Humans obsessed with gender

[West]

lol what?

LOL, Dude I don't need to add anything to that. You've said it all yourself.

 

[doubtingt]

I don't think it has anything to do with either obsession with gender or obsession with sex. Its just about respect, the evolution of language and identification.

To call someone "it" is disrespectful as it is used to describe inanimate objects, our possessions. Calling someone he or she recognises their distinct personhood, neither object nor possession.

Also it makes identification easier when talking about several people some of whom may be male and some of whom could be female. Use of the term "it" would not identify who you were talking about.

Those cultures who use gender when referring to objects are clearly not referring to, nor obsessed with, the sex of the object.

Sorry, but what a load of crap. If it's normal to talk about each other as "it" it wouldn't be disrespectful at all. Chinese do it all the time. Nobody is offended. While Germans put genders on everything, including objects. Somehow German speakers manage to not be offended when compared to an object.

I think you're a bit stuck in whatever languages it is you've learned to speak.

Sorry, but what a load of crap.

If the chinese have a term which refers to both people and objects then that is fine. If however a chinese word refers only to an object (like the word "it" in english) and is used to describe a person then that is going to offensive. Just like if someone is called a donkey in chinese.

I don't think english is your first language.

Also the fact that chinese words are gender neutral is just further proof of my point that humans are not obsessed with gender.

lol what?

It a valid point. There is no such thing as "it" in Chinese. If the same word is used to refer to non-human objects and to humans, then that word does not mean what "it" means in English, because words mean what they refer to, so if the references are not the same the meaning is not the same. CChinese ta' is used in place of "he" "she" and "it" but doesn't mean what any of these mean or some combination of them. Those english concepts derive their meaning from their distinction from each other, so its non-sensical to think of "ta'" as some combined meaning of these, instead "ta'" has its own conceptual meaning. In English "a" is used to refer to a single man, woman, or pile of shit. No one is offended when referred to as "a man" just because the article is also used to refer to "a pile of shit". That is because "a" doesn't mean in inanimate object. It is completely entity neutral, but "it" does refer to inanimate objects, so its insulting to use for a person, or even toward pets. Also, I think the Chinese ta' is used only to refer to animate objects.

Note that this does not explain the lack of a gender neutral pronoun that still recognizes the personhood of someone. It just explains why calling someone "it" is insulting and since we don't have a gender neutral alternative to "it", then "he" or "she" is required.

OTOH, although gendered pronouns are common in modern dominant languages, they appear to be quite rare among all languages historically. This map shows that only 1 in 3 known languages across history made gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Note that this does not explain the lack of a gender neutral pronoun that still recognizes the personhood of someone. It just explains why calling someone "it" is insulting and since we don't have a gender neutral alternative to "it", then "he" or "she" is required.

The singular "they" is useful in some cases, but is not a generally useful alternative to "it" because of the ambiguity with the third person plural. But, because it does add utility to the language, I have no problem with singular "they", even though it is frowned upon by many a grammar book.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think it has anything to do with either obsession with gender or obsession with sex. Its just about respect, the evolution of language and identification.

To call someone "it" is disrespectful as it is used to describe inanimate objects, our possessions. Calling someone he or she recognises their distinct personhood, neither object nor possession.

Also it makes identification easier when talking about several people some of whom may be male and some of whom could be female. Use of the term "it" would not identify who you were talking about.

Those cultures who use gender when referring to objects are clearly not referring to, nor obsessed with, the sex of the object.

The problem is that the use of a dichotomy in gender language enforces a dichotomy in a mental model, particularly in a situation where the high rate of comorbidity between traits is a powerful driver of pidgeon-hole-ing. If we generated a new genderless personal indefinite article, and insisted that 'he' and 'she' be rude except in context where gender is actually considered core to the conversation, we'd be able to more readily crack the gender binary and further erode the sexual categorizations.

