^Oh, I'd highly recommend it! It is one of my all time favorite novels -- just exquisitely crafted and beautifully told, and the subject matter is dealt with with both honesty and tenderness.
Ladies, are there "guy" things that you like/enjoy?
- Thread starter Tora Ziyal
- Start date
That's exactly my point. That case is about someone who was forced to live as something they weren't. It's like trying to "cure" a homosexual-- it's going to mess up the person's head. Gender or sexual orientation does not determine what clothes you want to wear or whether you can do math or whether you play with Legos or anything else about you as an individual. As you yourself said, there are more variations within the group than between the groups-- that rules out any scientific justification for gender bias.
Before I clicked the link I guessed it would be about David Reimer. The first time I read about his case was in high school, so it was about 1986. This was before the truth behind David's case was evident, so the literature I read was all about how smoothly the gender reassignment went and how he was such a happy and "normal" little girl. Makes my stomach churn to think about it.
I loved pink when I was young, not because I actually liked the colour so much, but because all the hand-me-downs I had were from my brothers. With the exception of the y-fronts if it fit, I wore it. My mother didn't like pink, so she never bought any pink dresses for me. When I was 12 I got my first ever matching set of bedroom furniture. I told my mom I wanted white furniture, and she and my brother went out to buy it when I was in hospital. When I came home and laid eyes on my new furniture--plain, square, white with a lot of wood trim--I had to struggle not to hide my disappointment. It was not at all what I wanted.
^It is terribly sad.
No one has tried to argue that there is justification for gender bias. As I've said already... no one is saying that gender stereotypes are the be all end all, just that it is dishonest to deny that there are differences between the genders, and that taking that denial to extremes is as harmful as limiting people to traditional gender roles.
ETA: Let's make this simple. There are exactly two things you've claimed that are untrue. 1. That gender is an entirely a social construct, and 2. that the case to which I linked is about "sexual orientation."(As a note, your last post makes it seem like you are still attempting to conflate gender identity and sexual orientation. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but again, they are two separate things). I have refuted those two claims, and that's it -- all this stuff about using science to justify gender bias is not a part of my argument, but non sequiturs that you have added. If you still think those two claims are true, I can provide plenty of evidence to the contrary.
You said "that's about sexual orientation", which isn't true at all, and that's all I was arguing...
No one has tried to argue that there is justification for gender bias. As I've said already... no one is saying that gender stereotypes are the be all end all, just that it is dishonest to deny that there are differences between the genders, and that taking that denial to extremes is as harmful as limiting people to traditional gender roles.
ETA: Let's make this simple. There are exactly two things you've claimed that are untrue. 1. That gender is an entirely a social construct, and 2. that the case to which I linked is about "sexual orientation."(As a note, your last post makes it seem like you are still attempting to conflate gender identity and sexual orientation. I'm not sure if that's intentional, but again, they are two separate things). I have refuted those two claims, and that's it -- all this stuff about using science to justify gender bias is not a part of my argument, but non sequiturs that you have added. If you still think those two claims are true, I can provide plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
swords, knives, role-playing games (the old style books and pen and paper variety)...
I'm a bit torn over the girls lego stuff because I agree that I hate that it's no longer gender neutral, but seeing my daughter's reaction - she loves that there is now lego that comes in pink and purple and has mainly girl characters.
Which made me realise lego kits haven't had equality in their mini-figs for a long time. It wasn't just the introduction of Lego Friends that made it gendered.
I'm a bit torn over the girls lego stuff because I agree that I hate that it's no longer gender neutral, but seeing my daughter's reaction - she loves that there is now lego that comes in pink and purple and has mainly girl characters.
Which made me realise lego kits haven't had equality in their mini-figs for a long time. It wasn't just the introduction of Lego Friends that made it gendered.
I haven't added any non sequiturs, I'm just trying to parse your point. I said that there are two aspects to every person-- their humanity and their individuality-- and you said it is "dangerous" to take that to "extremes." This implies that there are assumptions we can make (must make if it's dangerous not to) about people based solely on their gender. If you're not saying that, then you agree with me, and it's the David Reimer case that's the non sequitur, and I have no idea why we're having this conversation.
You're not parsing my argument, you're having a completely different argument. Again, I've refuted two claims you made, and that's all I've done.
Claim 1: Gender is entirely a social construct.
Refutation: The link to the David Reimer case is evidence to support my refutation of that claim, and therefore not a non sequitur. It has been proved that gender is not an entirely social construct, and I'd be happy to direct you to more evidence on the subject.
Claim 2: The David Reimer case is about sexual orientation.
Refutation: It is about gender identity, which is biological, and separate from sexual orientation. Again, I would be happy to direct you to the considerable evidence on the subject.
