Latest hits: if gender is performative that means it’s fake and patriarchy doesn’t exist! I don’t know who Judith Butler is!
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
495 points (81.8% liked)
196
17586 readers
465 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stealing the answer because I'm nowhere near as articulate on this matter:
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dddcq/eli5butlers_gender_performativity/
So, in a nutshell, the assertion is that gender is entirely nurture and not nature.
Yeah, sorry, that is an extraordinary assertion and I'm going to need extraordinary proof.
Are there people for whom gender and sex don't neatly match up, or even those for whom it is purely performative, sure.
But they are statistical outliers, and not representative of the majority experience.
People can be different then the statistical norm, and that's ok, but to assert that this norm is entirely cultural is over the top self serving.
Gender is definitionally cultural. A person's sex is nature, but the bundle of signifiers that denote gender (as well as which categories exist at all) are largely arbitrary and divorced from that, and vary greatly across time and place. Women wearing pants was unheard of a century or so ago, and would 100% be perceived as queer, nowadays it's completely normal. There were times when dueling was a virtually mandatory rite of passage to being considered a man. There are also historical cultures with more than two genders, and it's not as if people in those cultures were biologically different from others.
There's nothing "extraordinary" about this claim.
Pants could also be exclusively feminine clothing, depending on the region and time period. Also, the colour pink used to be considered masculine (as we're all shades of red).
What I'm saying is, you're absolutely correct, and gender expectations are completely reliant on the culture factor.