To put it simply I don't want people to expect me to have a penis or like people with appreciable breasts, or emotionally oriented thinkers despite being a pretty stereotypical 'man'. "He" puts me in a box of expectations and social obligations, most of which chafe and none of which are necessary for good social function.

I think you've gone off topic here.

The OP was about whether humans are obsessed with gender, not about whether use of gender terms stereotypes people.

However I would say the answer to the latter is a definite no as if someone uses the term "he" to describe a man it is clear to anyone that some men are brave some are cowardly, some are sporty some are academic, some are rich some are poor, etc.

The word "he" is way too generic to result in stereotyping.

Also the genderless description that you wish for already exists in the word "they", eg, "they did it", when referring to one person.

The use of "him" or "her" just allows one to be more specific for identification purposes.

I don't think a genderless term will ever replace masculine and feminine descriptive terms any more than men and women are going to end up looking the same, ie, genderless.

Actually Jarhyn hit exactly right on what I was thinking when I wrote the OP. That the obsession with LABELING gender results in gender binary cultural effects. That the obsession with knowing a gender in order to even talk about an action results in a tool that furthers destructive (and senseless) stereotyping.

If we didn't insist on knowing the gender of the person about whom we were talking, reading, listening, evaluating - then we wouldn't make useless and outdated stereotypes about them.

The use of "it" is just a current custom that could be changed.

I'm interested that some languages, like Chinese and the older languages mentioned do not fll into this trap of insisting on a gender label for all human references.

Some parents (very rare, but in the news) insist that the gender of their child is no one's business. I can see their point. Why should anyone give a care whether an infant is male or female? Or a toddler or a child or even an adolescent.

 

[West]

I don't think it has anything to do with either obsession with gender or obsession with sex. Its just about respect, the evolution of language and identification.

To call someone "it" is disrespectful as it is used to describe inanimate objects, our possessions. Calling someone he or she recognises their distinct personhood, neither object nor possession.

Also it makes identification easier when talking about several people some of whom may be male and some of whom could be female. Use of the term "it" would not identify who you were talking about.

Those cultures who use gender when referring to objects are clearly not referring to, nor obsessed with, the sex of the object.

The problem is that the use of a dichotomy in gender language enforces a dichotomy in a mental model, particularly in a situation where the high rate of comorbidity between traits is a powerful driver of pidgeon-hole-ing. If we generated a new genderless personal indefinite article, and insisted that 'he' and 'she' be rude except in context where gender is actually considered core to the conversation, we'd be able to more readily crack the gender binary and further erode the sexual categorizations.

To put it simply I don't want people to expect me to have a penis or like people with appreciable breasts, or emotionally oriented thinkers despite being a pretty stereotypical 'man'. "He" puts me in a box of expectations and social obligations, most of which chafe and none of which are necessary for good social function.

I think you've gone off topic here.

The OP was about whether humans are obsessed with gender, not about whether use of gender terms stereotypes people.

However I would say the answer to the latter is a definite no as if someone uses the term "he" to describe a man it is clear to anyone that some men are brave some are cowardly, some are sporty some are academic, some are rich some are poor, etc.

The word "he" is way too generic to result in stereotyping.

Also the genderless description that you wish for already exists in the word "they", eg, "they did it", when referring to one person.

The use of "him" or "her" just allows one to be more specific for identification purposes.

I don't think a genderless term will ever replace masculine and feminine descriptive terms any more than men and women are going to end up looking the same, ie, genderless.

Actually Jarhyn hit exactly right on what I was thinking when I wrote the OP. That the obsession with LABELING gender results in gender binary cultural effects. That the obsession with knowing a gender in order to even talk about an action results in a tool that furthers destructive (and senseless) stereotyping.

Well if that was what you were thinking when you wrote the OP you made no reference to it whatsoever actually in the OP.

If we didn't insist on knowing the gender of the person about whom we were talking, reading, listening, evaluating - then we wouldn't make useless and outdated stereotypes about them.

The use of "it" is just a current custom that could be changed.