Neither of these arguments have anything to do with the notion of using science to justify gender bias, nor do they make claims about people's personal preferences. They are two facts, do you still deny them?
It would be lovely if we lived in a simple, black and white world, where gender was a social construct, and the only two aspects of people were their "humanity and individuality." It's a beautiful notion, boiling people down to those two aspects, but it's just not true.
The truth is more complicated, and if you find it unpalatable, that doesn't stop it being true. Of course there are assumptions we can make based on gender! We can assume, in general, that women will be smaller than men. We can assume, in general, that men are at greater risk for heart disease. We can assume, in general, that women will have a more robust corpus callosum than men. We can assume, in general, that women will do slightly better on language related tasks and men slightly better on tasks requiring spacial intelligence. We can assume, in general, that little girls will be more likely to play with dolls than little boys. And as long as we remember that, again, the variability between individuals is greater than the variability between groups, then it is perfectly reasonable to make certain assumptions based on gender. These facts in no way justify gender bias, because we are smart enough to know that they are grand generalizations that say nothing about individuals, nor do they make any quality judgements about the capabilities or worth of men and women individually or as whole groups. Yeah, it takes more effort to recognize the truth than to maintain a pleasing black and white fantasy where we are all simply our humanity and our individuality, but it is the reality, and to not recognize it is just as ignorant and dangerous as to confine people to strict gender-stereotypical roles.
So there's my argument parsed. Let's look at yours.
My position makes no assumptions about individuals other than that they are complicated, it makes no value statements, it makes no judgements. What about your position? It makes no assumptions about groups, but what assumptions does it make about individuals?
1. It assumes that anyone displaying stereotypical gender preferences has been "brainwashed" or "bullied" by society into doing so. This devalues a lot of the human experience. It devalues the pain and beauty of the motherly urges I began to feel a few years ago. It devalues the struggle of a straight woman to find safety and comfort with a man, when as a group, men can be threatening. It devalues the power of the realization that little boys struggling to read can be pulled into literacy through high-interest topics. It devalues the intelligence and tenderness of the man who balances innate urges to defend and protect with respect for his partner in order to recognize that she is his equal.
2. It assumes that we have a choice in our personal gender identity. Do you not realize that by denying that there is a biological foundation to gender identity you are denying the entirety of the trans community? How, indeed, do trans men and women fit into your world where "[g]ender roles and stereotypes are simply cultural expectations that people are bullied and brainwashed into following"?
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, how can you maintain the contention that gender is entirely socially constructed? How can you not recognize the danger in this paradigm?
I remember when you (tsq) and I had an argument about this a while back, and I have since become more informed about the nature of gender in general. I appreciate you fighting the good fight on this. 
^
And I appreciate that we didn't let an argument get in the way of being friends!
This subject is just something I'm really passionate about, as it is an intersection of three areas that are important to me: neuropsychology, LGBTQ rights, and feminism.
And I appreciate that we didn't let an argument get in the way of being friends!
This subject is just something I'm really passionate about, as it is an intersection of three areas that are important to me: neuropsychology, LGBTQ rights, and feminism.
While I understand that biological sex and psychological gender are not the same thing, I was originally taught that the words gender and sex (as an attribute of anatomy) were synonyms.
As noted in the introduction to the wiki, there is considerable nonuniformity of usage in practice, and what meanings the terms have is generally a function of context.
The problem of how the terms ought to be used would seem to be only complicated by observations such as that there's a trichotomy "between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role". As long as sex and gender are the only two terms to spread among three or more distinct things, multiple senses of at least one of those words are inevitable, and qualification is essential to avoid confusion.
Plus, although one should expect further shifting of how the terms are to be used, especially if the social science definitions win out in all circles, as they reasonably should, that is by no means guaranteed.
Just to put my life experience in context, the way I was taught it originally, the word gender was preferred to the word sex, simply because sex is a "dirtier" word, from the prevailing, though hypothetical, vantage point of social conventions and propriety. However, I think I can get over that hangup and avoid the temptation to snickeringly think "Sex Y/N" like Beavis or Butt-head when I see "Sex M/F" on a questionnaire.* There is some discussion of that here:
* - I actually got over that decades ago.
As noted in the introduction to the wiki, there is considerable nonuniformity of usage in practice, and what meanings the terms have is generally a function of context.
The problem of how the terms ought to be used would seem to be only complicated by observations such as that there's a trichotomy "between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role". As long as sex and gender are the only two terms to spread among three or more distinct things, multiple senses of at least one of those words are inevitable, and qualification is essential to avoid confusion.
Plus, although one should expect further shifting of how the terms are to be used, especially if the social science definitions win out in all circles, as they reasonably should, that is by no means guaranteed.
