Social Question

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Are you able to define a 'real man' or a 'real woman' without using the opposite gender as part of the definition and...

Asked by Simone_De_Beauvoir (38937points) February 21st, 2010

not providing characteristics that aren’t things that can be applied to all genders…?

I’ve been thinking more and more about how arbitrary gender definitions are (well I’ve always thought this but it’s been a slow day) and how each person will have their own sense of what that’s like given what they learned growing up, given their cultural background, given their own sense of self, etc….

To me the terms ‘real man’ and ‘real woman’ are meaningless because (when separated from biological sex, since gender doesn’t equal sex, for the purpose of this discussion) there is no one set definition (and it doesn’t matter what the dictionary says, we don’t consult it when we think of these things) and because I find it difficult to define either without using the opposite gender in its definition…maybe you don’t find that to be a problem, but I find it then that no gender can stand on its own if it needs its ‘half’ to define it

So, is it possible to come up with these definitions without saying ‘a real man….xyz…in terms of women’ or without saying ‘a real man is someone who…’ and then use an action that anyone can do…same for ‘real woman’...people say things like ‘now there’s a real woman’ and ‘I’m a red blooded man’ and presumably they have some notions of what it all means, yes? So what does it mean, to you?

This has a little to do with me because so many times people will say ‘well you’re a woman after all’ even though I say I don’t feel like one and then their reasons for this ‘discovery’ are all different and equally not plausible, to me…

So if these things are pretty arbitrary and subjective, why are they still so commonly used as fall-backs to explain some sort of ‘truth’? and again, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s not define gender in terms of biology as clearly there are many people out there living as some other gender from the one they were given at birth because of their sex and no one is the wiser

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

116 Answers

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

No – it’s impossible to define one without the other, which is why the terms are meaningless and why the gender binary itself is meaningless. Kinda gets to the guts of the matter.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

No.I can’t do it.

Just_Justine's avatar

I must have been brought up by aliens, this discussion was never brought up in my childhood. We were just people.

dpworkin's avatar

I think all of humanity is arrayed along a continuum in the matter of gender, and that perhaps the most you can do to characterize someone is to describe where they are relative to the mean, in terms of standard deviations.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Just_Justine that’s good
@dpworkin I like that, thanks.

marinelife's avatar

Gender doesn’t have anything to teach us really.

liminal's avatar

@dpworkin what would you define as the mean on such a continuum?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marinelife well that’s certainly an interesting thought – then why do we need it and why do we police others for their gender expressions?

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@dpworkin Are all the points along this continuum treated equally?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@marinelife okay, then why do others?

dpworkin's avatar

One doesn’t define the mean. The mean defines itself. It has a particular meaning in statistics, and that is the meaning I intended.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@dpworkin wait, that doesn’t answer the question asked by @JeanPaulSartre

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

I think, if we’re discussing a continuum, it’s better to look at it in multiple dimensions, like a sphere, rather than as a line connecting boy on one side and girl on the other.

dpworkin's avatar

@JeanPaulSartre Not in this bigoted, frightened, ignorant society.

wundayatta's avatar

Archetypes of what men and women are supposed to be like depend on the culture you grow up in, or even the subculture. These notions are passed on using stories that have the power of myth. We can only define these notions for ourselves. It has to do with our expectations and our internal models of how gender affects people’s behavior.

I think that if people are honest, they will admit that their internal models of people are different based on gender. And if they aren’t, it’s kind of a delusion, since on almost every measure of human behavior, men and women behave differently.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@dpworkin so if we agree that this gender binary in terms of both the meanings it has for people that are arbitrary and the fact that those meanings are meaningless when you take ‘em apart, then why are people under the impression that a society free of gender is free of individuality when, in fact, what I envision (in my utopia) is a world full of complete individuals with traits not constrained by their gender and what others think…long ago someone on wis.dm and a bunch of people here on fluther accused me of wanting a gender-less world full of sex-less (they conflate the two) androgynous blobs without the concept of attraction and sexuality…when in fact, I propose the opposite: liberation of people and ability to express themselves however they like and mate with whoever they like and be sexual with anyone they want and are drawn to…do you see the distinction I’m making?

