Why is gender a construct and not age?

The answer would probably be that sex is a scientific biological classification and gender is a social construct. Years are a scientific chronological classification. I'm not aware of a corresponding chronological social construct, though one would seem to be implied in the phrases "act your age" "don't be so childish" and "you're as old as you feel."

But isn't that begging the question? Why did we create the social construct of 'gender'?

We do have similar age related social constructs, btw - such as 'child' and 'adolescent', perhaps you could also include 'elderly, and 'boy/man' and 'girl/woman'.

A 30 year old cannot identify as a child, and gain with it all the legal rights and protection of a child. But the concept of a 'child' is more ambiguous and artificial than gender is.

I want to be awoken wrote:

But isn't that begging the question? Why did we create the social construct of 'gender'?

We do have similar age related social constructs, btw - such as 'child' and 'adolescent', perhaps you could also include 'elderly, and 'boy/man' and 'girl/woman'.

A 30 year old cannot identify as a child, and gain with it all the legal rights and protection of a child. But the concept of a 'child' is more ambiguous and artificial than gender is.

No, it's not begging the question. It is answering the question that you asked. If you meant to ask "Why did we create the social construct of 'gender'?" you should have asked that. I took you at your word when you said you weren't trying to stir the pot.

One is qualitative. The other is quantitative.

I want to be awoken wrote:

Genuinely not trying to stir the pot or anything here, but I'm interested to know from posters here more woke than I am - why can a 30 year old biological male identify as a 30 year old female, but not as a 14 year old male or female?

Why is gender a construct, but age isn't? Am I missing something obvious?

Because it isn't.

You are born with a gender. It is biology. Real,

Did you just assume my gender? I actually identify as a salmon.

I refuse to debate something so completely absurd as to be almost insane.

Liberals live in an alternate universe.

runnerboy70 wrote:

I refuse to debate something so completely absurd as to be almost insane.

Liberals live in an alternate universe.

Their minions are worse. Jamming every agenda down peoples throats, trying to use guilt and shaming tactics to force people to conform with their distorted views. Trying to hurt, block, censor and cancel anyone who threatens their narrative. They are truly sick in the head and want to indoctrinate others to join their disturbing cult. It is a disease--liberalism.

unless you're going to go the whole "time is an illusion" big brain thought experiment route, the answer has already been stated in this thread. you can measure age, you can't measure gender. if you can't accept the premise that gender is socially constructed, then this whole conversation will go exactly nowhere.

to put it another way, sex and gender are not the same thing. for you, me, and most people they are correlated according to the rules put forth by modern western society. but that is not because there is some natural law of the universe that says if you are XY then you are a man and if you are XX you are a woman. the roles of a man and woman outside of actual biological reproduction are socially constructed if you think about it. nobody is saying that you can't measure sex, and if they are they are arguing in bad faith. again, sex != gender for all people.

its sad that it is easier for people to change their nature (with drugs/surgery/etc...) than to change society to accept them as they were born and accept that they don't fit into these nice male/female boxes (gender constructs).

A lot of people on LRC are part of that problem and the reason that they go to such great lengths to change their very nature to fit in to this world.

blueblooded wrote:

its sad that it is easier for people to change their nature (with drugs/surgery/etc...) than to change society to accept them as they were born and accept that they don't fit into these nice male/female boxes (gender constructs).

A lot of people on LRC are part of that problem and the reason that they go to such great lengths to change their very nature to fit in to this world.

O no, the horror! Gender constructs are probably more dangerous than Global Climate Warming Change and the evil, racists police combined.

We are all doomed!

I want to be awoken wrote:

Genuinely not trying to stir the pot or anything here, but I'm interested to know from posters here more woke than I am - why can a 30 year old biological male identify as a 30 year old female, but not as a 14 year old male or female?

Why is gender a construct, but age isn't? Am I missing something obvious?

