Class And Gender: Only One Is A Social Construct

"Class," a set of economic categories that people fall into based upon their personal wealth, is not something that a person could fit into without at least a small society to give rise to these categories on a social level.  If people were to live in social isolation and have no contact with others, they would have no socioeconomic class.  They would still have their bodies, which have usually fall into the biological categories of male and female.  In a social context, they might be mistreated in various ways for being men or women and might have assumptions made about their psychological nature.  This could never happen if there were no people to enforce asinine gender stereotypes as if they are part of gender.

Economic classes cannot exist without social beings to create and uphold them, and currency itself is purely a social construct, but gender is a purely biological reality (that has nothing to do with psychological traits) that is not created by societies.  Anatomical and physiological differences between men and women are natural, not socially constructed, although all gender stereotypes about psychological traits are nothing but illusions embraced by irrational civilizations.  Pushing back against stereotypes of men and women is inherently rational as a goal, but there are still ways to do so for the sake of incorrect, stupid ideas.

It is becoming more popular for people in the West to actually believe that gender stereotypes are gender and that gender is a social construct separate from the physical body.  In actuality, gender stereotypes of any kind are just the red herring personality traits that irrationalistic people think are tied to one's body.  Gender is just another term for biological sex, not a certain set of personality traits or talents supposedly connected to one's genitalia and chromosomes.  Even on a linguistic level, I have yet to see people to pretend otherwise with things other than gender.  Race is rightly acknowledged to be separate from racial stereotypes, class is rightly acknowledged to be separate from classist stereotypes, and so on.

Only with gender do I regularly see people claiming that gender stereptypes and gender itself are the same thing.  Ask someone if one's personality traits determine one's social/economic class, and they might be more likely to understand why this is logically impossible than they are to admit the same is true about trying to conflate the myths of gender roles and nonphysical gender traits with gender itself.  However, what is true of one must also be true of the other.  The only difference in this aspect of the two topics is which part of someone's status as an individual--the gender of their body or their economic standing--a person is focusing on.

Consistency is a very basic but highly important part of true rationality.  Without consistency, one can only haphazardly, incoherently leap from one stance to the next without any sincere evaluation of what must be true about the whole of an issue.  It takes depth and intentionality to be consistent by design.  Otherwise, a person just happened to be consistent and does not truly possess any substance regarding their beliefs on the matter.  How someone treats things like gender, class, and race is one way to see how consistent they really are.  Will they treat both gender and class as social constructs?  Only one is a social construct, and this does not in any way validate the stereotypical traits that by nature have nothing to do with the gender of someone's body.