Biological sex is genetically determined so reproduction can occur; this is accepted. But is gender, the categorization of people into male and female, a socially constructed concept? Are individuals forced into these roles by family, media, and government or are they inherent in human nature? How do you account for transsexuals?

Does gender = class and would a communist society abolish it?

Gender roles are a social construct. As for gender, there's probably an almost infinite number of possible genders between "male" and "female".

Certainly the definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity" are fluid and totally a social construct.

I think history has shown that the understanding of gender is not constant... I don't know the whole history but I remember reading about native American groups that had different several categories for gender including people who preferred to act in ways associated with a gender that they were not born with. Additionally, there is so much natural biological variation of people within each male/female genders that really people are shoe-horned into some pretty narrow conceptions of what it means to be male or female.

Gender is not a class since men/women do not have opposed interests and gender in of itself does not impact someone's relationship to production (but obviously there is oppression of women in society). Gender would not be "abolished" in the sense that everyone would be called "comrade human" and wear the same creepy unisex mao-suit or something. But gender should be abolished from any official considerations once systemic sexism is abolished: i.e. no forms should ask what your gender is, any id would not state biological gender and so on.

i believe we should understand gender in a dialectical sense of what biologists call nature (physical elements) and nurture (social constructs). because there are some physical differences in the two sexes the constructs tend to develop in some direction.

now there are indeed some cultures where the social differences are not the same as our western contruct. an example of this is India where there is in some cultures a third sex. this means that the social contructs also influence our perception of sex. so here we have our dialectic.

should a communist society abandon this difference? the point is that a total abolishment of the social construct just wouldn't suffice since we have a physical difference in sex. The "asymptomatical" ideal would be a society where everyone has a total freedom in how to express his/her appearance in such a way that the western dualism would become vague and thus irrelevant. because if there is no way of instantly placing someone in the category male or female there wouldn't either be a need to do so, because it doens't have any practical implications anymore.

to explain this last hypothesis, which i think i explained a bit obscurily, we can differentiate in from our western dualism of male and female. noweadays if you look for someone to talk about e.g. cars, you would turn to someone who looks male, because you presuppose he is male and thus knows something about cars. now if this appearing of someone to be male is abolished you would turn just to anyone, since the difference isn't clear anymore.

feel free to ask questions, the theory still needs some work i think.

Gender roles, or any other roles or institutions, if there are any, that developed independently in separated societies, not in communication with each other, cannot be social constructs. Roles that have spread from one society to another, by migration or communication, may be constructs.

but where do you draw the line between intercultural communication and interpersonal communication? as a matter of fact they have to be social constructs, because independently in different cultures other gender roles have developped (even other genders). doesn't every communication demand a construction of the identities of the persons involved? this would then be a social construct.

For example, anthropologist Margaret Mead studied sex and age roles in Samoa, where traditions were not exported from Europe, but developed independently of Eurpoean culture. In the cases of any practices that are found to be similar across various cultures, these probably arise from human instincts. For example, humans seem to be the kind of species in which most individuals pair up and choose their mates for life or long-term periods, which several other mammals also do, including wolves and coyotes. However, Mead documented the acceptability in Samoan culture of practicing polyamory ("promiscuity") before marriage, which some other societies believe to be immoral --this is an area where the culture makes up the rules.

It should be noted that Margaret Mead's studies of sexuality in Samoa have been subject to fierce criticism and their accuracy put into question many, many times within anthropology, particularly as many of those she surveyed and interviewed flat-out lied to her or simply made things up.

Its a logical construct if anything.

There is a rational reason to separate pens from pencils. Though sexism I must say is a social construct.

is it so logical? just because it is the case, doesn't mean it's logical. i read somewhere that in belgium 1/20 men has some kind of gender problem. that number is huge. isn't it possible that there is a material core in gender differences, but that everything built around gender roles is just an arbitrary differentiation of patryarchy (e.g. the dualism man-woman, which has a material foundation, namely the sexual organs, is put together with an other dualism rationality-emotion because "man" takes the good part of the dualism and gives "woman" the other).

in this sense gender role is a way of oppression, since patryarchy functions as a meaning-giving element in communication.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Mead was just an example that I thought might illustate my argument. I'm saying that social practices that are found all over the world must be instinctive to our kind of animal, while practices that are found in some places but not others must be inventions. So, when asking whether some human behavior is a "social construct", the question that has to be raised first: is this tradition found all over the world, or is it isolated?