In social science the word “gender” is used to refer to the social construction of male and female in order to distinguish it from “sex” which is the physiological makeup of ones body.

Physiological sex can be further broken down into ones Anatomical sex, ones chromosomal sex and ones hormonal sex.

However it is possible to have anatomically male genitalia and XX chromosomes as well as all other combinations. To ignore this is to ignore biology.

> Gender is not a social construct.

Yes, it is.

> Your gender is the ability to become pregnant or to impregnate someone

No, that's reproductive function. Which is closely related to (but different from) biological sex, and not particularly closely related to gender.

> What's socially constructed is how your gender is presented

No, gender presentation (and gender identity, which is related to but different from presentation) is not a social construct, though it is influenced by gender, which is.

> or implied because of said society.

If you mean “ascribed by” instead of “implied because of”, that's what gender, distinct from gender identity, gender presentation, sex, reproductive function, etc., refers to. So, aside from not understanding the terminology, you seem to correctly understand that it is a social construct.

I'm a bit confused how gender presentation can be not a social construct but gender itself can be a social construct. It seems to me that gender presentation depends on gender.

> I'm a bit confused how gender presentation can be not a social construct

Gender presentation is behavior.

> but gender itself can be a social construct

Gender is socially ascribed status.

> It seems to me that gender presentation depends on gender.

Depending on the basis on which gender is acribed, it could well be the other way around.

What's the definition of gender presentation?

>Depending on the basis on which gender is acribed, it could well be the other way around.

How is it possible to have a concept of gender presentation without having a concept of gender? The definition of gender presentation to me seems to rely on the fact that there's a thing gender. Whereas you could imagine a world where gender exists but no gender presentation exists. Therefore I believe gender does not depend on gender presentation.

That's a decent, if slightly confused, defense/description of the view of gender and sex prescribed by Critical Gender Theory, however, despite its academic sounding terminology and many PhDs, critical gender theory remains unscientific hokem.

1. It's not Critical Gender Theory, though Critical Gender Theory uses broadly similar definitions for the subset of those things which it thinks are worthy of discussion, it's just the fairly common language to distinguish the innate physical (sex broadly, reproductive function for the particular subset you raised), internal self image (gender identity), externally ascribed status (gender), and behavior (gender presentation), and neutral as to material as opposed to conceptual relationships. CGT is opinionated about the material relationships, holding (as I understand it, but CGT isn't something I've more than casually encountered) that gender presentation is socially learned behavior produced by social gender ideas and other aspects of personal social context, gender identity (which CGT doesn’t, IIRC, talk much about directly, but recognizes insofar as it recognizes that people have a social identity related to the social construct of gender) as a product of gender presentation and social gender stereotypes (reversing a common progressive view that gender identity is a fundamental, immutable or nearly so, aspect of identity amd that gender presentation is an expression of identity, to which social gender images may play a part.) 2. It (my post, not Critical Gender Theory) is not supposed to be scientific; it's pretty much all definition of terms, which precedes the ability to even discuss observations of facts, which in turn precedes the ability to discuss hypothesized generalizations from observed facts and empirical tests of those generalizations.

It's important to remember that essentially all human concepts are socially constructed on some level. Even basic ones like 'fish' (is a dolphin a fish? Many cultures would say yes, but modern taxonomy classifies them differently), 'fruit' (is a tomato a fruit?), 'river' (is this a river or a canal?), so it would be truly remarkable to find out that the concepts 'male' and 'female' correspond to objective physical reality - they would be unique among human words!

So no, you don't require CGT to make a distinction between biological sex and the fuzzy notions of 'woman' and 'man'.

To give some examples: is a person with XY chromosomes but Androgen insensitivity (testicles, but a purely female phenotype, including all anatomy, such as a uterus) Male or Female? Purely biologically, obviously male (small, mobile gametes). Would you send this person to male prison? Would they be able to inherit the title of King in medieval society? Should they be encouraged to dress as a man, because that is their biological sex? Should they not be allowed to a gynecologist, since gynecologists are only for women?

Similarly, let's say you have a person with XX chromosomes born with a typical female phenotype, but who has undergone bottom surgery and testosterone therapy, so they now have no breasts, hair on their chest, a penis and apparent testicles. Is this person female? Biologically, yes - they have (or had) large, immobile gametes. Would women feel comfortable if such a person were to undress in a female locker room? Should an advertising company seek to target tampon ads to this person, since they are biologically female? Should they be allowed as a contestant in a Miss America pageant?

The discussion of how malleable the relationship between sex and gender is, and CGT does make arguments in that area that are arguable. But it is not arguable in any way that the concepts 'man' and 'woman' are much fuzzier than biological sex, that they are socially constructed, like all other natural language words and concepts.

What dragonwriter is writing isn't Critical Gender Theory. In critical gender theory the idea that there exists a gender identity that is independent of society does not exist. See https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...

As to classifying what dragonwriter has written as hokem people would find it more convening if you gave an actual argument.

The distinction you're reaching for is usually called "sex". Gender is the socially constructed presentation of that.

Hermaphrodites invalidate this argument.

This invalidates the argument as much as people with Down Syndrome invalidate the statement "people have 42 chromosomes".

Hermaphrodism is a genetic abnormality, not a normal state of being.

1.7% of the population are intersex. 2% of the population are blond.

Are blonds genetic abnormalities? Can I say “No people have blonde hair” and dismiss all the blonds?

Prevalence of intersex conditions are nowhere near 1.7%. More like one in a thousand or one in ten thousand.

It's quite a complicated question to answer, and it depends how intersex is defined.

https://isna.org/faq/frequency/

> Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

> Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

I am going by Blackless‘s research. Even if that figure is wrong Klinefelter syndrome occurs at rate 1-2 per thousand which means that your estimate of one in ten thousand is way out.

And in the Dominican Republic intersex people are common. It still misses the point though. You can’t dismiss people because they are a minority.

You can thank genetic "abnormalities" in part for evolution. Many genetic variations, even those that cause disease, have been later found to give evolutionary advantages. Sickle cell comes to mind.

There is no "normal state of being" and it's dehumanizing to talk that way about people who are simply different from you. Nature is bizarre if you open your eyes and humans as social animals spend a huge amount of effort to appear normal.

> I guess you couldn't say, right?

Of course I can say. Many people have five fingers and some have fewer and some have more. The second sentence of the Wikipedia article on fingers agrees with me. [1] What was so difficult about that that you thought it would be some kind of gotcha?

> Your view makes it impossible to distinguish anything from anything else. It's just intellectually a dead end if you take it seriously with any consistency.

I think I've already demonstrated that you're wrong, but feel free to provide concrete examples of where my view does what you claim.

> Don't be so open minded your brain falls out.

Please avoid this type of language. It's not welcome on HN.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger

So post-menopausal people are genderless?

(If you say "but they were women, so we define them as continuing to be women," then I"m going to ask you about congenital azoospermia.)

Post-menopausal women still have internal organs which indicate their sex.

And a child born without hips? Are they genderless?

The poster above is being down voted because they are not using the proper terms. What they are talking about is called sex, with gender explicitly being the socially constructed notion usually based on biological sex.

Further, they are using a bad definition of biological sex anyway, as 'people who can impregnate' and 'people who can give birth' is limiting (many cis men can't impregnate for various reasons, and no cis woman can give birth after a certain age, or before a certain age).

The rest of your own comment is low-effort claims with no connection to the topic at hand.

However he is exactly wrong. Check the dictionary “ either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”. Gender is the term used when talking about the social construction.