Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wait whattt? :o" data-source="post: 74985" data-attributes="member: 564">You are right. You answered a lot of questions. I suppose I should respond in kind! :DI suppose my perspective on this is as follows:My issue with your definition of &quot;man&quot; is that it essentially collapses the &quot;social manifestation&quot; of &quot;man&quot; by prescribing a strictly biological mechanism onto a clearly socially-defined, ambiguous, and malleable term.A man, to me, is simply a person whose gender identity aligns with their conception of masculinity.A woman, to me, is simply a person whose gender identity aligns with their conception of femininity.This, to me, is not circular because:Masculinity is a set of traits associated with the male sex.Femininity is a set of traits associated with the female sex.The reason these set of definitions make more sense to me is that they have sufficient explanatory power to describe how gender manifests in society and how it is typically expressed without being too reliant on biology such that it constrains expression too much because otherwise, it would not account for differences in understanding of gender across both space and time since different cultures in different places understand it differently and even the same culture in different times have different understanding of it. In essence, it has sufficient explanatory power to describe usage, norms, and variation.For example:&quot;blue represents man&quot; makes sense to me when a man is a &quot;person who aligns with a set of traits they associate with the male sex&quot; more than a &quot;person who possesses functional SRY gene in the Y chromosome&quot; because the latter definition does not explain why such associations exist at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wait whattt? :o, post: 74985, member: 564"] You are right. You answered a lot of questions. I suppose I should respond in kind! :D I suppose my perspective on this is as follows: My issue with your definition of "man" is that it essentially collapses the "social manifestation" of "man" by prescribing a strictly biological mechanism onto a clearly socially-defined, ambiguous, and malleable term. A man, to me, is simply a person whose gender identity aligns with their conception of masculinity. A woman, to me, is simply a person whose gender identity aligns with their conception of femininity. This, to me, is not circular because: Masculinity is a set of traits associated with the male sex. Femininity is a set of traits associated with the female sex. The reason these set of definitions make more sense to me is that they have sufficient explanatory power to describe how gender manifests in society and how it is typically expressed without being too reliant on biology such that it constrains expression too much because otherwise, it would not account for differences in understanding of gender across [I]both[/I] space and time since different cultures in different places understand it differently and even the same culture in different times have different understanding of it. In essence, it has sufficient explanatory power to describe usage, norms, and variation. For example: "blue represents man" makes sense to me when a man is a "person who aligns with a set of traits they associate with the male sex" more than a "person who possesses functional SRY gene in the Y chromosome" because the latter definition does not explain why such associations exist at all. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread