Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deleted member 564" data-source="post: 75705" data-attributes="member: 564">This is literally accepted in my framework too. Nothing about my framework, AT ALL, rejects the idea that gender roles such as men being hunters and women being gatherers are due to genetic and biological factors.Remember, I said that gender is a set of elements that references sex.You can consider, in such a society, that a &quot;hunter&quot; is a gendered role because it is typically assigned to men. In other words, &quot;men&quot; are typically hunters. Okay, why? Well, because men are typically more able-bodied than women. Okay, why? Because men typically undergo secondary male sexual development which includes the flushing of androgen that eventually results in bone density, bigger bodies, more muscles, yada yada. You get the point.If you consider my definition of man: it&#039;s a person whose gender identity aligns with their conception of masculinity. Masculinity, in turn, is a set of elements that is associated with the male sex.So, masculinity, in such a society, would include &quot;hunter&quot; as a trait that is associated with the male sex because male members of such a society are typically hunters.Really that simple.The difference between my definition and yours is that mine is descriptive, and yours is prescriptive. This is fine, and it is not a critique against your definition. In a way, neither are superior to the other. It is simply that you and I have different goals in mind.Okay, genuinely, this is meaningless. I said earlier that longevity is not a real evaluative criteria for the explanatory power of a given framework. &quot;General relativity&quot; is modern phrase, but we accept it despite that. Why? Because it possesses explanatory power that provides sufficient description and explanation to the world around us.I will admit it is my fault for bringing that up, I should have not and I will not going forth.I think at this point, we will genuinely never see eye to eye. You keep insisting I am trying to bring up or introduce this new framework when I am not. I&#039;ve told you multiple times already that I am only merely describing society and its use of &quot;man&quot; and &quot;woman&quot;, and that I notice that a descriptive definition of &quot;man&quot; would NOT be &quot;a person who possesses an SRY gene in their Y chromosome&quot; because it does not sufficiently explain the day-to-day&#039;s usage of the word &quot;man&quot;.If an alien right now just landed here, and let&#039;s say that for whatever reason, they don&#039;t know what &quot;man&quot; is despite the fact we can communicate to each other somehow; simply saying that we use &quot;man&quot; to mean &quot;a person who possesses an SRY gene in their Y chromosome&quot;, they will say that I am fucking lying because it does not explain a) cultural phrases and sayings that use &quot;man&quot; in a way that would be incoherent under your definition, b) the implicit social contracts we built around &quot;man&quot; such as expectations of how they should behave and act, and c) the symbolic, cultural, behavioral, and physical associations we attach to &quot;man&quot; as well as the variation between cultures across time and space.Your definition is simply not enough in my view. It just does not fully capture the common usages and conceptions of &quot;man&quot; that societies across history have displayed.I think this discussion has lost its productivity now, but it was a fun discussion to have. Thanks for indulging me! :D</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deleted member 564, post: 75705, member: 564"] This is literally accepted in my framework too. Nothing about my framework, AT ALL, rejects the idea that gender roles such as men being hunters and women being gatherers are due to genetic and biological factors. Remember, I said that gender is a set of elements that references sex. You can consider, in such a society, that a "hunter" is a gendered role because it is typically assigned to men. In other words, "men" are typically hunters. Okay, why? Well, because men are typically more able-bodied than women. Okay, why? Because men typically undergo secondary male sexual development which includes the flushing of androgen that eventually results in bone density, bigger bodies, more muscles, yada yada. You get the point. If you consider my definition of man: it's a person whose gender identity aligns with their conception of masculinity. Masculinity, in turn, is a set of elements that is associated with the male sex. So, masculinity, in such a society, would include "hunter" as a trait that is associated with the male sex because male members of such a society are typically hunters. Really that simple. The difference between my definition and yours is that mine is descriptive, and yours is prescriptive. This is fine, and it is not a critique against your definition. In a way, neither are superior to the other. It is simply that you and I have different goals in mind. Okay, genuinely, this is meaningless. I said earlier that longevity is not a real evaluative criteria for the explanatory power of a given framework. "General relativity" is modern phrase, but we accept it despite that. Why? Because it possesses explanatory power that provides sufficient description and explanation to the world around us. I will admit it is my fault for bringing that up, I should have not and I will not going forth. I think at this point, we will genuinely never see eye to eye. You keep insisting I am trying to bring up or introduce this new framework when I am not. I've told you multiple times already that I am only merely describing society and its use of "man" and "woman", and that I notice that a [I]descriptive [/I]definition of "man" would NOT be "a person who possesses an SRY gene in their Y chromosome" because it does not sufficiently explain the day-to-day's usage of the word "man". If an alien right now just landed here, and let's say that for whatever reason, they don't know what "man" is despite the fact we can communicate to each other somehow; simply saying that we use "man" to mean "a person who possesses an SRY gene in their Y chromosome", they will say that I am fucking lying because it does not explain a) cultural phrases and sayings that use "man" in a way that would be incoherent under your definition, b) the implicit social contracts we built around "man" such as expectations of how they should behave and act, and c) the symbolic, cultural, behavioral, and physical associations we attach to "man" as well as the variation between cultures across time and space. Your definition is simply not enough in my view. It just does not fully capture the common usages and conceptions of "man" that societies across history have displayed. I think this discussion has lost its productivity now, but it was a fun discussion to have. Thanks for indulging me! :D [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread