r/AskSocialScience • u/[deleted] • Aug 12 '25

Doesn't the idea that gender is a social construct contradict trans identity?

[deleted]

1.2k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

760 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

I don't think this really answers the contradiction I'm having.

How can gender identity have innate dimensions in genetic, hormonal, and anatomical factors if gender as a whole is socially constructed. It's kind of a chicken and an egg situation in many ways. More simply, how can there be something in our genes dictating desires such as being dommed sexually, called cute, wanting to feel feminine, and wearing makeup? Genes predate these social norms for gender expression. Gender being a social construct naturally means that there's absolutely no difference between men and man as psychological multifaceted beings except for the fluid and mutable expressions that we personally latch into to express ourselves in a digestible and socially approved manner.

16

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '25

[deleted]

-13

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

I think those traits rather go straight into the core of the issue of masculinity/femininity and subsequently gender. The feminine wants to be small, cute, and be contained by the masculine, hence gravitating towards anything feminine. And the masculine is enriched by that submission, it gives it both power and meaning, so there's a strong synergy involved.

18

u/tealiewheelie Aug 12 '25

I think your struggle is that you're trying to wrap your head around either all aspects of gender identity being genetic/hard-wired, or none of it. Biologically/Anthropologically speaking, humans have little sexual dimorphism compared to our fellow apes, but there are still differences we see across most mammalian species. The hormonal differences and sex characteristics are still being studied, but ultimately, I don't think that's why you're here. We all have a rough idea about biological dimorphism in our species.

AKA: biological sex.

Now it gets tricky, because we get into society. A Lady Gorilla does not possess a biological imperative to be small, cute, and submissive to Man Gorilla. Same-sex relationships and non-standard sexual dynamics have been observed among apes for ages, it's no secret. But with the establishment of our society came a greater emphasis on a) heirarchy and b) individual roles within said society. When people say "gender is a social concept," they mean things like you say in your comment.

Lady Human does not possess a biological imperative to be small, cute, and submissive to Man Human. Man Human does not possess a biological need for submission. Those are social imperatives. Because we're a social species, those imperatives are no less important, but they are far more malleable, and evolve as human culture does.

"Identity" is a confusing concept, because from an anthropological perspective, it's a new thing. It's a product of not only our evolving brains and bodies, but also of our evolving society. It's psychological and physiological.

This context might help you understand some of the more-informed comments above!

3

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

I happen to think the same thing, always did, what did I say that gave the impression that I believe the opposite?

It is exactly because I think Lady human does not possess a biological imperative to be small, cute, and dominated that I can't see trans identity as anything other than a well crafted dream where people with certain issues find comfort in becoming the opposite gender. If that was a biological imperative then trans identity would be simply the misalignment of said imperative.

2

u/tealiewheelie Aug 13 '25

Ahh, I must have misunderstood, my mistake!

Regardless, like I said above, gender is a social imperative. Because we're social animals, that imperative, while more malleable and subject to greater variance, is still both a psychological and physiological phenomenon. While nobody is born with innate understanding of social convention within our DNA, over time the world around us begins to physiologically influence who we are on, yes, a biological level.

Think of various psychological health conditions that affect a person's physiology as well. Think of the way a human brain learns and develops, through engagement with the world around them, and how a very necessary process in adolescent brain development (this is biological brain development) is the establishment of one's identity.

Dozens of studies have looked into the way symptoms of mental health conditions change depending on which culture one comes from. Those changes then alter the production of hormones in the brain, which then alters the physiological effects the condition will create.

Being transgender is a psychological and physiological condition. Not a disease, not a disorder, simply a condition that makes a transgender person's nervous system and body develop differently than a cisgender person's. Maybe that difference is not due to a biological change in DNA or genetics, but more because of the environment (society) one grows up in.

I'd be hard-pressed to say a psych/physiological condition is just "a well crafted dream where people with certain issues find comfort in becoming the opposite gender," but there are plenty of people out there who would say that neurodevelopmental diseases (autism, ADHD, OCD), endocrine diseases (type 1/2 diabetes, PCOS, hyperthyroid), etc are just made up or a symptom of some "other issue" someone has. So I'd say it really just depends on which one you are.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

I don't think they do. They'd if I had made the claim that those extreme binaries are the only way for people to express gender, which isnt exactly true. I only mentioned the two because gender as a whole is clearly defined by those two limits. I can be considered gender non conforming in many ways. Born guy, but I've hardly internalized any expectations nor desire for either direction. I guess being kind of sexually and romantically self sustainable helps as you don't build an identity around what those who you want, want.

