Femininity

[princesitanatty]

If it is a graduality, it is not a dichotomy. Also, you cannot consider the zero point in either of the two sets.

Yes, since zero is neither positive no negative, the correct way is:

Negative -3 -2 -1 | +1 +2 +3 Non-negative

Following the definition:

A dichotomy is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets). In other words, this couple of parts must be

    jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
    mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

It does not matter how big or small the numbers are. if it's -99999999 ot -1e-999999999 both are still negative,

Same for the gender. As long as it can be put into one of the two buckets only (regardless the value) it is a dichotomy.

If your point is that you can convert a gradual spectrum into a dichotomical partition, I agree that you can. But I do not adopt such model. It would require to choose an arbitrary threshold, and I reject making such choice. So I adopt a gradual model, instead of a dichotomical model.

[princesitanatty]

I disagree with the common view that gender is entirely a social construction. I think it has both biological and psychosocial components. I also disagree with the common view that social factors are always less stable than biological factors: it depends on the factor.

Well, there are far less biological factor changing in a matter of years than social factor.

The question is, if sex=biological_differences and gender=biological_differences + social_differences, then, how would you define the social_differences?  And is feminity/masculinity still both sex and gender?

And here comes the 1000$ dollars question, what part of gender is not a social construct and why?

Your brain is a biological structure that changes every day. Capitalism is a social structure that has been hegemonic for centuries. My point is that the mutability or stability is different for different biological and social structures.
I do not think that there are "biological and social parts of gender". Each trait is the result of biological and social factors, in a specific way.

[Like Ra]

t would require to choose an arbitrary threshold, and I reject making such choice.

It depends on the criteria and simplicity of the model or scale. Negative/non-negative - an absolutely clear and simple criterion - the sign!

In the gender model it's a bunch of gradual scales, and the total weight distribution give you that "sign". Whether the threshold is arbitrary or not in this case, I can't say, I did not read the explanations.

But yes, I think that some thresholds are simply agreed upon: "let's call ABC if 1,2, and 3.". Such agreements can change with time, for example, when additional dichotomies/scales are discovered.

About your choice - of course you do not have to make it. But what if there are aeady agreed upon and well-documented criteria?

[Like Ra]

1- I do not think that there are "biological and social parts of gender".
2- Each trait is the result of biological and social factors.

Could you please explain? I see that 1 and 2 contradict each other.

[no smile]

Your brain is a biological structure that has changes every day. Capitalism is a social structure that has been hegemonic for centuries.

I would rather say mariage which is far older than capitalism, and because this last one as more evolved over time and changes after each crash or redefinition (like the Neo-capitalism on the 80's and the regulation after the sub-prime crisis).
But that's good point. I did not think about the brain (or the biotope).

[no smile]

I do not think that there are "biological and social parts of gender". Each trait is the result of biological and social factors, in a specific way.

So you think gender is social but that part of it is biological influenced if I got you right this time?
There is indeed hormonal and biotopical influence but I would probably categorise them in sex differences. And the trait build over them are gender differences.

[princesitanatty]

It would require to choose an arbitrary threshold, and I reject making such choice.

It depends on the criteria and simplicity of the model or scale. Negative/non-negative - an absolutely clear and simple criterion - the sign!

In the gender model it's a bunch of gradual scales, and the total weight distribution gives you that "sign". Whether the threshold is arbitrary or not in this case, I can't say, I did not read the explanations.

But yes, I think that some thresholds are simply agreed upon: "let's call ABC if 1,2, and 3.". Such agreements can change with time, for example, when additional dichotomies/scales are discovered.

About your choice - of course you do not have to make it. But what if there are aeady agreed upon and well-documented criteria?

Agreements and disagreements are also distributed in curves of probability that are relative to individuals and groups. We do not have a sign criterion here, we have a curve of probability for each trait.

[princesitanatty]

1- I do not think that there are "biological and social parts of gender".
2- Each trait is the result of biological and social factors.

Could you please explain? I see that 1 and 2 contradict each other.

"Gender" is a polisemic word. I mainly use 2 different meanings: gender identity and gender norms (including gender roles and gender display). Gender identity is how a person identifies and is identified by others using sex-related categories, gender norms is how people think people should behave according to their assigned sex-related categories. Sex-related categories are assigned using sex-related traits. Those traits have biological and social causes that are specific for each trait.

[princesitanatty]

I do not think that there are "biological and social parts of gender". Each trait is the result of biological and social factors, in a specific way.

So you think gender is social but that part of it is biological influenced if I got you right this time?
There is indeed hormonal and biotopical influence but I would probably categorise them in sex differences.  And the trait build over them are gender differences.

See my reply to Like Ra.

[no smile]

Interesting distinction. But I think anyone also identify through the social behaviour that suits one better. So your identity is also shaped by the social norms.