You're right that this is a diversion, apologies for that, but isn't stating that gender is just a performance basically saying that trans* people only exist because of the supposedly false concept of gender? I may be taking what you said the wrong way, but my understanding is that performance is merely one aspect of gender. Whether or not gender is a social construct or not doesn't make it any less real; language is a social construct too but it's also one that human beings are naturally inclined towards.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, but I will answer this question on the assumption that you are serious. My Priest knows my physical sex, because I have all the physical characteristics of femaleness. What I meant was, I do not feel comfortable having those gendered characteristics
This thread will likely get split off, but really this the crux of the matter and where much of gender theory is just out to lunch. All characteristics, if we are going to use such loaded language, are gendered. Being 6' tall is a gendered characteristic. It can be placed with a genus, actually many.
I've not the time to take up the problem in even a basic manner right now, but I am sad that we live in a society where those who should be aware more than others of the gendered quality of all things, would choose to reduce gender to two, maybe, three, or four categories.
The problem is not how to align one's sex with one's gender or the other way around, but how to show this whole gendering business in the first place is radically groundless and that gender has indeed a performative role, but ontologically the notion of all gendered qualities is quite unthought.
This could be approached theologically and thus within the gendering manner of the Trinity or philosophically and thus within the field of being and how something like a genus arises in the first place and how it comes to gender the beings within its field.
Please don't take this to be argumentative as that's not the spirit in which I say it by any means. I am honestly asking your opinion
Sorry, not a lot of time.
To the bolded portion of my statement. I didn't say gender was merely performative, but anyone who has read the literature on the subject would know that is the oft "insight" in which the Anglo-American tradition begins. (The Continental is a bit more confused, as you have de Beauvoir applying a strictly existential proper construct to sex
which most would now read as gender
; however, in existentialism as such even something like sex would be something one becomes.) And performative roles are socially constructed, so I really don't see you problem with my statement. I wasn't claiming to offer a full analysis of gender
, but linking a key element within gender studies inside my post.
And your second criticism I don't understand either in light of the colored portion of my post where I echo my previous explicit statement that all "characteristics" are in fact gendered, in so far as one takes seriously those "thinkers" in gender studies. However, I don't think they have properly ontologically (un)grounded their discussion save for one or maybe two thinkers who have touched on the subject. So yes, I think gender studies amounts like most X
studies to much nonsense and lacks any rigor in method in light of novelty of subject. So anything one can state about gender
how it is typically construed by gender theorists could applied to any "characteristic" humans have.
It is such an empty state of affairs to include everything which is to say excludes everything.