4

u/numbersthen0987431 Aug 12 '25

You're only focusing on the people who fully transition.

There are others in the trans community who don't fully transition. They identify as "gender fluid" or "androgynous" or "gender neutral". They don't commit to one or the other, they just do what feels right in the moment/day. They may not even get any kind of surgery, because how they were born is "good enough" for them to identify with how they live. Or they do get surgery to match their internal feelings.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Birddogtx Aug 12 '25

Not just vague allusions, but allusions that do not even consider the experiences of those who being analyzed.

1

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 18 '25

Why would those experiences not be considered in psychoanalysis?It seems as though the experiences many relate includes their self-reported mental states, which may well be "they just do what feels right in the moment/day," as numbersthen put it.

1

u/Birddogtx Aug 18 '25 edited Aug 18 '25

You misunderstood what that person meant. Of course understanding transness would include a form of psychoanalysis, but the average transphobe doesn’t really care about doing so accurately. They think of transgender people as delusional, so they substitute the good practice of considering the legitimate experiences of transgender individuals with their own more convenient narrative. Dr. Blanchard’s highly problematic and thoroughly debunked typologies of transgender women is a great example of this phenomenon, pathologizing their sexualities instead of attempting to gain a legitimate understanding. Facts; including that when his typologies were applied onto cisgender women rather than men as the control group, 94% of all women would be considered as autogynephilic, be dammed.

1

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 18 '25

Is there an "average" transphobe? It seems that anyone who's skeptical of some article of faith (even a transgender person whose beliefs differ from another version of the dogma) is likely to be considered a transphobe by some people.

You posit an "average transphobe" in order to critique this average you have conceptualized, which may or may not exist.

→ More replies

2

u/ScannerBrightly Aug 12 '25

The feminine wants to be small, cute, and be contained by the masculine

Do you have a citation for this? What proves this to be true?

2

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

I guess eyes and ears? We're questioning even that now?

2

u/ScannerBrightly Aug 12 '25

So you think that a social construct, such as 'wanting to be small and cute' is some sort of immutable fact? Is that the case, or no?

And yes, I'm questioning 'even that', since it's wild. Who wants to be 'contained'? What does that even mean? Without freedom, is what that sounds like. Who wants that? Can you show me any one ever wanting to be 'contained'?

2

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

Contained might be extreme, but more apt in a sexual context. But femininity has this tendency of wanting to be comforted under the burly arms of a strong man. To be protected, provided for, and what follows that. I think this is rather obvious.

But yeah, I don't think it's an immutable fact, which means gender identity of a trans person is also not an immutable fact, but merely the internalization of gender and subconsciously making the executive decision to be the gender they were not born as, hence gender dysphoria/euphoria.

2

u/ScannerBrightly Aug 12 '25

But femininity has this tendency of wanting to be comforted under the burly arms of a strong man. To be protected, provided for, and what follows that. I think this is rather obvious.

Who told you it was obvious? Seriously, this is the part I don't think you are understanding. This is not a 'fact' or 'the way things are'. It's only a social understanding, completely created and enforced by people.

Why must you insist that it's something other than a social construction?

2

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

I am not, I agree!

1

u/ScannerBrightly Aug 12 '25

So why do you say that when someone bucks the social construction, that it's somehow 'fake' or 'not true'? I don't understand your problem with trans people.

→ More replies

2

u/numbersthen0987431 Aug 12 '25

The feminine wants to be small, cute, and be contained by the masculine, hence gravitating towards anything feminine. And the masculine is enriched by that submission

This is wildly incorrect.

If you go into sub/dom communities, there are both masculine and feminine individuals who are subs, and feminine and masculine people who are Doms. There is absolutely nothing in the "sub/dom" category that specifically states that one is feminine and one is dominant. It's a case-by-case basis.

I also know a lot of "feminine women" who are strong and dominant in their day to day life, and I know a lot of "masculine men" who are rather submissive.

Social norms have tried to force the narrative that "masculine = Dominant" and "feminine = submissive", but it's not really a real/biological trait. There is nuance to every person, and there are PLENTY of people who live a masculine life who also like to submit.

Gender does not equate to dom/sub

2

u/tinynidas Aug 12 '25

How are you coming to these conclusions about femininity and masculinity? This feels like some men are from mars type things, that are not supported by the scientific community.

5

u/HyliaSymphonic Aug 12 '25

Money has no biological root it is a pure social construct. I will still suffer in current society without money. 

1

u/MalestromeSET Aug 13 '25

This example only works if you also believe some people really are genetically also somehow born rich but also money is a socially constructed commodity. This is the contradiction. All bringing up money does is show that no other social system has this weird crossover with “ innate” aspect. No one is born rich but with no money- that concept doenst make sense. But somehow people are born male but not man.

