>

This is a separate point but might also change your mind in the long run. Reading Gender trouble is really difficult because of Butler's writing, that said Bodies that matter really helps understand it better and once you're done I highly recommend reading it. 
"There's no such thing as a woman" also has contexts to Beavouir who says there is only one sex and that is woman, because man isn't a sex but the norm. Women is the other, that what has been categorised has been done through the oppression of men. 
(Also just a fair note, I'm playing off of my memory from doing my dissertation, I could very easily be misremembering since my focus moved away from Butler and their work)
Is anyone saying that social constructs are wrong per se?
Democracy is a social construct.
Marriage is a social construct.
Justice is a social construct.
Absolutely no one is saying that social constructs are bad. The point is - social constructs is something we can CHANGE (to improve). It's not something set in stone. >

Exactly, as OP states social constructs are just groups or terms we use to help us understand the world. Doing so isn't inherently bad and is actually very useful if not necessary. I think what OP is confusing here is that, with many social constructs, they do have a history that is not good. Take race for example, a social construct with an almost exclusively bad history and purpose. Now, acknowledging that fact isn't saying that we should never use any words or groupings around people's backgrounds or that all social constructs are bad, it just means that we should work to both acknowledge the history and work to fix/replace the bad parts where necessary. >

I agree that the way we treated social constructs has been problematic in the past. My point is that it doesn't mean we should tear them apart. Instead, we can embrace differences without discriminating against anyone.
Of course, questioning the system is always a good thing. I definitely do. >

It's not about tearing them apart, it's just about ensuring that we don't trap ourselves within them.  
There's a lot of posts like this on CMV, where everyone sort of just... wonders where some supposed opposition is coming from, because no one's noticing any but the OP. >

except judith butler literally is advocating tearing them apart, she doesn't think "woman" exists in any meaningful sense. >

*Thinks that feminists should not attempt to define womanhood. That doesn't discourage any personal conception of it. >

Well, one, Butler is way the fuck obtuse and is not the best way to get an initial understanding of these things.
But:

We, humans, need reference frames to understand the world. We naturally gravitate to categorizing things. There's nothing wrong with the distinction between "female" and "male." 

The problem is that the distinction between "female" and "male" (sexes) has become a distinction between "woman" and "man" (gender [roles]) that is, generally speaking, oppressive particularly but not exclusively to women. It creates a set of expectations that deny people the ability to pursue their own interests independent of what they themselves actually want.

Butler says there's indeed no such thing as a "woman," since the definition is not widely accepted. She wants to find a new subject of feminism. And this confuses me. Her gender performativity also confuses me. If gender isn't innate but something performed (and doesn't even exist), then what's the point of even saying that people can identify as X or Y? Wouldn't that go against TG?

This is the 8756243876523847562346598th thread that boils down to two distinct uses of gender.
Gender identity is not the same thing as gender roles, norms, or expression, although the two are obviously related. It's the same kind of relationship the feeling of pain has to the word "ow". The word "ow" is constructed, expressive, voluntary to some extent, culturally variable, etc. But pain in and of itself is not. Similarly, gender [as Butler is using the term] is constructed, expressive, voluntary to some extent, culturally variable, etc. But gender identity, which is a distinct underlying thing, is not.

Should we deconstruct reference frames? Wouldn't it be better to accept that there's a norm but people can fall out? And most importantly, if we do deconstruct them, how do we build new ones?

A valid question!
I'd argue the point of deconstruction is to understand the construction itself and decide whether and how to rebuild it. Constructions are too built into the way we view the world for us to totally do away with them, but they're also too often wrong for us to not examine them.
For example, physics needed a bunch of deconstructing after the discovery of quantum mechanics. The foundations on which physics was built - of a bunch of little billiard balls flying around with definite speeds and velocities and bouncing off of each other - were bad ones, and we needed to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. And so a large part of the initial development of quantum mechanics was just getting back to what we already knew with that foundation.
Or to get back to social issues: transitioning involved a lot of deconstruction and reconstruction in my personality. I was socialized as a man in a way that didn't prepare me for the challenges I'd face as a woman, and it led me to many conclusions that turned out to be false with that new perspective. So I ended up having to treat a lot of things that I "knew" as conditional and uncertain, dig down into the roots of those things, pull out a few roots, and then rebuilt the things that seemed true from that perspective.
Butler might not agree with me on this, but I believe in deconstructing to reconstruct better. Every generation ought to do it at least once, not with the idea of changing everything, but with the idea of being willing to change anything that isn't working anymore, and to follow the consequences of that where they lead. >


