very dissimilar. The reason is that figure 1 is made up of many different things and figure 2 is made up of many similar people. (Continued)

>> No.7067949

>>7067947
[9] Now, as I said in paragraph fucking [1]: I am not trying to say that men and women are the same height. Figure 2 is not a perfect bell curve. It has clear spikes, indicating some underlying differences (That is: Showing me that I'm not measuring a cohesive group.) If I split the data by male and female, I get much nicer bell curves for both groups, one slightly further right than the other.

[10] Getting back to what the other Anon was saying: Data showing that women are more nurturing than men (for some measurement of nurturing) is not reliable, because it is created by first dividing into men and women, then subsequently seeing that one group (women) is more nurturing than the other group (men). Well as we saw in paragraphs [2] and [3], one group would have to be more (trait) than the other. This isn't good evidence that you've found a causal relationship. Maybe it's height. Maybe short people are more nurturing than tall people, so a tall woman is a worse nurturer than a short man. Maybe it's income - the more you get paid, the more you stay at work to get paid, so a female business manager is a worse nurturer than a male waiter, and you just get confounded by the fact that women are, on average, shorter and worse paid than men.

[11] Obviously there is some SJW-level special pleading going on in this post but that's only because the thread is like it is. The statistical methods behind this is solid, and I hope your take-away is what I want it to be: First, get your data. THEN, see what it implies about people. If you start out by assuming that there will be a difference between men and women, it is easy to fool yourself into showing that there is.

>>7067892
>Please take a course in statistics.

Please take a course in statistics.

>> No.7067953

>>7067947
>[2] and [3]
Hypothesis testing is literally the second thing they teach you in stats. I suggest you look it up.

>> No.7067955

>>7067892
You take a course in statistics, retard. A mean difference doesn't imply anything whatsoever. Do men and women have different means in any variables we care to measure? Yes. Do men in the US and Africa have different means in any varaibles we care to measure? Yes. Do men in NY and LA have different means in any vars we care to measure? Yes.

The mean is never the same. Now, I know your reaction
>b-but what if the difference in mean is largely wrt to my subjective retarded i-idea of what large is?
Fucking retard.

>> No.7067957

>>7067953
Except that the means obviously really do differ in the population for any partition, you goddamned fucking stupid retard.

>> No.7067959

If you have one or more Y chromosomes, you're male, if you only have X chromosomes, you're female.

What gender you identify as is completely besides the point, scientifically speaking. You can lop your tits off and roll some skin into a hyena-style pseudopenis but that's not going to make you develop a Y chromosome any more than lopping your dick off and jamming bags of silicone/saline into your chest will get rid of your Y chromosome. Science doesn't end where your feelings begin.

>> No.7067963

>>7067953
>Actually believes the null hypothesis is literally true if we can't reject it based on our sample of 5 observations.

>> No.7067964

>>7067957
That was exactly my point, you thick mong
>>7067955
>A mean difference doesn't imply anything whatsoever
Are you an edgy U CANT KNOW NOTHIN faggot?
>We cant know for sure that theyre different, the p-value doesnt equal 0

>> No.7067965

>>7067963
You clearly have no idea what hypothesis testing is. Again, please look it up.

>> No.7067966

>>7067337

I really don't understand what the fuck you are on about... Or at least not how it's correct. How would you go about finding a statistically significant difference between the heights of males or females (or blacks and white, or straight men and gay men, whatever fucking two groups you want) then what's wrong with measuring the difference between them?

The only thing that I can think that you're trying to say is basically:

>Just because there is a difference does not mean it is statistically significant

If that's the case, then that by itself is fine but I fail to see what the rest of your point is? You can't first divide man and women and then do statistics? Why not? As long as they are sampled randomly from the same population, why can't you categorise them by their sex?* Just do a t-test and you're laughing.


* Assuming that the effect you're looking for is difference between the heights of men and women in a given population

>> No.7067969

>>7067964
No, we can know quite a lot. Like that the means are different in the population.
>B-b UT THATS NOT LIKE MEN AND WOMEN; THEIR MEAN DIFFERENCE IS RLY LARGE SO THEY MUST BE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERNT !!11
gtfo you dumb moron
>>We cant know for sure that theyre different, the p-value doesnt equal 0
lol you don't even understand what the p value is

>> No.7067970

>>7067969
I give up