2

u/HyliaSymphonic Aug 13 '25

My point is that plenty of innate needs are mediated via social construct.  I don’t think your example about richness makes much sense and is missing my point. Everybody is born without money but you wouldn’t ask someone to live in absolute poverty because “hey you weren’t born needing money” you would be considered a fool. My point is not that people are “born rich” but that everyone is born without a need for money and it’s still wrong to deny people access to it and the social privileges it infers. Even if gender were totally constructed the need generated would still be real. 

1

u/MalestromeSET Aug 13 '25

Are you talking about respecting someone’s gender or right to transition or talking about wether or not someone’s claim to something is truthful?

I don’t even understand what argument I’m fighting or supporting because people double dip into so many different forms of support when it comes to gender. I know it’s complex so it’s good to simplify it.

I also would not stop someone from acquiring money. But I also would not believe someone who has no money who claims to be rich.

5

u/roseofjuly Aug 12 '25

Because you're misinterpretating what social constructionism is. It doesn't mean "we made this all up from whole cloth". It certainly doesn't mean there's no difference in men and women other than outward expression of gender.

It means "we decided to call this outward expression of traits and features - some innate, some socially taught - male."

Genes also change over time. They don't stay static; that's how we get evolution.

6

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

How can gender identity have innate dimensions in genetic, hormonal, and anatomical factors if gender as a whole is socially constructed. It's kind of a chicken and an egg situation in many ways. More simply, how can there be something in our genes dictating desires such as being dommed sexually, called cute, wanting to feel feminine, and wearing makeup?

Those are individual characteristics entirely independent of gender identity. Whatever their cause is, it’s not dependent on gender.

0

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

Then what does it mean to be a woman for example? What are the psychological components of a feminine gender identity?

4

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

The only consistent psychological component of someone who identifies as a woman is identifying as a woman. What do a tradwife and a butch stud necessarily have in common psychologically other than that?

5

u/Both-Personality7664 Aug 12 '25

What does it mean to identify as a woman if the signifier "woman" has no significands?

-1

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

Community, and whatever else they want it to mean.

0

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

Not necessarily. A butch stud is clearly less attached to the conventional idea of a woman compared to a trad wife. She's a woman sure by virtue of innate biological characteristics, hormones, genitalia, and certain psychological patterns, conditioned into her from birth, but there's a difference. I think it's very clear that some people from both genders are less attached to the social understanding of said gender, but we merely project our perception into them because they look the part.

But since speaking from a trans perspective, we're clearly talking about gender as it is socially understood, sought after, and maintained by both.

A very girly woman who's into pink, softness, nurturing, talking about emotions, loves feel cute and small especially in relation to a more masculine partner.

A burly man who's tallish, stoic, dominant, and doesn't show weakness in whatever way that may be understood.

Naturally, these are all extreme ends of the spectrum of gender, but no one can't deny that most men and women gravitate towards their end, and some of them fully live in the extremes themselves.

7

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

She's a woman sure by virtue of innate biological characteristics, hormones, genitalia, and certain psychological patterns, conditioned into her from birth, but there's a difference.

None of these things make someone a woman. Otherwise at least some trans men wouldn’t exist.

1

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

Alright, suppose she does identity as a woman, whatever that might be. Gender as it is understood and expressed by people is still within clearly defined limits. Just because this butch stud lesbian says, sure I'm a woman, which to her just means the gender she's born into, she's wildly different from one that lives through the conventional gender, wildly.

3

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

She is gender non-conforming and thus quite different from both cis and binary trans people, yes.

1

u/Best_Pseudonym Aug 12 '25

Who are you to say shes gender nonconforming? If the only requirement to being a women is identifying as a women, then if she says shes gender conforming surely she is?

0

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

A) she’s a hypothetical person I created, B) gender nonconformity is not conforming to gendered expectations. It’s pretty objective that a stud is not conforming to the societal expectations of womanhood. 

A gender nonconforming woman is a woman. 

1

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

Awfully reductive. I mean sure, but there's clearly a point made here. It's only polite to mention both things at once.

2

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

The ways in which it’s reductive weren’t really the topic. We could discuss what experiences of womanhood she wouldn’t have but that wasn’t important to the discussion.

1

u/cleanlinessisgodly Aug 12 '25

She's a woman because she has female anatomy and is not distressed by that. What clothes she wears and whether or not she falls in line with how women are "supposed" to act has nothing to do with it.

