Administration wants to define transgender out of existence

Here is a little excerpt from my old sociology text "Social Problems: Continuity and Change"

So we see that while sex is biology, as you've said, that gender is considered a socially constructed phenomenon.

 

I just don’t see it as a government issue. Now if people within the transgendered community are discriminated say for a job etc then the government is needed. But not to define gender issues and roles.

Has Trump solved world hunger and all the pressing issues of the day that this is all he has time to do? Lol

 

The government needs to classify us so it can divide us based on those arbitrary classifications.

Race, gender, etc. is pretty arbitrary when you think about it. All the establishment whines about is what they see as minorities who want to be treated different. Well, maybe if big government wasn't saying that we were all different, different groups wouldn't want different treatment. If race wasn't recorded and catalogued, we wouldn't need affirmative action; if gender wasn't recorded and catalogued and defined in such a traditional sense, that radical feminism you all fear wouldn't exist--neither would the bathroom laws. We're creating arbitrary and artificial problems among ourselves upon birth, and then fighting over the best ways to address those problems instead of working on eliminating them.

Keep treating the symptoms, America, while ignoring the cure.

 

They took errrr identities!

 

Right. So they are classifying everyone as either male or female.

 

I disagree wholly and fully and so does sociology, however I'm a little out of my depth for this topic. Here is a great excerpt that I feel adequately represents my position and the position of sociology. While some psychologists lean more heavily toward biological explanations for different characteristics I don't know of any who renounce sociology. I will leave it at that though.

 

God I love watching liberal heads explode before all the facts..

 

Not by as much as you seem to be suggesting. Here's what it says about the publication:

I think this is related to the concept of gender versus sexual orientation. The book talk about sexual orientation in terms of both social and biological origins and gender in terms of social ones. But make know mistake; I realize that there are significant biological forces at play! Try reading this excerpt when you aren't doing anything. It's a bit long, but it talks about biological and social explanations of sexual orientation.

 

I'm not saying that at all. You have it wrong. The book isn't lying, so where is your information coming from? Your astute knowledge of science? Well, show me.

 

Sociology of Gender

 

all bs?

 

Here is another example:

"
Gender
The definition of sex (the categories of man versus woman) as we know them today comes from the advent of modernity. With the rise of industrialisation came better technologies and faster modes of travel and communication. This assisted the rapid diffusion of ideas across the medical world.

Sex roles describes the tasks and functions perceived to be ideally suited to masculinity versus femininity. Sex roles have converged across many (though not all) cultures due to colonial practices and also due to industrialisation. These roles were different prior to the industrial revolution, when men and women worked alongside one another on farms, doing similar tasks. Entrenched gender inequality is a product of modernity. It’s not that inequality did not exist before, it’s that inequality within the home in relation to family life was not as pronounced.

In the 19th Century, biomedical science largely converged around Western European practices and ideas. Biological definitions of the body arose where they did not exist before, drawing on Victorian values. The essentialist ideas that people attach to man and woman exist only because of this cultural history. This includes the erroneous ideas that sex:

• Is pre-determined in the womb;
• Defined by anatomy which in turn determines sexual identity and desire;
• Differences are all connected to reproductive functions;
• Identities are immutable; and that
• Deviations from dominant ideas of male/female must be “unnatural.”

As I show further below, there is more variation across cultures when it comes to what is considered “normal” for men and women, thus highlighting the ethnocentric basis of sex categories. Ethnocentric ideas define and judge practices according to one’s own culture, rather than understanding cultural practices vary and should be viewed by local standards.

Social Construction of Gender
Gender, like all social identities, is socially constructed. Social constructionism is one of the key theories sociologists use to put gender into historical and cultural focus. Social constructionism is a social theory about how meaning is created through social interaction – through the things we do and say with other people. This theory shows that gender it is not a fixed or innate fact, but instead it varies across time and place.

Gender norms (the socially acceptable ways of acting out gender) are learned from birth through childhood socialisation. We learn what is expected of our gender from what our parents teach us, as well as what we pick up at school, through religious or cultural teachings, in the media, and various other social institutions.


Gender experiences will evolve over a person’s lifetime. Gender is therefore always in flux. We see this through generational and intergenerational changes within families, as social, legal and technological changes influence social values on gender. Australian sociologist, Professor Raewyn Connell, describes gender as a social structure – a higher order category that society uses to organise itself:

 

This smells more like Mike Pence and the cronies Trump had to concede to, to get into office, rather than Trump

 

This is all SJW bullshit. I'd like to know the source of this pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Twenty years ago and this would be laughed at by just about everyone.

 

A lot of things would have been laughed at in the past. Gay relationships, interracial relationships, women in the workplace, women in sports, black people being treated as equals...

 

See... I feel like this part was really pertinent

Sorry, PR. I don't agree. And this sort of echoes what I'm being taught in college, to be honest.