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@dpworkin word. sigh It’s interesting, because I can define, in real terms, someone’s humanity, and I might even be able to say someone is more of a ‘real human’ than someone else, and do so without using any “opposite” terms. But it’s impossible to define these terms without the other. I suppose I’m trying to say the way to end that bigotry is to end the use of these ludicrous terms.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@wundayatta So you’re saying I and others who think men and women aren’t so different after all are delusional?

dpworkin's avatar

I have TG friends who live in fear for their very lives, for no particular good reason. Sometimes I want to flee, but I don’t know where to go.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@dpworkin I don’t know where to go either. Maybe you can come to my house.

dpworkin's avatar

that depends. are your tits real or fake?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@dpworkin you better be joking with that response because even if they were fake or real or whatever, calling them ‘tits’ won’t get you near them…that takes the lead out of my pencil, so to speak

dpworkin's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I am very content to live in a world of gender ambiguity. In my own case it’s always in flux.

dpworkin's avatar

I’m sorry, honey, I meant “jugs”.

Just_Justine's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I realized too late in life I had rather progressive parents. Pity. Specially for their “time”.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@dpworkin I’m sorry too, honey, that you have a pencil instead of…

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Just_Justine yeah I wish I had parents like that

wundayatta's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I don’t think you are delusional, necessarily, although you could be. I just think you may not be paying attention to all the evidence. On almost any measure you can think of, men and women are significantly different. That is not to say there isn’t variation such that some women might be more like men and vice versa. But, on average, those differences are significant. You can explain it however you want, but you can’t deny the data.

Facade's avatar

No, I cannot. I don’t like those terms anyway.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

A visual inspection usually is enough.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@wundayatta science isn’t inherent truth – data can and should be questioned..physical differences exist. that is not what we’re discussing.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy Visually, you’d say I’m a woman. Visually, (let’s assume) you’d want to sleep with me and court me, as a woman. Realistically, it wouldn’t work because I’d tell you that’s not how I identify. What would you do if you loved me?

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

If I loved you, that’d be the end of the discussion. Love trumps categorization.

gailcalled's avatar

What is an “unreal man” or “unreal woman”? Do you need the modifiers for this discussion?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@gailcalled you tell me what those are

gailcalled's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: If I knew, I wouldn’t have asked. Perhaps an endocronologist would do better.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@gailcalled Perhaps an endocrinologist’s opinion isn’t necessary or even possible as being an all-encompassing answer. We are more than our glands and hormones.

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

A ‘real’ man or woman walks their talk, does or gets the best they can for themselves and/or their loved ones while doing the least harm to others- the confidence versus arrogance thing.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@hungryhungryhortence so just a person of character, basically? then why call them men or women?

shadling21's avatar

A “real man” is a person who exemplifies typically masculine personality traits. The assigned traits of a man are mostly socially constructed and (as your question points out) viewed in relation to femininity. As the concept of gender has come into question over the past half century or so, so too have these stereotypes, leading many of us to stray away from terms like “real man” or “real woman”.

I know very few people who use these terms, by the way. If I use the terms “masculinity” and “femininity”, I keep in mind the associations that are typically made with them, but attempt to distance myself from the perspective that genders have to be a certain way. I think this is normal when you’re studying arts and the humanities.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@shadling21 yet I hear these terms thrown around quite often even by people who have studied these concepts and understand they’re full of BS – yet when all hell breaks loose or someone’s really pissed off, that’s something they’ll throw as an insult ‘not a real man’...‘not a real woman’...and it’ll hurt some others and get GAs from people and all that…almost pointing to the fact that understanding and how informed people are all go out of the window when ‘it’s on’

davidbetterman's avatar

“since gender doesn’t equal sex

LOL

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@davidbetterman something funny? care to elaborate? if this is a new idea for you, I can explain further.

Just_Justine's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir LOL at you for that comment, good one.

hungryhungryhortence's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: I get you. See if my brain makes any sense now. When I think male/female then I am thinking biology whereas when I think man/woman then I thinking of everything possible after biology.