I'm interested that some languages, like Chinese and the older languages mentioned do not fll into this trap of insisting on a gender label for all human references.

Some parents (very rare, but in the news) insist that the gender of their child is no one's business. I can see their point. Why should anyone give a care whether an infant is male or female? Or a toddler or a child or even an adolescent.

The fact that Chinese and indeed most languages do not insist on a gender label for all human references answers the only question that you did actually ask in the OP, which was, "Why do humans appear to INSIST on being aware of the other person's gender?"

The answer to that is that humans do not insist on knowing the gender, as doubtingt mentioned earlier > This map shows that only 1 in 3 known languages across history made gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The fact that Chinese and indeed most languages do not insist on a gender label for all human references answers the only question that you did actually ask in the OP, which was, "Why do humans appear to INSIST on being aware of the other person's gender?"

The answer to that is that humans do not insist on knowing the gender, as doubtingt mentioned earlier > This map shows that only 1 in 3 known languages across history made gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns.

Back up a bit. Just because Chinese pronouns are gender neutral doesn't mean they don't prefer knowing the gender of whom they speak. They still have distinct male and female names. Which is the biggie. If gender is of interest, they will add this information. They have male and female prefixes they can slap onto any noun... if the need arises. Chinese has a wide array of prefixes denoting all manner of relations they can use if they like. Especially in formal settings. Many of which the gender can be implied.

Languages evolve. Information that is not necessary will over time get dropped.

 

[Jarhyn]

The use of 'he' or 'she', or even assigned gendered names (as opposed to SELECTED gendered names) and a clear drive to analyze and then assume gender on names drives the pigeon holing of people. When someone hears about 'Andrew' there's a mental calculus that places a person in the middle of 'average male'. It is a pre-first-impression. Our society would stand to benefit from a gender-neutral third person singular personal pronoun, particularly one whose use is enforced culturally despite the existence of gendered options.

It is a future I would like to live in, one where people are judged based on what they do and what decisions they make, how someone acts and makes decisions, rather than on whether they call themselves a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

 

[Musing Man]

It looks like I have one of the few native languages that very much insists on differentiating gender - and that would be Romanian (mostly Latin, with vast Slavic - and more recently French, English and Germanic influences).

Now, insisting is very, very far from obsessing about something, and it's a practice that virtually imposed itself mainly for practical reasons. And come to think of it, it's only natural - it helps weeding out an awful lot of unnecessary ambiguity, right off the bat.

For example, one English word that keeps stressing me out is ”cat”. By which most English-speaking people usually mean a ”tomcat” (the male cat). Why the fuck don't you say so in the first place? Why do I have to ask? You have the word, fucking use it! And please don't extend it! A lynx is not a cat, a lion is not a cat, a tiger is not a cat - although they're all felines, cats included.

There is some use to having broader categories, like ”beef” (or ”felines”, above), but that's generally counterproductive in the real world. One can't milk ”beef” - you can only do it with the ”cow”. Be my guest to try milking an ox in order to make butter.

So, for the OP, my best reason so far is DISAMBIGUATION.

 

[Jarhyn]

It looks like I have one of the few native languages that very much insists on differentiating gender - and that would be Romanian (mostly Latin, with vast Slavic - and more recently French, English and Germanic influences).

Now, insisting is very, very far from obsessing about something, and it's a practice that virtually imposed itself mainly for practical reasons. And come to think of it, it's only natural - it helps weeding out an awful lot of unnecessary ambiguity, right off the bat.

For example, one English word that keeps stressing me out is ”cat”. By which most English-speaking people usually mean a ”tomcat” (the male cat). Why the fuck don't you say so in the first place? Why do I have to ask? You have the word, fucking use it! And please don't extend it! A lynx is not a cat, a lion is not a cat, a tiger is not a cat - although they're all felines, cats included.

There is some use to having broader categories, like ”beef” (or ”felines”, above), but that's generally counterproductive in the real world. One can't milk ”beef” - you can only do it with the ”cow”. Be my guest to try milking an ox in order to make butter.

So, for the OP, my best reason so far is DISAMBIGUATION.

Except that there is generally no ambiguity involved in the application of 'he' and 'she'. It is expected that when something is potentially ambiguous, that the person speaking use the article rather than the pronoun. As for feline/cat you are wrong. Cat is generally used to describe anything with four legs, whiskers, and foot-knives regardless of what their ass is shaped like or how big they are. A second term 'big' is used to disambiguate, and further clarification is made when someone needs to describe a physically large housecat. Your obsession. With the gender of the cat has me reminded of a few zoophile furries I know.

Nobody needs to know what is or isn't in someone's pants, or what is or isn't attached to their chest. The disambiguation serves no purpose other than to allow and service a deeply problematic gender binary.

 

[Musing Man]

The use of 'he' or 'she', or even assigned gendered names (as opposed to SELECTED gendered names) and a clear drive to analyze and then assume gender on names drives the pigeon holing of people. When someone hears about 'Andrew' there's a mental calculus that places a person in the middle of 'average male'. It is a pre-first-impression. Our society would stand to benefit from a gender-neutral third person singular personal pronoun, particularly one whose use is enforced culturally despite the existence of gendered options.

It is a future I would like to live in, one where people are judged based on what they do and what decisions they make, how someone acts and makes decisions, rather than on whether they call themselves a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

That's a future in which it seems you have no interest in reproduction, which is fine. To each, his own. Or ”one's”, if you prefer.
In my culture, the very name is unambiguous. I know of no ”gender-neutral names”. Now, if it's a male who prefers males or a female who's into females, it really doesn't matter. What matters is knowing who are you interacting with, eventually in advance.

Take this hot blonde, for example. SHE is an American baptized with a Romanian exclusively male name, which causes enough giggles and confused boners over here. So I kinda rest my case.

 

[Musing Man]

Dear Jarhyn, there is ambiguity involved when you're talking about ”A Boy Named Sue”, or stating that ”Catherine, he's hillarious”.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dear Jarhyn, there is ambiguity involved when you're talking about ”A Boy Named Sue”, or stating that ”Catherine, he's hillarious”.

Not unless you know several Catherine's or Sue's that are situationally appropriate to the given discussion, which is unlikely. If you need to differentiate, we have English language conventions for that too: the surname or the nickname. In my workplace there is Andy, Andrew and Andrew S., as well as a fourth Andrew that doesn't need differentiation because he doesn't sit next to the rest of us. Nobody confuses us, and we are considered 'he'. You just seem to be linguistically lazy. Clarification conventions exist for the same reason.

 

[Jarhyn]

The use of 'he' or 'she', or even assigned gendered names (as opposed to SELECTED gendered names) and a clear drive to analyze and then assume gender on names drives the pigeon holing of people. When someone hears about 'Andrew' there's a mental calculus that places a person in the middle of 'average male'. It is a pre-first-impression. Our society would stand to benefit from a gender-neutral third person singular personal pronoun, particularly one whose use is enforced culturally despite the existence of gendered options.

It is a future I would like to live in, one where people are judged based on what they do and what decisions they make, how someone acts and makes decisions, rather than on whether they call themselves a 'boy' or a 'girl'.

That's a future in which it seems you have no interest in reproduction, which is fine. To each, his own. Or ”one's”, if you prefer.
In my culture, the very name is unambiguous. I know of no ”gender-neutral names”. Now, if it's a male who prefers males or a female who's into females, it really doesn't matter. What matters is knowing who are you interacting with, eventually in advance.

Take this hot blonde, for example. SHE is an American baptized with a Romanian exclusively male name, which causes enough giggles and confused boners over here. So I kinda rest my case.

I seek to see our interpersonal relationships not directly driven by reproduction or other 'animal drives', but rather with discernment and clear heads. There are better nod more deliberate ways of making babies happen. I also want to see the need for
More babies foiled by the defeat of death.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that Chinese and indeed most languages do not insist on a gender label for all human references answers the only question that you did actually ask in the OP, which was, "Why do humans appear to INSIST on being aware of the other person's gender?"

