Now stay with me here: Sex is not the same thing as gender. Gender describes things like norms, behaviours and roles assigned to each gender, and these vary between cultures. THAT is why gender is a social construct. Physical characteristics between sexes are the same whether we grab someone from 1500's Denmark or 1990's South Africa. The societal expectations that come with your gender are not.
Oh, do they really vary that much? You are assuming that they are social construct only, despite saying that males and females are both built differently. Isn't there a kind of contradiction or a lack of homogeneity in the reasoning? Because if there are physical differences among different sexes, it implies that genes are either differents or expressed differently depending on the sex, and if there are physical differences, from genetic causes, then it would be strange to assume that these differences only stop at the physical point, but also that it has no impact on biological role of each sex.
Now, where have you seen the expectations we have for a man or a woman truly vary depending on the culture and the era? As far as I know, the core expecation never have really changed: women bear children, to take care of a home, were they in China, in France or in African tribes etc and it has been so until very recently with the idea of "gender is a social construct". I have for instance barely seen any women general and those who were became kind of legendary.
That being said, is an expectation what define a gender? It might be strongly related, but maybe it is or was caused by the fact that females and males naturally tend to have different interest and that they are not as blandly and insipidly identical as they are told to be by some, but complementary just like their biological role in procreation already suggest?
I'm going to take it even further. Usually when people say gender what they are actually talking about is gender identity. That is a different thing from gender and sex. They are related, but they are still different. Now gender identity. That refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender. I also want to note that when talking about sex, female and male are used, and when talking about gender or gender identity, woman and man are used.
Also one more thing: one's gender identity may or may not correspond to their designated sex. The existence of gender identity is why a person born a male can be a woman and vice versa. (won't go into nonbinary identities, I don't think most of the people here are ready for that discussion)
And if we're talking sources. Here is mine: https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1 😁
Ok, but when an individual doesn't fit to its gender/sex, then it's a gender dysphoria...
As for the source, the WHO doesn't mention any study, so it's just like making a random claim, a bit like when they removed gender dysphoria from mental disorder with the more or less sole argument that it was hurting transgenders' feelings, which ironically participates to the idea that a mental disorder is "bad" or "problematic", and not simply a potential cause of pain, which is the case with gender dysphoria.
Hopefully nope, because the LGBTQIAXYZ++ community is doing more harm to everyone, including homosexuals and people with gender disphoria than it helps them in Western countries nowaday.
Why do you think so?
(I btw accidentally reported your response, sorry for that.)
Because homosexuals and so on are already and generally well accepted in our countries, or that at least nobody give a damn about what they are doing in a bedroom except a minority of person among which I'd say that some are from different cultures than natives.
LGBTQ++ movements nowaday are not really to make people accept homosexuality anymore (it could barely be the case for transgenders, and yet, we've famous ones around too), but to make plethora of revendications while increasing the idea of intersecitionality, etc.
Such things lead to the creation of cultural content where having diversity is more important than the actual content itself. That means that it's more important to have a gay character, despite it's absolutely meaningless than having a good story in a movie for example.
For politics or work, it means to injustice and prejudices because if you choose someone because of its sexual orientation or any criteria unrelated with the job, then some people would start to assume than people showing a specific trait were chosen solely because of this trait, and not because they were skillfull. In addition, a job, especially a political job, should always be to the most skillfull people imo.
As for other ideas such as intersectionality, they are increasing the idea that there is a common ennemy/said oppressed people are destinated to team up while this kind of things is not necessarily true.
Finally, shoving an ideology down the throat while continuously telling that if you don't accept this or that, you are a bad person will tend to piss more and more people in the end, and increase prejudices or extreme ideas, and the reaction to it has already started in W.E, especially on the internet.
I'm saying that homophobia does not exist in animals because there's no clear proof that it does exist.
Okay, I agree with you that science cannot prove that something doesn't exist.
And I'm telling you that no clear evidence of something isn't an evidence of its inexistence, especially in a field in which it's very hard to tell something at the first sight because the "threat" of anthropocentrism is omnipresent.
But, I disagree with you saying the humankind had not discovered that animals had feelings, etc earlier. So, do you mean to say that the Paleolithic Humans had dogs (which came from wolf genes) as pets without even realising that they have emotions or languages? Of course, they have known that.
That's projecting yourself on people from the past. People back then might have used a pet as a tool and consider it to be only a tool. There is no paper from these people to say "the dog talks" or "the dog has feelings", and Darwin was actually one of the first person to talk about the existence of emotions and languages among non-human animals, but still today, these concept can be discuted in ethology.
The Paleolithic Pets have directly associated with human hunting camps in Europe over 30000 years ago and it is proposed that these were domesticated. According to you, humans have found understood about animals very recently...
Understanding, certainly not (people in contact with animals get to observe them on a daily basis and often have a good ability to describe some species), granting emotions and language, yes.
So Palaeolithic humans having such dangerous four-legged friends as pets without understanding them is meaningless to me. Concluding: humans did know about this before but they just didn't explain it scientifically.
Wolves are actually running away from humans. The dogs/wolves domesticated back then were probably more like the dogs found in tierra del fuego (South America) : Running around and disappearing for days sometimes, and collaborating with humans in order to get food. It's a win-win strategy that can elad to coevolution and that also exist in other species.
It might and certainly was also different from what I say, but you have to take in consideration that dogs we've today have been widely selected for hundred generations to act the way we want.
If you are so keen to say that homophobia does exist in other creatures, I would like to hear what you've got to say about it. Can you share with me any article you've found or any proofs? If it's proven, I will change my opinion about animals not having homophobia.
I don't say anything like it exists, I only deny your claim because there is no evidence, just like there is no evidence of the existence or the inexistence of many things. I also deny it because it's a call to nature and trying to say that homosexuality or homophobia is normal or abnormal on this basis has no value at all (or are infanticide and rape ok because many species actively practice it?).
"Homosexuality is found in 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one." is a very famous quote
Famous quote doesn't mean it's right or relevant. For example, there is another famous quote : "The problem with quotes found on the internet is that they are often not ture" - Lincoln and its counterpart : "If it's on the internet, it must be true" - Einstein (with a pic of Newton).
Now, admitting that the quote is true: There are 44 000 known species of vertebrates only (I will stop to vertebrates for convenience because they are mostly sexual species). It would mean that barely 1% of animals show homosexual pattern (and I'm kind because a big part of them are actually insects, so out of the vertebrate clade).
Hence, not only that would mean that homosexuality is rare, but it would also mean that you can't determine at all if the 99% of the other species are homophobic or not since they simply don't have homosexuals to discriminate/oppress/persecute in addition the 450 species in which you suppose homophobia doesn't exist based on the fact that they aren't acting like homophobic people.