Gender is a construct in that the things we associate as gendered (mostly aesthetics and mannerisms ) are social creations. There's no biological imperative for men to wear pants and women to wear dresses, or for men to like sports and women to like fashion. You are born with a sex, whereas gender is a cultural invention and a series of personal aesthetic choices.

However, this makes the notion that people have some inner spirit-gender that they are biologically compelled to follow all the more ridiculous.

To the age question: age is a biological fact, but if you want to be a 50 year old that skateboards and listens to emo music, that's a choice you are free to make (but it doesn't change the fact that you are 50, not 15).

blueblooded wrote:

A lot of people on LRC are part of that problem and the reason that they go to such great lengths to change their very nature to fit in to this world.

Nobody has a gender "nature." There are social norms, but none of that is driven by nature. Gender expression is a choice. Some people choose to flaunt social convention. Always have, always will.

Isn't it ironic that gender reveal parties became a thing at the same time gender became an individual's choice. Maybe new parents should stop blowing things up until the kid is in highschool.

Once again, that answer begs the question as to why gender is a social construct. For many, they consider it to be the same as biological sex; the view that it is somehow determined by society is to them a falsehood - and one that can't be proven wrong, if the criteria are biological. Hence, the idea that gender is a social construct is in a sense a matter of opinion, because there are those who, seeing it as biological, don't hold to that view.

Age is also a social construct, once we acknowledge that it is defined according to a human calendar. The natural world cares nothing for social constructs like a calendar. Furthermore, we are not all the same "age", from the point of view that some mature physically faster than others, and some age faster. Chronological age does not measure those features - which can vary considerably in a way not determined by an antiquated Roman calendar.

We are no closer to understanding why gender is a social construct simply by asserting it as a fact - and saying aging isn't, when we see age is also subject to human conventions. We say something is a social construct because we choose to say it is - and in some instances we can so choose. Death is not a social construct and nor is disease, because nothing we choose to say about them will change the facts of what they are. Gender, on the other hand, is malleable, if we treat it as a convenient label and not an immutable biological fact.

unwoke unwashed wrote:

The answer would probably be that sex is a scientific biological classification and gender is a social construct. Years are a scientific chronological classification. I'm not aware of a corresponding chronological social construct, though one would seem to be implied in the phrases "act your age" "don't be so childish" and "you're as old as you feel."

Except that even gender is not a social construct...the reason for gender dysphoria is due to a developmental defect where the brain is develops into one sex and the body develops into another. Your gender identity is a consequence of your biology, not social norms, which is why transgenders can't just decide to be cisgendered.

All of this confusion is brought about my pseudoscientific, postmodern gender theorists.

My question is, who gives a f*ck?

The whole questioning gender identity is an issue mainly with the right. Those are the same people who scream, "Freedom!"

Well, what's more free than deciding to chop off your bits and pieces and put on a dress?

As long as people are not breaking any laws, we should not give a crap how they want to live their lives. Transgender, tattoo your face, pierce everything, believe in an invisible omnipotent man in the sky...who gives a f*ck?

your incredibly educational 3 paragraph response is why i included the sentence, "if you can't accept the premise that gender is socially constructed, this argument will go nowhere." having a "debate," for lack of a better term, is a total waste of time if we are starting from different premises/axioms/definitions. also, you are literally doing the big brain "age is socially constructed" thing so i have to assume you're trolling.

unwoke unwashed wrote:

The answer would probably be that sex is a scientific biological classification and gender is a social construct. Years are a scientific chronological classification. I'm not aware of a corresponding chronological social construct, though one would seem to be implied in the phrases "act your age" "don't be so childish" and "you're as old as you feel."

Male and female are terms that apply to biological sex. So how are they also terms that can mean the opposite of biological sex, which is the case with trans gender? A social construct can sometimes appear to contradict biology.

Age is also a social construct, in that it only measures the time of our existence according to the chronology of the human calendar - another social construct - even though we don't mature and age at the same rate. Our given age merely says how long we have been here; not how we are really "aging".