Gender identity is not the same thing as gender roles, norms, or expression, although the two are obviously related. It's the same kind of relationship the feeling of pain has to the word "ow". The word "ow" is constructed, expressive, voluntary to some extent, culturally variable, etc. But pain in and of itself is not. Similarly, gender [as Butler is using the term] is constructed, expressive, voluntary to some extent, culturally variable, etc. But gender identity, which is a distinct underlying thing, is not.

This is really informative and explains something that has confused me for a long time. Thank you for educating some of my ignorance. Is there anything you could recommend that explains Gender Identity more? >

There's not really a "more" to explain. It's just a thing that is, in much the same way that sexual orientation is. >

Can you define it? >

Saying something is a social construct isn't saying it's "right or wrong" to begin with. It's drawing a distinction between something rooted in reality vs. something that is real because we collectively believe it's real. Having dark skin is a biological reality, "race" and the way society will treat you as a result of that phenotype is a social construct.
One reason this distinction is significant is that it tells us racism is not an unchangeable natural phenomenon, but a product of human behavior that we can address. The fact that race is a social construct doesn't make racism or the consequences of race any less "real". >

I haven't read that book, but I've read later writings where she addresses Heidegger and my interpretation of her ideas were in line with his phenomenology.
In other words, I don't think that gender as performance means the same thing as socially constructed.
"Social construct" in this sense is meaningless because everything can be said to be a social construct if the term means "ontological". The dichotomy is between things that have an a priori essence and an expressed phenomenon.
Performance means that gender is only something that exists in reality as a phenomenon, not as an abstract ideal.
That's the exact opposite of saying "it doesn't exist.", It's saying that it only pertains to what actually exists.
It's the definition of gender that doesn't "really exist" because it's just something that is made up, or a social construct. >

The tendency to categorise the world, to identify groups of things and to name them, is natural but I think there is a particular problem with social categories that do justify viewing them as problematic, even perhaps evil. The issue is not with the act of categorisation itself, but how social categories acquire (socially) accepted attributes or properties. It is this process, controlled by the dominant group that reproduces their coercive/abusive power. So while “female” may identify something in the world, the meaning of female in a society depends on the power structure of that society. If it is male dominated then negative attributes become bound up with the social meaning of female to justify male dominance. Such a process seems to be intrinsic to social constructs (categories) and I don’t think it’s possible for social constructs to avoid this fate. This justifies treating them differently from natural categorisations such as tree which do avoid reproducing social structures by virtue of not being part of the social world!
When you say about there being no such thing as “man” and “woman” this distinction between natural categorisation and social categorisation is crucial. In principle they would exist if construed as natural categorisations but I don’t think that’s what we mean by these in practice. We mean them as social categories which are somewhat like mythologies. The Sun exists as an object fusing hydrogen into helium in the natural world. But for some societies it was a god in constant war with the Moon. When people in such a society talk about the Sun they mean the god with the attributes they ascribed to it and not the nuclear furnace we know it as. Their Sun story is a myth of course even though there is something 150 million km away. >

Butler isn't saying that social constructs are inherently evil, rather what they're doing is arguing against a view of gender that understands it as consisting of two parts: identity, and performance. E.g. the idea there are women, and there are the social roles and expectations that women are expected to have within the patriarchy, and together those constitute the socially constructed identity of women. Butler is saying that actually, there is only the second part, the performance, because people don't have identities that spring fully formed from their bodies. Rather, only the social construction of gender exists. But this doesn't mean that people are wrong about what their gender is, it just means gender as a thing is inherently tied up with the societal distribution of power, and is complicated by race, class, sex, sexuality, etc. When they're talking about finding a new subject of feminism, what Butler means is that if you confine yourself to thinking about feminism as about separating women from patriarchal norms, you're going to come up short, because "woman" is still defined by those patriarchal norms, forming a dialectic: either you embrace the norms or you go against them, you're still being governed by them. Instead, they argue, people need to attack those norms directly through, for example, parody and deconstruction. It's not enough to just say that women can defy gender norms if they want, what really needs to be done is for a new sort of womanhood to be invented through intentional and repetitive challenging of gender norms and the social structures which reinforce them >

