CMV: Gender isn't a social construct

if one culture defined "height" differently from another

This is a bad analogy, because height is a physical characteristic that can be empirically measured and quantified (like biosex), not an intangible mental state with a million variables and variances from person to person (like gender). Two people who are 6'1" are objectively the same physical height, but two people from the same culture who both identify as masculine can have completely different interpretations of what that means to them. I don't like watching sports, I prefer cooking shows. According to some people that makes me less masculine, according to others it makes me a "real" man (whatever that nonsense term is supposed to mean). This just goes to show that tying the concept of gender identity 100% to biosex simply doesn't work, and that even people who claim to do so probably actually don't.

So any word can be called a social construct if it's definition is tweaked just so.

Well yeah, once you start changing the definition of words, you can make them mean whatever you want. You'll note though that the definition of the word gender doesn't actually mention biological sex.

I just don't see a need for redefining gender in such a way when the term "gender roles" is already sufficient.

First of all, we're not redefining anything; you're simply mistaken about the actual definition of the term gender (I don't mean that to sound rude, but I couldn't come up with a way to put it that sounded nicer but was equally clear). Secondly, I don't like using this word because of all the baggage that comes with it, but that phrase is the literal definition of the term "privilege". I mean, I'm a heterosexual cisgendered man, so I have no personal need for any other terms or concepts to describe myself either, but that is emphatically not the point. The fact is, there are many, many people in our society who do not feel represented by a strict biologically-defined gender binary, and by saying that our society should only use that definition, you are effectively telling those people that their feelings and experiences don't matter and aren't valid. Essentially, you're proposing a tyranny of the majority wherein the only people who get their experiences recognized as legitimate are those who conform to a highly-biased social norm that stems from a subjective view of morality. You're clearly an intelligent person, so I'm sure I don't have to explain why that's not good.

/r/changemyview Thread Parent