Just to put my life experience in context, the way I was taught it originally, the word gender was preferred to the word sex, simply because sex is a "dirtier" word, from the prevailing, though hypothetical, vantage point of social conventions and propriety. However, I think I can get over that hangup and avoid the temptation to snickeringly think "Sex Y/N" like Beavis or Butt-head when I see "Sex M/F" on a questionnaire.* There is some discussion of that here:
* - I actually got over that decades ago.
^That is a very good point.
I tend to use gender as shorthand for gender identity (which, obviously, is the biological psychological aspect of the trichotomy you discussed). I think gender roles are informed by all three: the biological gender identity, the sociological sex role, and the biological sex. I definitely agree that some clarity in how terms are used would be beneficial, but I think that is also complicated by how many combinations there are! I do think cigender, transgender, and genderqueer are good terms for gender identities.
I tend to use gender as shorthand for gender identity (which, obviously, is the biological psychological aspect of the trichotomy you discussed). I think gender roles are informed by all three: the biological gender identity, the sociological sex role, and the biological sex. I definitely agree that some clarity in how terms are used would be beneficial, but I think that is also complicated by how many combinations there are! I do think cigender, transgender, and genderqueer are good terms for gender identities.
None. That's the whole point.
No, that would be mostly impossible. Certainly if someone goes against the grain you know it, but if they conform it's harder to know if they are doing it out of pressure or preference. That should be obvious.
Treating people as individuals devalues nothing. That's a rather bizarre notion. But this paragraph, along with your repetition of the idea that individuality "simplifies" and making broad assumptions "complicates," demonstrates how political this philosophy is.
That question doesn't even make any sense. They fit in the same way everyone else fits in. By being who they are. When you talk about having a choice in gender identity, you seem to be once again talking about sexual orientation, despite claiming that you're not. Gender identity, as opposed to orientation, is a concept predicated on the context of a gender-biased society. Sexual orientation is biological-- personality is also biology, but is also something that one cultivates. There is such a thing as free will.
Because there's no way that treating people as individuals can be dangerous, and there's every way that making assumptions about people can be dangerous. That's stereotyping, prejudice, profiling. Political fashions come and go, but people still remain people.
Biologically speaking, across species and sexes, the production of testosterone increases aggressive behavior. The production of estrogen produces nurturing. This is biologically sound. We are not above the animal kingdom--we are right in the middle of it. Some don't like to hear that we are influenced by our brain structures and hormones, but we are.
Something to read:
http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.html
Therefore, we cannot be conditioned after birth into being a transsexual. This is hard-wired into our brain. This is not political, but biological. We are not blank slates coming out of the womb. We have structures already in place within our brain. We already have the endocrine system, and how well-regulated we are in that regard.
Does this mean that all girls must like pink? Or can't be soldiers? NO. It means that women will be drawn to roles that allow them to nurture where men are drawn to roles that allow them to be aggressive. Is biology the end of the story? NO. But to deny it is to be foolhardy and show either A.) A lack of knowledge, or B.) a denial of facts as we know them. I know as a liberal (I am assuming you are, and I am one, too) we tend to think of everything in terms of equality. But we are not one sex. We are two, biologically speaking. We have differences and to deny them is to deny the science behind this person's opinion.
EDIT: This was invaluable to me.
Something to read:
http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.html
Therefore, we cannot be conditioned after birth into being a transsexual. This is hard-wired into our brain. This is not political, but biological. We are not blank slates coming out of the womb. We have structures already in place within our brain. We already have the endocrine system, and how well-regulated we are in that regard.
Does this mean that all girls must like pink? Or can't be soldiers? NO. It means that women will be drawn to roles that allow them to nurture where men are drawn to roles that allow them to be aggressive. Is biology the end of the story? NO. But to deny it is to be foolhardy and show either A.) A lack of knowledge, or B.) a denial of facts as we know them. I know as a liberal (I am assuming you are, and I am one, too) we tend to think of everything in terms of equality. But we are not one sex. We are two, biologically speaking. We have differences and to deny them is to deny the science behind this person's opinion.
EDIT: This was invaluable to me.
Last edited:
If you are an actual human being, that is not even possible.
What does "treating people as individuals" actually mean? This sounds like approaching every encounter with someone new as an experience that occurs in a vacuum, free of any expectations, preconceptions, biases, assumptions, or prejudices. If that is what you mean, then as I said above, that is not possible. Even if you think that is what you do, it isn't. You are always informed by your past experiences and ingrained expectations.
Sorry, what? So one chooses their sexual orientation and their gender identity? And somehow those are the same thing?
Wrong on both counts.It's always funny how it's straight cisgender white guys who talk about "treating people as individuals," as if identity politics only exist to inconvenience them.