What makes a ‘real’ man or woman gets particularly jumbled if you ask a person born a female who thinks of themselves as a homosexual man or you ask their love interest who says, “if you were a ‘real’ boy then everything would be perfect”.

davidbetterman's avatar

But gender is all about sex. You are born a male or a female. That is pretty simple. What you choose to do with it, and how you choose to act is another matter all together.
Gender confusion is always humorous.

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@davidbetterman What’s your definition of a “real man,” without using “real woman,” again?

gemiwing's avatar

I have a sinus infection and haven’t slept well for a week so I’m sorry if this isn’t going to be my best thought-out response.

I think when people use ‘real’ man/woman they are using a lot of media input. So on the surface one could say John Wayne was a ‘real’ man. What we miss sometimes is that subtle background stuff that influences the media portrayal.

I’m not sure that I could define a real man/woman without using the other gender somewhere in my reasoning- whether I’m aware of it or not. It’d be like describing darkness without using light.

Personally, I use the term ‘real’ for either sex/gender/pinata to mean that this person is exactly who they are and they are confident in themselves. Yet, that’s just saying they are a ‘real person’ isn’t it?...

Great question..I’m going to stew on it a bit.

davidbetterman's avatar

@JeanPaulSartre What do you mean again?

DominicX's avatar

I don’t tend to use the terms “real man” and “real woman” because so often, I hear “real man” to mean a stereotypically masculine man who dates women, drinks beer, and is physically and mentally “tough”. Of course I don’t give a shit about any of that.

To me a man is someone who identifies as a man and knows they are one. I’m a man. I may be gay, but there is no question in my mind that I am a man/guy/boy.

That’s not to say every male person identifies as a “man”, not at all. But most of them do.

tinyfaery's avatar

Good, thought provoking question.

Gender has no real meaning without a dichotomy, but nothing does. There is no beauty without ugliness. There is no light without dark. Contrariety is the basis of western thought. Unless we have some sort of drastic shift in consciousness, this is unlikely to change.

davidbetterman's avatar

@JeanPaulSartre Read Ayn Rand, “The Fountainhead.” Howard Roark is a real man,

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@davidbetterman you said ‘gender confusion is always humorous’ – do not trivialize it and Ayn Rand? really? yeah, we’re done here.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@tinyfaery I agree with you about the nature of binarism – but people will say there is beauty without ugliness and so forth in it of itself.

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@davidbetterman That’s really an example, not a definition. Also, bleh.

tinyfaery's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir But how will they define it? Do so for me now.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@tinyfaery I do like following orders from you
They will define it as something that moves their spirit in a positive way, that will move their bodies and minds to wonderful things, etc.

tinyfaery's avatar

What does positive mean? Go with me here.

@JPS We’re talking definition, not an idea.

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@tinyfaery But these examples aren’t black and white either. Beauty isn’t the absence of ugliness and two things could both be considered “truly beautiful” but in very different ways.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@tinyfaery I don’t believe in these things, sigh…there is no definition but fine…
positive meaning amazing, grand, good…what is good? don’t go there, :)

tinyfaery's avatar

Well, then you know that one cannot define anything without defining it’s antithesis. It’s about defining things, right? That was your question.

shadling21's avatar

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe gender is, too.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir You’re confusing me a bit. Who are you agreeing with? Anyone?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@tinyfaery well I knew it’s undefinable on its own, just wanted others to try
@shadling21 what do you mean? I agree with a lot of the responses above.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

Notwithstanding much of the preceding wisdom, I define a “real man” as a male human being who is comfortable with himself and his gender identity (regardless of what that is) and who is able to function effectively in his life and form lasting, caring relationships with others without fear, doubt or self-loathing.

The definition for “real woman” is comparable but with female pronouns used.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Dr_Lawrence how can a person born male but who feels like a woman be a ‘real man’? I am just trying to suss this out, not being an ass…your response was very eloquent

Arp's avatar

Man – A mammal, generally human, with the ability to produce sperm from a structure called a penis.

