If you pin gender to biology, you get a biological essentialism interpretation.
It’s a safe definition.
“‘gender’ refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.”
Safe as in uncontroversial.
There’s room within that definition to narrow to EITHER biological or psychological or a combination.
That’s why it’s safe.
“socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes”It’s uncontroversial that it is socially constructed.BUT, you can dive deeper and say, “the reason why societies socially constructed these roles is that it matches biological [x, y, z] stuff” or point to animals or whatever.Or you can point to religion, or power dynamics or whatever
WHO’s definition is in the context of societal health issues. In context:“Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviour, activities and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women.The distinct roles and behaviour may give rise to gender inequalities, i.e. differences between men and women that systematically favour one group. In turn, such inequalities can lead to inequities between men and women in both health status and access to health care.”
What you seem to want is on an individual, isolated level, as if you were studying an individual in laboratory environment.“Psychological or biological.”But on a societal level, that question of psychological or biological is subsumed.
I dunno. Perhaps gender is the limits to the biological potential of an individual set within a particular society.
, he said that he’s genderless, knowing perfectly well what gender meant by
but I played stupid to drag it out a bit, my little uvuncular pushback when the barrage of ironic gets annoying. .
Yup. I tend to stay at an even keel and just quietly bring it up. I watch him get defensive and overexplain himself. Then I point out he overexplained himself. That’s how I can extract humor when he makes a joke that’s ‘too far’ for me
You’re not comparing biology to psychology but rather biological psychology vs other notions of psychology.
I’m saying that your comparison of “biology” vs “psychology” is a category error on your part.
I didn’t realize it at first as I was following along. But it suddenly dawned on me that if we’re trying to draw psychological conclusions based upon biology (‘if biology says nothing about gender then…”) then we’re doing biological psychology and not biology.