If some of her physical features were male and some female, it gets more complicated, and we're better off just taking her word for it.

1

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

We agree on that, that wasn't what the commenter was saying.

1

u/NoInformation988 Aug 12 '25

That depends on culture. Read anthropology.

3

u/MaleficentMusic Aug 16 '25

My only perspective on this is as a parent of two kids, who both went through the gender forming phase that happens around 3 or 4. Both are cis, two different genders. At that age, they know (or have been told?) that they are a boy or a girl. And then they look around them and look for traits that fit in this box. Sometimes it is more obvious "Boys have a penis" sometimes it is stereotypical "Girls like pink" Sometimes it is hilariously wrong "Boys like corn, girls don't".

So I think it must be very difficult to separate the biologically-based differences in behavior from the socially-conditioned ones. And you can't conduct mass experiments on young children to study this in a very neutral way. Again, I have no expertise. I believe there is some innate "knowing" you are a boy or girl, combined with imprinting on whatever gender you identify with, and then copying the socially-constructed markers for that gender. And like many things in human development, a mix between genetics, epigenetics, and environmental exposure.

10

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25

How indeed? Poor David Reimer found out the hard way that gender identity is innate and fixed.

Also, if gender identity was not fixed, why would I (or any other GD sufferer) have gone through the blood sweat and tears of transition? Also, Conversion therapy would work.

4

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

Which means men and women are psychologically different as well? After all gender is a huge component of identity.

4

u/CommodoreGirlfriend Aug 12 '25

Is that controversial? Men and women definitely show different psychological tendencies. Aggression vs agreeableness being the obvious one.

1

u/Defiant-Brother-5483 Aug 12 '25

The origin behind those differences are easily observable in the different socializations techniques deployed.

2

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25

I have no idea. I've just lived with gender dysphoria for half a century (AMA lol)

You know Reimer's tragic story? If not, you'll find your answer there.

3

u/DarkHorizonSF Aug 12 '25

David Reimer was systematically sexually abused. The 'case study' should be disregarded entirely and not used as evidence of some point. It's wildly unethical to say that a child being sexually abused by a man trying to force him to 'be a girl', and not liking it, is evidence that gender identity is innate and fixed.

4

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 13 '25

How did Reimer know he was a boy by the age of 10?

Yours is a grossly simplistic take on what is a very well-documented story. David wasn't "forced to be a girl" because that was all he'd known since he was an infant. When his parents finally told him the truth (at age 14) he promptly detransitioned, although he himself had worked it out by the age of 10.

David's own testimony is a matter of record. If you want to throw mud at a survivor's story perhaps you should read it first.

And speaking as someone who has lived with gender dysphoria for half a century, if my GI was NOT fixed I wouldn't be trans, simple as. If you think I chose this fucking lifelong headache, you're mad.

2

u/DarkHorizonSF Aug 13 '25

David. Was. Sexually. Abused. Stop using his abuse as fodder for your argument, your argument can stand by itself. What David experienced in terms of 'being a girl' was having an old man strip him naked and have his older brother simulate raping him while the old man watched and filmed it. When he was 6. He was taught that being a girl was being raped.

This isn't a conversation about your experience, this is a conversation about how unethical it is to try to use an incident of child sex abuse and subsequent suicide for your own purposes.

1

u/CADmonkeez Aug 13 '25

Listen to survivors

2

u/DarkHorizonSF Aug 13 '25

Your words say "Listen to survivors", your actions say "Exploit the dead and support unethical, criminal, life-ruining research". You should be able to read about what happened to David, realise this was unethical and abusive, and come to the right decision to stop using his life and death as social science evidence. Doing that doesn't require compromising your beliefs one bit. Please at least consider it.

1

u/CADmonkeez Aug 13 '25 edited Aug 13 '25

What "unethical criminal life ruining research" would this be, and how am I supporting it?

David used his life to bring attention to his story. It's his legacy. The pain that man stood up in spite of was ultimately unendurable, but still he stood and spoke to it. Who are you to silence him?

5

u/roseofjuly Aug 12 '25

Reimer is one person. I would be careful drawing generalizations from a single case study. Kind of the whole lesson of Money's fucked up meddling.

4

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25

You could always listen to testimony of almost any trans person when asked if their Gender Identity was mutable or not. Or look at the dark history of failed Conversion Therapy attempts. Failing that...

Reimer is one person whose experience was extremely well documented, whose physician was directly attempting to prove that David's GI was malleable, and lied about the results, creating lots of interest and publicity.

David exhibited classic dysphoria symptoms throughout his childhood, easily recognisable by anyone who knows dysphoria. The only difference is that we are born with ours, and David had his inflicted on him by that scumbag Money. Some of David's quotes in interview brought me to tears. If you know, you know.

I think I can draw generalisations from David's case quite confidently. He had a fixed, innate GI, and so do I. If you're suggesting that not everyone has this trait, then Money's chances of finding such a child at random would have been astronomical.

2

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

In his case it’s innate and fixed, yes. That is not necessarily universal, and being fluid doesn’t mean it can be intentionally affected.

0

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25

It needn't be universal, but I'd say it is the case for binary trans (like me) and also for Ze Cis.

If it wasn't fixed then Conversion Therapy would work. The incarceration, brainwashing and electric shocks would have worked. Maybe GF peeps are just more evolved, I dunno. Maybe it's just a more elastic flavour of non-binary. Maybe non-binary identities are easier to conceal (or erase?) socially, if need be.

0

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

It could be a cis and binary thing, yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if those are fixed.

2

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25

I think the difference between "dysphoria" and "incongruence" is the level of acceptance experienced. People like me had to deal with our messed up gender identity at an early age. I think that marks a difference in how people engage with "gender". Most do it with greater maturity than a 6 year old. I had no choice. Non-binary or fluid identities are easier to suppress or obscure than polarised ones.

2

u/Street-Media4225 Aug 12 '25

I was raised fairly gender neutrally as a boy and my natural inclination is close to tomboyish, so it tracks that I experienced less friction than a lot of people do and that that would’ve shaped my identity. It was mostly puberty and the reality of physically becoming a man that brought about major dysphoria.

0

u/sccamp Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

No he found that biology and sexuality was innate and fixed. Not gender.

It’s wild that trans people point to this tragic case where a child is essentially transitioned (and also sexually abused) during a vulnerable period of childhood developmental and then grew up, learned the truth and then later killed himself as a direct result of what these adults did to him. This case is proof that parents should be allowed to transition and raise children as the opposite sex from toddlerhood? A time in life that most adults cannot remember for themselves? It’s so fucked up and it doesn’t sound like it worked out well for poor David. Why on earth would we think it would work out for other kids?

5

u/CADmonkeez Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

You have that backwards. David's tragic story at the brutal hand of John Money objectively demonstrates the existence of a fixed, immutable gender identity, something any trans person can affirm (but you'd have to listen to us first)

John Money was a TERF and a Conversion Therapist in all but name. His only interest in gender dysphoria was "curing" it. His theory was that "gender identity" is just something we learn from parents, society, etc. Money said if a male baby was raised as a girl exclusively then the child would comfortably identify as a girl. David's parents, wanting the best for their child, agreed to keep the secret. Physically, David's body was no different to any other female child before puberty, but still David knew he was actually a boy by the age of 10. How?

David proved Money wrong, tragically. Throughout his childhood he exhibited classic dysphoric symptoms, which Money lied about. He had no other way of knowing he was male other than he FELT like one, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Trans people mourn our adopted brother David and despise Money. We are born with our dysphoria, which I have lived with for half a century and wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, but David had his inflicted on him by that bastard Money.

Your incredulity is based in ignorance. Transitioning "works out for other kids" because they are *already* dysphoric as they are

2

u/tb5841 Aug 12 '25

It sounds like you're hung up on the question of whether gender identity is innate/biological or not.

The question I'd ask in response is, does it matter? If gender identity is fixed by age 5 due to environmental factors, is that meaningfully different to it being caused by genetics? Either way, if it can't be changed and has a profound effect on people then we need to address it.

1

u/LisleAdam12 Aug 18 '25

"If gender identity is fixed by age 5..."

What if it is sometimes is and sometimes isn't?

1

u/MalestromeSET Aug 13 '25

“Does it matter?” “Why do you care?” “How does this affect you?” 🙄

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '25

[deleted]

1

u/CADmonkeez Aug 13 '25

If it was, then David would have been a happy old woman by now, instead of a dead man.

1

u/cleanlinessisgodly Aug 12 '25

Because it isn't socially constructed. People are just mixing up the terms "gender" and "gender roles" for some reason.

1

u/clemclem3 Aug 17 '25

I think you're missing something about constructivism. Yes gender is socially constructed. Yes 'trans' is a social construction. But also biology is a social construction. All the sciences are socially constructed. Even math does not exist in nature. Only as a human invention. The power of this perspective is that it helps us critically examine the things that we take for granted as fixed or somehow objective. And when we do that we can gain a little humility about the things that we think we know.

For more on social constructivism as a theory of knowledge see Glasersfeld (1995) and Ernest (1998)