Sorry you got downvoted, you highlight a real and critical discussion and your voice should be heard but I think framing it a little different may actually elicit discussion rather than downvotes. The reality is, there are soft sciences out there that we should really have the debate as to whether or not they truly qualify as a science. That does not mean that they are not worth pursuing and trying to find truth in, alchemy lead to chemistry, astrology led to astronomy. But along the way, we have had a lot of "science" that in their day where believed to be truths based on a less than scientific rigor. Phenology comes to mind as a shining example, and genetics bore out eugenics. There is a critical issue with mascaraing soft sciences, that have thin veils of rigor as scientific fact when the reality is that they are better relegated to philosophy. Many great philosophies have changed society so it's not like they are not valuable, but what is not valuable is mascaraing what amounts to a philosophy as scientific truth, because what happens is those that do not understand science and rigor throw the baby out with the bath water and assume that there are untruths in all sciences by seeing the examples of these soft sciences claim truths.

For note, I am not implying that gender identification is not an important subject to understand in our current society. Rather lets not pretend that it's research has the rigor of physics as it does damage to the hard sciences to do so. I personally am fine if we redefine gender to a contemporary term that was not traditionally used in the past and I am fine with deciding how we deal with it as a society based on it's identifying it more in the lineage of philosophy. My sole issue, is that calling these items science is leading to the effect we are now seeing.

People are downvoting you but you bring up a point that I see in some fringes. Basically the assertion is that “Science is a sign of white privilege”.

I mean I guess if from a certain perspective you see things and ignore the science going on in Japan, China and other places you might somehow twist interpretation to say that, but that assertion is very problematic when at the SAME TIME we want to get more women and minorities into STEM. This view does this goal a disservice.

I think the common lingo is that gender is what you identify as, and sex is what you biologically are (subject to change through sex-change operations).

Exect that "Gender" in relationship to any animal or conversation is used interchangeably with sex. While Gender-identity is the new age belief that your "Gender-identity" or gender for short, is a preference you can change (With or without sex change operations depending on your political view). The obfuscation of the word itself is a problem in discussions. I find it distastefull how people can 'identify as' male/female black/white. they are immutable characteristics that no one chose for. If you believe that humans can be tribal and racist but should rise above superficial judgement and look at the content of their character then wether or not you personally identify as certain characteristics should be a moot point.

> then wether or not you personally identify as certain characteristics should be a moot point

I quite agree, but the it's indisputable that these characteristics are enshrined in our culture and power structures every step of the way.

Gendered bathrooms, gendered application forms, gendered names, gendered clothing, and so on. If you "personally identify as certain characteristics" it's literally impossible for that to be a "moot point" because of how society is structured.

Which bathroom do you walk into? Will you be fired for wearing a dress when your boss sees you as a man? If you change your name to a feminine one, will people ignore it and continue to call you a masculine name? If get a new job and try to hide that you were "once a man", can you actually or will they force you to put your biological sex on the application form? If you are forced to put your biological sex on the application form, what if your new workplace outs you as "a man" to your coworkers despite you having a feminine name, a feminine appearance, and using the women's bathroom? When coworkers find out you are biologically a man but using the women's bathroom, will they ostracize you, call the police, or exact violence on you because you don't fit in their worldview of acceptable behavior?

These are real questions that matter to real people and you can't wave it away as "a moot point". Answering these questions, and more, is the entry point to gender studies.

>these characteristics are enshrined in our culture and power structures every step of the way. In a way, yes. Because sex is the largest difference between human beings. Its importance is highlighted by doctors needing to know for better treatment, for social circles not being comfortable around people further away from your group. Bathrooms being a painpoint as it has deep roots in culture and history. Though the interesting thing about which bathroom to go to, it becomes irrelivant the moment you enter someone's home; there is only one or two to choose from and they are "Gender neutral" by design.

>Will you be fired for wearing a dress when your boss sees you as a man? This is exactly my point, discrimination based on immutable characteristics is wrong. if your boss fires you because you're a man or sees you as a man, or makes judgements because you're a woman pretending to be a man is wrong by design because it is still based on immutable characterstics. Though dress code violation is such a grey area as it is not directly based on strong legal precedent.

>If you are forced to put your biological sex on the application form, what if your new workplace outs you as "a man" "IF" you are forced to do so. I've never seen it be mandatory. unless you talk about exeptions to the rule. Like how some women's shelters only hire women. or gynecologists.

>will they ostracize you, call the police, or exact violence on you because you don't fit in their worldview of acceptable behavior? Nonetheless, anti-discrimination laws aren't there to stop discrimination or stop people from breaking the law. They are there to put them on trial. Lots of people fall out of a certain worldview and have lost jobs and friends because of that. talk to any clean heroin addict and they'll tell you. These things certainly matter and should be discussed as you are so kind to do.

I guess my approach is more conservative when it comes to enacting change in how people are treating each other. I consider no solution better than a bad solution. as no solution at least lets people have the freedom to treat eachother with the respect that they might deserve.

I can buy toy car or lego technic for my daughter, both of which is me mismatching sex and gender. Sex is that she does not have penis. Gender is that lego technic and toy car are boy toys.

In contrast, my dog is getting dog toys as opposed to pink she-dog balls and black he-dog toys.

Gender studies is a very new thing, so I doubt you'd be hard pressed to find many who claimed it's been figured out. Though, I think what most gender researchers will agree on is there are more than two genders, and more variation in sex than a simplistic view of biology would make one think.

I struggle with the concept of gender because it appears to be akin to a ‘racialised theory of sex‘.

I’m male. My appearance, sense of dress, interests and attractions are my unique personality - I don’t think they come from a biologically inherent gender, nor do I think it’s socially progressive to promote the idea that they do or should.

Edit: Are you sure you didn’t downvote for ‘heretical opinion’ rather than actual content? Please explain, if not.

I think many gender studies point to how inherently difficult it is to separate biology, physiology and culture. And much of the issues come when those three things don't seem to line up. So much of the vitriol from all sides of the cultural debate seem to extend from, not necessarily the science of it, but how that should affect our policies and interactions with each other.

“Culture isn’t determined biologically (that’s a racist belief), nor does biology determine someone’s gender (and that’s a sexist one) - and any specific culture shouldn’t require individuals to conform to gendered roles in its service (that’s a human rights violation regarding basic individual freedom)” would be my response.

Sure, these things are hard to separate - the mistake is to think that means they’re mutually determined.

> you'd be hard pressed to find many who claimed it's been figured out.

Here's a small list to begin with: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...

I am confused as to what you are suggesting with that link and its contents.