Social & Biological
Discourse On Gender
Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
This paper demonstrates that discourse on gender and gender related subject matter is pretty much meaningless without physical biology as a basis. That is, only a physically defined construction of gender enables discussion and opinions, on gendered subjects, to have any relevant meaning at all.
Thus a notion such as "trans woman are women", with the meaning of "woman" not based on physical biology is pretty much incoherent babbling.
Its somewhat interesting then, that such virulent emotion has been attached to any opposition to the "trans woman are women" narrative.
Gender & Biology
Social Gender type- The behavioral and mental state characteristics associated with particular human groupings
Biological Gender type - The physical characteristics associated with particular human groupings
There are broad basic, distinct type groupings. There is, of course, somewhat of a debate on this assertion, however, the results are independent of the number of groups. The groupings are:
Feminine Social Gender type
Masculine Social Gender type
Neutral Social Gender type
Feminine Biological Gender type
Masculine Biological Gender type
Neutral Biological Gender type
That is, one attempts to define gender types by appeal to social differentiators or one attempts to define gender types by appeal to physical/biological differentiators. The words themselves such as Feminine & Masculine are arbitrary but the task is to determine a method to place behavioural characteristics into each Feminine & Masculine bucket, either by reference to a physical based method or a social based method.
Biological Construction of Gender
Physical biology separates two basic types of humans, declared to be male & female. There are some minor variations, but of the order of 99.98% of humans may be characterized by these types. The exceptions have an insignificant statistical effect as to the definitions of gender.
Typical physical characteristics are identified here:
Male Physical Characteristics
XY chromosomes Penis, Prostate, production of male sperm for creating offspring in females, and so forth
Female Physical Characteristics
XX chromosomes, Vagina, Breast Milk, Ovaries, female eggs interacting with male sperm for creating offspring, and so forth
A biological construction of gender may be made simply by statistical analysis of the behaviour of the above two identified physical groups. One counts how often each physical type, for example, wears skirts, applies makeup, cries, fights, argues, are nurses, are coal miners, are CEOs, are rugby players, plays piano, plays netball, murderers, and so forth.
This statistical counts for each group of each characteristics then define the types that are defined as "Feminine Gender Types" and "Masculine Gender Types". That is, if the ratio of counts of a particular behaviour is heavily skewed for physical males, that behaviour is paced in the masculine bucket, if the ratio of counts of a particular behaviour is heavily skewed for physical females, that behaviour is paced in the feminine bucket.
Thus, one deduces objectively that, for example, wearing makeup is of feminine gender, fighting is of masculine gender and singing is neutral gender type, due to the actual measured distribution of the counts of each physical type.
There is, of course, some "social" arbitrariness in setting the standard deviation points for each grouping, but once set, the placing in the buckets is objectively based on physical characteristics.
It is thus noted here, that the biological dictionary definition of terms such as "woman: adult human female" does not change depending on what behaviour is declared to be masculine & feminine.
If the statistical distributions change as to what is regarded as feminine & masculine, the definition of woman, stays the same. For example, males might start wearing lipstick in large proportions. This might change what constitutes masculine behaviour, but it would not effect the definition of "women"
This means that the word "woman" has a fixed, clearly understood meaning that can be used rationally, debated, and legislated about.
Social Construction of Gender
A social construction of gender types, by definition, must ignore any and all physical characteristics. What fills the buckets of feminine & masculine must be determined by some other social, behavioral constructional method.
To do this, one must define what goes into the gender buckets named:
Without reference to any physical biology.
Consider a room filled with physical males and physical females, but one has no idea as to who is actually male or female. One can count the numbers of different types of behaviour, for each individual, for all of those in the room. One would then determine that two statistical sets of characteristics would emerge. That is, there would be a distinct group of individuals all associated with skirts, lipstick, crying and so forth and a distinct group of individuals associated with build clocks, fight, wear trousers and so forth.
These groups may then be arbitrarily assigned the names Feminine & Masculine.
Thus one has a behavioural social construction of the Feminine & Masculine genders defined by a statistical analysis of stereotypical behaviour.
All well and good so far.....however......
The social constructive narrative then, at first instance, is then that the word and idea of "woman" is defined to those that mentally align with characteristics in the feminine bucket.
The fundamental problems with this view are:
If the distribution of what characteristic goes in what bucket changes, for example, males might start wearing lipstick in large proportions. Thus the behavioural characteristics that define a "woman" changes, thus the word "woman" changes with regard to the behaviour that it is supposed to be describing.
There are also many that do not align themselves with some, or even the majority of the characteristics in the feminine bucket, yet still claim the title "woman" because they align to some of them. Thus the word "woman" cannot identify what characteristics that those that claim to be "woman" are, or what it even means to be a "woman". Essentially, its what ever they say they are.
This makes a social constructed definition of "woman", linguistically, descriptively and legally, incoherent.
The social definition of the word "woman" is so socially fluid, that it ceases to have any useful probative meaning at all. In a discourse it would be, essential, impossible for the debaters to have a common understanding as to what "woman" means, because the word "woman" doesn't have a reliable meaning under a socially constructed definition.
It has been demonstrated that socially constructed gender definitions cannot usefully identify any particular group because what constitutes a particular socially constructed gender is too highly variable. Thus defining terms such as "woman" on a socially constructed definition of gender is meaningless babbling.
Defining terms such as "woman" on physical biology considerations allows for clear, unique stable definition for the overall vast majority of situations, and is de facto the method used and accepted by all the major dictionaries, medical texts and general science disciplines.
Of course, one might add, that there are indeed postmodernist departments at universities that do hold the alternative social constructivist view, however those that do indeed take the view that "Planet Earth and the Universe is only a social construction" are pretty much out of the useful range of understanding in this universe and as such, their views would possible be more attractive in multiverse #764309868994.
© Kevin Aylward 2021
This work may be freely published provided it is done so without charge
so long as this source is noted
Website last modified 14th February 2021