The answer to that is that humans do not insist on knowing the gender, as doubtingt mentioned earlier > This map shows that only 1 in 3 known languages across history made gender distinctions in independent personal pronouns.

Back up a bit. Just because Chinese pronouns are gender neutral doesn't mean they don't prefer knowing the gender of whom they speak. They still have distinct male and female names. Which is the biggie. If gender is of interest, they will add this information. They have male and female prefixes they can slap onto any noun... if the need arises. Chinese has a wide array of prefixes denoting all manner of relations they can use if they like. Especially in formal settings. Many of which the gender can be implied.

Languages evolve. Information that is not necessary will over time get dropped.

Names are gendered--but it's by no means strict. My wife has a mostly male name. (And I've got a name that was the male spelling when I was born but which is now purely female.)

And Chinese most certainly doesn't have prefixes to show relations--Chinese doesn't modify words, period. (Which has always given my wife trouble with English.)

 

[Rhea]

For example, one English word that keeps stressing me out is ”cat”. By which most English-speaking people usually mean a ”tomcat” (the male cat).

In American English, cat is gender-free and refers equally to male or female.

Why the fuck don't you say so in the first place? Why do I have to ask?

Why _do_ you have to ask? Why do you care if the cat is male or female? Are you seeking to mate with the cat? It's a CAT. It's gender is irrelevant to its catness.

There is some use to having broader categories, like ”beef” (or ”felines”, above), but that's generally counterproductive in the real world. One can't milk ”beef” - you can only do it with the ”cow”. Be my guest to try milking an ox in order to make butter.
.

Beef is male. Always. (well, when the beef is alive, that is) Plural Beeves. Boy bovines. Cow is female. The males aren't good for much except killing them relatively young and eating them. Females, cows, are useful and you keep them around.

Just for the record.

 

[Rhea]

Take this hot blonde, for example. SHE is an American baptized with a Romanian exclusively male name, which causes enough giggles and confused boners over here. So I kinda rest my case.

It also makes my case, interestingly.

Many people get very agitated when they are not able to correctly discern gender. But WHY, if you weren't going to mate with them anyway?

There are 7 Billion people on this planet with whom I am NOT going to mate. Why should I care about their gender?

Lynn, Loren, Dakota, Sam, Madison, Shelby, Fran... it demonstrates the unnecessary focus on gender labels when people get agitated for being surprised.

 

[Rhea]

Thinking about this while I was hiking today - bringing back to the reason I must have put it in the natural science forum...

The genetic evolutionary reasons why people get agitated when they don't know someone's gender makes some sense. That they need to know the gender of the other being, perhaps NOT to know if they are a potential mate, but whether they are a potential _rival_.

And how odd it is that we apparently still get very invested in this. As if rivalry just on territory is still a thing.

Men seem more agitated than women by gender ambiguity. Perhaps this supports the possibility that it is a rival detector instead of a mate detector.

Which then makes me wonder if it is perhaps part of why some men are so antagonistic toward gay men - because they don't feel that the rival issue is resolved and therefore feel like there is a stealth rival trying to get past their defenses. or something. I don't know.

But this came to mind today as an add-on to why it baffles me that people seem so INTENT on always labeling gender, despite the really destructive gender biases this enables. Reminds me of the hallowe'en costume example. It is okay for a boy to pretend to be an alien, a corpse, or a jelly fish, but it is NOT okay for him to want to be a GIRL alien, corpse, or jelly fish.

 

[steve_bnk]

The great Abrahamic Genesis derived myth is that of humans being something other than the rest of the living creatures. Reason and our brains allegedly allow us to rise above the natural world.

One only has to scan the news daily tosee how easily we descend into vicious feces flinging primates. The rise of destructive 'flash mobs'.


Male horses, big felines, and feral house cats all instinctively compete for access to females.