Regarding transgender issues, in later books Butler says that while gender is performative and a social construct, not aligning yourself to that construct generally means not being accepted as a complete person by society — which is painful. (Indeed, the high rates of suicidality and depression among trans folk correlates directly to the degree they do not feel accepted by others.)
And I don’t think Butler ever makes the case that all social constructs are evil though, does she? But they are all the products of power relations. You can’t make people accept new social constructs without power (whether that power is violent, or persuasive, or legal.) Academia is a center of power too.
I also get the sense that Butler, and other critical theorists carrying on the tradition of Foucault (and ultimately Nietzsche) is too focused on breaking things down, smashing idols, and not on building anything new. It’s a common criticism. I think you have to think of critical theory as a tool — it’s a tool that’s great for tearing down old constructs to clear space for something new. But it shouldn’t be the only tool in society’s tool belt. 
Accepting that there is a norm, but that people fall out of it, is creating a new norm. Just ten years ago or so falling outside that norm was a mental illness (according to the DSM-4.) >

So let’s change the way people treat others not in the norm. 
I don’t see why we can’t have a norm and still respect people who don’t fall into it perfectly. 
I don’t understand why we can’t still have a description of non binding gender characteristics and still allow and respect people living outside of those norms. 
I see a direction where the mass is told to reject norms and non binding definitions to make those outside the norm feel comfortable when what we need is people to treat others with respect regardless of what norms they do or do not fall into >

A social norm is a shared agreement of what constitutes acceptable behavior.
Treating everyone with respect regardless of gender norms is a great norm in my opinion. But such a norm necessarily exists in opposition to gender norms. If all gendered behavior is acceptable, there are no gender norms.
Though then again, I wouldn’t want every gender norm to be acceptable. Many westerners would have a lot of difficulty accepting extremely traditional gender norms, or norms that have been proven to be harmful, like locking women away from public view while the menstruate. This would be unacceptable gendered behavior and would therefor be a norm — don’t act this way.
Your just never going to do away with all gender norms, nor would you want to. But you can make some less restrictive and change others. >

U can change your gender not sex your sex. Cis female and cis male will always exist because it's a scientific fact, u can change your team and identify as whatever but u can't ever change the way u were born and most people always feel that. Take for instance trans men who want to get pregnant if they actually wanted to be a man they would use a surrogate not carry >

Sorry, u/jacobsonjohn287 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.  

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. 
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards. >


power is the driving force.

Yes. Power for whom, do you think? >

Everyone engaging in politics. There's two manifestations of power, individual strength and the strength in numbers. If democracy wins, then it's because it's the strongest force. It's literally in the name.
Whenever I criticise the political left on Reddit I get downvoted, that's also a power imbalance.
Did you want me to say "Bad people take power for themselves"? But everyone wants power for themselves. All political discussions are just losers complaining that they have less power than others, and that this is an injustice, and that they're good people and the moral standards which everyone else should be measured against.
I do not believe the positive words with which any force adorn themselves, all political power struggles are ugly, and I find the whole identification with groups to be pathetic, and these groups don't really exist anyway (which is why discrimination is always invalid. You can't judge people for the actions of the group to which you think that they belong, be it their race or anything else) >


Whenever I criticise the political left on Reddit I get downvoted, that's also a power imbalance.

Lol.
Not allowed to have opinions different from yours?

But everyone wants power for themselves.

Yes. 

I find the whole identification with groups to be pathetic,

Lol.

and these groups don't really exist anyway

Then you shouldn't be so upset about it. >

I never said they didn't, but it's not even their opinions, they've just found some group to identify with. Those who think for themselves don't fit under any labels.