I could go further, but you get the picture :\

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Arp I asked for non-biological traits.

Arp's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I should read the question next time :P Sorry bout that!

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

Someone born male but who feels like a woman would be unlikely to feel like a real man. With gender reassignment surgery, that person might come to feel like a “real woman.”

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Dr_Lawrence right, well I know that but you were defining them as a real man and you said ‘regardless of his gender identity’

liminal's avatar

Besides the binary issue, defining gender is problematic for me because it seems to necessitate that I be able specifically identify a group of people and then proceed to claim there is something universally essential about that selected group. When in truth I have no real concrete way of knowing a real man or woman besides them telling me they are such.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@liminal if you don’t mind, I will put your last statement as my facebook status and give you credit

YARNLADY's avatar

A real man has male sexual parts, and a real woman doesn’t. That is the ‘real’ difference. Many of the other attributes can be found to some extent in both sexes. However, there is definitely a ‘bell curve’ of differences, and the closer any person is to one extreme or the other, the more masculine or feminine they will be.

liminal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir what a surprising compliment. Please, feel free.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@YARNLADY again, I said biology is not what I was discussing.

shadling21's avatar

I think @YARNLADY makes a valid point. If someone identifies as male, yet doesn’t have male sexual parts, then one could say they aren’t a “real man”. I wouldn’t say such a thing, but many people would. It’s tough to ignore biology. Gender developed in relation to sex, society focuses on it… Also, @YARNLADY isn’t defining a “real man” in relation to women, so she actually answered your question.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I was just confused by some of your posts. I can’t tell if you are looking for a specific answer from us here, or genuinely trying to really open up a discussion.

I gather that you’ve been criticized for your gender identification here on Fluther (which I must have missed) or maybe in real life. That sucks. I hope people read this and think about gender identity and how hurtful and wrong it is to chalk things up to gender in the heat of an argument.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@shadling21 I didn’t say her point was valid, just that I was not looking for a discussion in biology and no one is ignoring biology, in general, just wanted to focus the discussion and as you say, really open it up. as to my own life and the criticisms I’ve faced, you’d be right but these questions aren’t to deal with that…my own struggle has informed what I study and work with but these topics are only some of which I discuss…thanks, anyway

shadling21's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir
Oh. So much of the context seemed to be about some hurtful words. I felt a little out of the loop.

Carry on!

davidbetterman's avatar

A real man has integrity, and doesn’t kowtow to others, nor give in to supercilious partners just because they give good head.
A real man thinks for himself, without merely parroting the twaddle of ignorant others who are merely repeating twaddle that makes them feel good because they are living a sick lifestyle.
A real man has the cahonies to push the envelope and risk his life in the pursuit of… life!

shadling21's avatar

@davidbetterman What does a real woman do?

YARNLADY's avatar

Again – we have to talk ‘bell curve’ here. Yes, many attributes of people with female biology can be matched by those with male biology, and vise versa. But in the long run, the ‘real man’ attributes vs the ‘real woman’ attributes, in the U.S. are based on societal definitions and little else.

Are we trying to pretend that our (U.S.) society doesn’t say women are ‘the weaker sex’ and should be protected, while.men ‘don’t cry’ and all the other stereotypes that are currently in vogue?

As a 1960’s ‘hippie’ parent, I tried to go against the ‘norm’ with my sons, but it didn’t work. My youngest son says my attitude made it very difficult for him to get ahead, and in fact he blames my attitude for many of his current problems.

Do you want to give your child the best traits for his/her success in life – well I wish you the very best of luck.

davidbetterman's avatar

@shadling21 A real woman has integrity. She doesn’t kowtow to others nor give in to supercilious partners just because they give good cunnilingus.
A real woman thinks for herself, without merely parroting the twaddle of ignorant others who are merely repeating twaddle that makes them feel good because they are living a sick lifestyle.

A real woman has the ovaries to push the envelope and risk her life in the pursuit of… life!

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I should have said regardless of his sexual orientation.
Thanks for helping me to clarify that!

