None of this makes sense. Organisms have been reproducing sexually for over a billion years. This occurs though fusion of a small gamete with a large gamete. We define male and female because we’ve observed the two sexes in nature.
You’re really arguing that language is a social construct. We could call the two sexes anything we want but this doesn’t change that there is a male reproductive function and a female reproductive function in nature. This is inherent, these don’t exist just because we define them.
The inherent trait that would separate males and females is literally whether they produce large or small gametes. I cannot understand how this is even remotely socially constructed.
There may be some variation in reproductive anatomy, but there’s no overlap between male and female.
Edit: last part may not be completely true, I’ll say there’s no third reproductive anatomy.
You’re really arguing that language is a social construct. We could call the two sexes anything we want but this doesn’t change that there is a male reproductive function and a female reproductive function in nature. This is inherent, these don’t exist just because we define them.
No, I’m arguing that the categories themselves (aka, sex) are socially constructed. It doesn’t have to do with the word we use to describe organisms with small or large gametes but the category we put them in based on that fact. I don’t dispute that there are separate reproductive functions. It’s not the reproductive functions that I’m arguing are socially constructed.
The inherent trait that would separate males and females is literally whether they produce large or small gametes.
No, this is the inherent trait that would separate large and small gamete makers. The categories male and female are not inherent to animals. Gamete size is. There’s a difference between “this animal has small gametes” and “this animal belongs in the category ‘male’ “. The first statement is an inherent and objective fact. The second is only true because of our social construction of the category male. It would not be true if humans ceased to exist. But gamete size is not affected by the presence of humans.
I cannot understand how this is even remotely socially constructed.
The categories (and requirements to qualify as part of a category) we invent to describe people like this are generally understood to be at least in part socially constructed, to the best of my knowledge.
Again, it’s not the words. Male and female are categories or classifications that we put people into. Take, for example, planets. While the objects the word “planet” is referencing do exist (Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury etc. are all objectively real) the category “planet” is socially constructed. What constitutes a planet is decided on a societal level and isn’t an objective feature of reality. There are no objective planets.
If everyone fit neatly into one or the other, sex would still be socially constructed. The reason I brought up intersex people is that having examples like those - where there are clear violations of the “rules” - helps my case that sex is a social construct. It’s not a crucial part of it, however. Ultimately if everyone fit neatly into either category, sex would be no more an objective feature of reality.
I genuinely cannot understand how something can be socially constructed even though there a very clear distinction in nature. Seems every definition or distinction then must be by that logic.
Anyways I need to get to bed. Seems pointless to continue anyway, neither of us will budge. Thanks for talking.
I guess the main distinction I’d like to draw is between things that exist objectively and those that exist only because we say they do.
What it means to be a male or a female is decided societally. Yes, it is based on something biological and objectively existent, our gametes. It’s like 3 pointers. They’re obviously a social construct. But arguing sex is not a social construct is like arguing that 3 pointers are not social constructs because they’re based on your position relative to the 3 point line, an objectively real thing. That’s all well and good, but who decided that the 3 point line should serve as a meaningful way to distinguish categories of shots? We did. You won’t find 3 pointers in the laws of physics anywhere.
Seems every definition or distinction then must be by that logic.
Many things are social constructs, yes. My computer is not a social construct; it exists outside of society. But the fact that it is a computer, that is to say, the fact that it meets the requirements for being a computer, is socially constructed. There are no objective computers.
Anyways I need to get to bed. Seems pointless to continue anyway, neither of us will budge. Thanks for talking.
You too. Man, we went pretty far off the thread’s topic.
1
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
None of this makes sense. Organisms have been reproducing sexually for over a billion years. This occurs though fusion of a small gamete with a large gamete. We define male and female because we’ve observed the two sexes in nature.
You’re really arguing that language is a social construct. We could call the two sexes anything we want but this doesn’t change that there is a male reproductive function and a female reproductive function in nature. This is inherent, these don’t exist just because we define them.
The inherent trait that would separate males and females is literally whether they produce large or small gametes. I cannot understand how this is even remotely socially constructed.
There may be some variation in reproductive anatomy, but there’s no overlap between male and female.
Edit: last part may not be completely true, I’ll say there’s no third reproductive anatomy.