Then you shouldn't be so upset about it.

I'm not upset, I'm just calling out nonsense. No progress is being made >


No progress is being made

But things are better now for LGBTQ+ people. Seems like progress to me. 

it's not even their opinions, they've just found some group to identify with. Those who think for themselves don't fit under any labels.

Labels are shorthand. Everybody fits some label. >

Look at the posts being made on this subreddit. They've been made 100s of times before. This conversation we're having now has been had 100s of times before.

Everybody fits some label.

Badly, at best. If your opinion on 20 different subjects are almost the same as other people the same label, then you're not an individual, but some conforming automatron which is afraid of standing out or going against the flow. >

Most people pick a label that fits their opinions; they don't change their opinions to fit a label.
I know it's tempting to think most people are mindless but that's not true. >


Most people pick a label that fits their opinions; they don't change their opinions to fit a label.

I think that is overly charitable. Most people pick a label based on a few issues they find important, then kind of just shrug and accept the rest of the party line. >

It is important to note that the idea that gender is a social construct does not mean that it is not real or that it does not affect individuals' lived experiences. Social constructs such as gender can have real and tangible effects on people's lives and can be used to justify discrimination and marginalization. However, recognizing that gender is a social construct can also help to challenge and deconstruct societal norms and expectations that limit individuals' self-expression and autonomy.
Judith Butler's concept of gender performativity emphasizes that individuals are not simply passive recipients of societal norms, but rather actively participate in the construction and maintenance of gender through their actions and expressions. This concept also highlights the fluidity and malleability of gender.
It is also important to note that the existence of intersex individuals and individuals with gender dysphoria challenges the idea of a binary understanding of sex and gender. The concept of a binary understanding of gender is not universally accepted and is not inclusive of all individuals.
In terms of building new reference frames, it may involve rethinking societal norms and expectations around gender, and creating space for individuals to express their gender identity in a way that feels authentic to them. This could involve a more nuanced understanding of gender identity, and the acknowledgement of non-binary identities. It could also involve a shift towards less restrictive and more inclusive societal norms and expectations around gender expression. >


It is important to note that the idea that gender is a social construct does not mean that it is not real or that it does not affect individuals' lived experiences.

That's part of my argument. Assuming gender is real to some extent, why deconstruct it? Wouldn't it better to accept that people don't always adjust to the norm? Like okay, "man" and "woman" are the vast majority of people, what's wrong with that? 
Can't we accept that some people don't fully adhere to them (because personality is much more than gender) and move on? >

Because if you have a social norm you transgress, you are outside of the normality and people will often change how they treat you. Think of blue-haired women, towards whom a lot of people have a lot of cliché of who they are.
If you meant, "why don't we let people do whatever they want ?", well at that point they would not be a norm anymore and that would be deconstruction. >

I conceive "norm" as what's most prevalent, which doesn't mean that there can't be outliers, like in a normal distribution. 
Now, if we mean "norm" as an imposition, then I would agree with you. I think our language is very limited on these matters. >

The only purpose of a norm is, inherently, to change behavior. For example, when people say that "boys don't cry" to a crying boy, they are obviously telling the boy that he shouldn't cry; if the statement "boys don't cry" was factually true, there would be no need to say it.
The "gender defenders" like you want to pretend that norms are only statistical averages that don't carry a social obligation or at least can be separated from that existing obligation. The simple fact of the matter is that this isn't true; gender norms exist purely and exclusively to artificially control the behavior of people based on gender. If they were accurate, they wouldn't need to be said!
There is no social norm that is not imposed. They aren't even statistical averages in any serious sense; even if we took those averages today, there would be an inherent bias that can't be adjusted for, making the measurement worthless from a scientific perspective. All of this "normal distribution and outliers" talk is based on, well, nothing other than the leftover, arbitrary whims of a society that literally, without exaggeration, believed that women were too stupid to understand anything other than domestic concerns, and legalized and even encouraged husbands to hit their wives to coerce them into obedience. Why hold on to these notions, which only seem to hurt us for no legitimate benefit that anyone can explain?