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@davidbetterman those aren’t qualities specific to men or women (as you said yourself) only so that’s not what I’m asking for.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@YARNLADY thank you – I am sorry your son blames you for his issues.

YARNLADY's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I eagerly await the world your children confront.

davidbetterman's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I suppose you didn’t bother to read both of my responses to @shadling21… There are 2 answers, one for the bois, and one for the goils.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@davidbetterman I did, read my answer again

davidbetterman's avatar

If you really believed your gender identity theory:
“To me the terms ‘real man’ and ‘real woman’ are meaningless because (when separated from biological sex, since gender doesn’t equal sex, ... there is no one set definition (and it doesn’t matter what the dictionary says, we don’t consult it when we think of these things)... ”

Then you would understand that there are no qualities specific to men or women…by your very definition.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@davidbetterman there aren’t, that’s what I believe. you may believe differently. so I was asking you to define what you think has a definition.

mattbrowne's avatar

A real human being is an authentic human being.

wundayatta's avatar

Here is a standard proposed by @liminal above: defining gender is problematic for me because it seems to necessitate that I be able specifically identify a group of people and then proceed to claim there is something universally essential about that selected group.

In social science, such a standard would mean that no one could identify any group of people at all. However, we do not require universality in order to specify a group, and to use universality as a standard is essentially a red herring, due to the fact that it doesn’t exist anywhere in social science.

When we seek to define something—some kind of behavior, such as say “active” listeners compared to “passive” listeners compared to “shy” listeners (these are made up categories), we often perform something called a “factor analysis.” To put it simply, a factor analysis helps us group together various pieces of information that we have into groups that seem to be measuring much the same thing.

We make up a name for this factor that we think is descriptive of the kinds of bits of information that go into that factor. No one bit of information is the same for all members of that group, yet when you count a large numbers of bits of information, it becomes clear that it is sensible to group them together.

There is no one thing that is universally essential to the group we call “women.” There are a number of factors that some in the group share with others in the group, and there are other factors that are not shared in one part of the group but are in others. This, of course, makes the definition of the category somewhat fuzzy at the edges, where the idea we call “woman” blends into the idea we call “man.” This is true for every “factor” we define. Social science is squishy, not precise like hard science, and the standards for hard science are inappropriately applied to questions of social science.

To define a “real” man or a “real” woman would not be to provide a definition that excludes all members of the other gender. You don’t have to do that for the categorization to be useful. And defining a category and then sorting something into that category does not mean the category makes sense or that the individual case is appropriately sorted into that category. So this is why social scientists always qualify their statements with “on average.” Social scientists know that there could easily be significant variation that would make one observation look as if it belongs in a different category, even though it is in this category due to a priori categorization.

So yes, I could define a real man or a real woman if you gave me enough examples of each to study. I would come up with factors that distinguish between the two for a wide variety of individuals.

It goes without saying that you need to look at all kinds of individuals in order to create categories. When we sort things—say rocks—we don’t say that we are going to define small rocks, but we’ll exclude big rocks from our definition. That makes no sense.

So definitions of categories do not need to stand on their own. If fact, they can’t stand on their own. But, this question keeps on suggesting we should apply hard science standards to the subject: either/or situations. This question seems to be arguing for a more nuanced and fuzzy definition of gender. I don’t know what the fuss is all about, since that’s the way it is, anyway.

The real issue is about the natural human tendency towards reductionism. People want to make things as simple as possible—to have as few categories as possible. So, since the fuzziness at the boundary between men and women—or “real” men and “real” women—is not that broad, most people have no problem reducing the issue of gender to two categories. It works in the vast majority of cases.

When the people who are living on the border between these categories start to make themselves more visible, it upsets people. I don’t think it upsets people so much because they are offended by mixed behavior, but because it ruins their simple system for categorizing people. Most people don’t like complexity. They prefer simplicity, and multiplying the number of genders is confusing, and, most probably believe, unnecessary.