Humans are individuals but, as we are highly social creatures, our identities are shaped in relation to one another. Acknowledging this is not prejudice or profiling, it's recognizing that people have identities that are both individual and collective, and one informs the other. In addition, even outside social influence, gender exists at a biological level, and is in fact distinct from biological sex. Gender expression is informed by cultural expectations, but your own gender identity is not. Sexual orientation works similarly but it is not the same thing.
So I guess that's mostly a girlie thing again.
"Bullied" and "brainwashed" are in quotations because they are the words you used to describe people who conform to traditional gender roles.
There is nothing political about facts, only how you spin them. And thus far, I have made a valiant effort (if I may say so myself) to not spin the facts in any way. And I have succeeded.
The fact is, people are complicated. We are not made up of only two components, we are made up of innumerable factors, both inherent and environmental, which come together in a tremendous variety of combinations to shape us into who we are. The nature vs nurture argument was put to rest decades ago when years upon years of good research proved that everything about a human being is a combination of the two. And that's a beautiful thing. The tabla rasa theory of psychology has been long disproved, RJ...you need to catch up on your research.
Oh yes...I forgot. We all go through years of turmoil due to the psychological trauma of a gender identity that does not match our biological sex, and need gender reassignment surgery to correct the mismatch...
No, I can...I can...
I can.
You have confused gender identity and sociological gender role, I think. The former is biological, and the latter is social (though informed in part by biology). If gender identity was "a concept predicated on the context of a gender-biased society" there would be no transgender people. Transgender people's biological sex does not match their biological gender identity. This means they often feel more comfortable in the sociological gender role of the gender that matches their gender identity. David Reimer is a case study because he was forced to live in the sociological gender role that did not match his biological gender identity, the difference between him and other trans men, of course, was that the sociological gender role didn't match his biological sex either.
This is completely apart from sexual orientation. Trans people can be gay or straight or bi. A trans man, for example is not a lesbian, he is a straight transman. His biological sex may be female, but he identifies as male and heterosexual.
DANGER!
Again, there is nothing dangerous or political about facts, only how you spin them.
(R.I.P Shirley.)
Thanks for correcting my typo!
I think we're landing in some extremes here and saying a lot of things we can't really say with 100% accuracy yet. Many aspects of gender are social constructs, and I disagree with TSQ's look at motherly feelings as somehow instinctively female. This isn't really so and has caused a lot of distress in new mothers who feel there is something wrong with them because they don't feel a "mother's intuition." When you also factor in the rise of women who are saying they don't believe their lives would be better if they had children, and we're talking about 1 out of 5 women here, it starts to look like maternal instinct or motherly urges might be more complicated than something we're just born with. Most of the other things you said are true, but I'm not a person who is interested in parenting so I've done a lot of research into stuff like this and it turns out a lot of women aren't interested in it and some think they are only to find out it wasn't what they thought and they're not ready.
On the flip side, we very consistently see children performing differently on tests due to their sex. At one point the IQ test had to be changed to reflect this as it kept underscoring women. So to say it's all a social construct is also foolish and shows a lack of nuance.
Of the two sides, I think a lot of gender differences are socially constructed, especially the more problematic ones or ones that dictate how people should live, but it's a situation where it's not good to get entrenched in any one side as it's an ongoing exploration.
Edit: I'm somewhat hesitant to post this as I'm not fond of the idea of a man hijacking discussion in one of the few threads devoted to women so I'll try to let this stand as my last thoughts unless clarification is needed.
On the flip side, we very consistently see children performing differently on tests due to their sex. At one point the IQ test had to be changed to reflect this as it kept underscoring women. So to say it's all a social construct is also foolish and shows a lack of nuance.
Of the two sides, I think a lot of gender differences are socially constructed, especially the more problematic ones or ones that dictate how people should live, but it's a situation where it's not good to get entrenched in any one side as it's an ongoing exploration.
Edit: I'm somewhat hesitant to post this as I'm not fond of the idea of a man hijacking discussion in one of the few threads devoted to women so I'll try to let this stand as my last thoughts unless clarification is needed.
Last edited:
I think it's accepted, as this has previously been mentioned in this thread, that generalisations such as the one mentioned above come with the disclaimer that, as with all generalisations, there are plenty of exceptions and wide variations.
My personal opinion is that the social construct aspect of gender is based upon the general (though, again, widely varied within those parametres) biological gender constructs.
Yeah...I thought I made it pretty clear, by, you know, repeating a million times over that the variability between individuals is greater than the variability between groups that I am speaking about generalizations. I never contended that all women do or should have motherly urges...just that the drive is in part biological.
Similar threads