These categories—male and female—are not arbitrary. The are subjective, but they also are useful, except at the edges where they bleed into each other. They are useful and they are convenient, and the border between them where the fuzziness lies is not that wide. That’s why people use them. And given that, for most people, expanding the number of categories doesn’t really help them in day-to-day life, those categories will remain the way most people think about the concept of gender.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@wundayatta convenience of binarism isn’t a good enough reason to alienate people that don’t fit into a binary – people use them because that’s what’s always been used…with the advance of identifiying each being genetically in the near future, these categories will be less necessary.

wundayatta's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir We can only hope that you are right, but I do not share your optimism. I am less confident that inclusiveness is part of human nature.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@wundayatta Okay, perhaps. But in my short life I have changed many minds and have educated thousands of people at NYU through programming and things have changed for trans kids and gnc kids at NYU and in NYC – my husband and I are actively invovled in a grassroots movement to start up a Brooklyn Community Pride Center, a first of its kind in Brooklyn and we are working on the trans group committee – there is hope and a lot of work but we’re there to bring help to people that are excluded…we have even the support of the DA office (who are usually transphobic).

wundayatta's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir The best of luck! It sounds like good work.

liminal's avatar

@wundayatta (as an aside I am quite embarrassed that I finally get quoted on fluther and somehow I forgot to write the word “to” between able and specifically, gah.) Anyway, you describe well what I am up against when it comes to answering the question as @Simone_De_Beauvoir lays it out. Yet, even if she would have allowed the use of biology I would be stymied over which biological variant to choose as the best identifier for a given group of people (penis, tall, short, downs syndrome, brown eyes, etc…) I am not a scientist of either hard or soft sciences. In my every day life I don’t have the advantages of laboratories or structured studies, I only have myself and the person I am encountering. Rather than going through the gymnastics of trying to pick the best categories in which to assign a person I find it best to let them tell me.

I love how you acknowledge a human tendency towards reductionism. I hope that those of us who fall so easily into such simplicity will start to better understand the limitations of such thinking and get rid of using categories or at the least start (as you say) “expanding the number of categories” with which we identify the world (gender included). But, I hear you, it is an uphill battle. I am most grateful to live in a culture where it is not unusual to find people fighting such battles. (If I have read you right in other posts you can be such a person.) In this particular area I thank you @Simone_De_Beauvoir and your husband for fighting a difficult fight, and cheers on some success!

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@liminal well put…generally speaking, in other circles, I argue against sex binarism as well but I find that with more diverse groups in terms of understanding these concepts that that’s going ‘too far’...it’s hard for people to grasp so I don’t go there

liminal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I am one of those people who has had a hard time grasping it. It is only in opening myself to others, deeply listening to their stories, and allowing their lives to challenge me that I have been able to understand. I’m reminded of Judith Butler’s words: ”“Let’s face it. We’re undone by each other. And if we’ re not, we’re missing something.”

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@liminal I like a lot of what she says, obviously

PacificRimjob's avatar

Real men have a Y chromosome.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@PacificRimjob there are plenty of people living as women, legally so, that have a y chromosome (and I asked for something that is not biological).

Coloma's avatar

Wow….pretty deep when really, the prominent word to me is REAL.

I agree with several others.

“REAL” male/female equates with integrity, honesty, authenticity, mental, emotional and spiritual solvency. Of course everyone wants a ‘real’ friend, lover, partner, neighbor, co-worker, ....who the hell wants the OPPOSITE ?

Oh yes…I want to befriend and love those of low integrity, dishonest, dysfunctional and mentally, emotionally and spiritually bankrupt.
lolol

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Coloma Well all those things you list aren’t sex/gender specific – anyone can have them, which is what we learned through this question.

Coloma's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

Exactly. Just sticking to the operative and defining word. “Real.”

Kind of overkill if you ask me. lol

shf84's avatar

You can’t really do it because those are artificial constructs “real women / men” do this or that is a simply a whiny way of trying to manipulate people into a certain behavior.

gailcalled's avatar

MIlo here; It’s like calling me a “real cat” as opposed to my wussy friend, “Indoor Max.”

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther