Gender - what is it practically

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:

What exactly is the problem here? Why exactly does it have to be devoided from biology?

Because that leads back to "There is no gender, only sex". Then being trans becomes just "being unhappy with your body". And it also stops being a cultural thing.

Satinavian:

Addendum_Forthcoming:

What exactly is the problem here? Why exactly does it have to be devoided from biology?

Because that leads back to "There is no gender, only sex"

And clearly only idiots truly believe that. Science says 'no'. History says 'no'. A cursory glance at our world says 'no'.

There are lots of people who believe exactly that. Declaring any and all differences of men and women in society a result of inborn tendencies, going out of their way to spin strange stories about how men and women should have evolved to have exactly the roles they just occupy and how every change in society is just directly against nature. We had even some of that in this very thread.

Which is why it is so important to reiterate again and again that gender is not biology, it is culture. And why it is so important to keep this distinction.

Honestly, if we can't discuss gender seperate from sex, we are basically admitting that those people have a point. Which i really don't want to do.

Satinavian:
There are lots of people who believe exactly that. Declaring any and all differences of men and women in society a result of inborn tendencies, going out of their way to spin strange stories about how men and women should have evolved to have exactly the roles they just occupy and how every change in society is just directly against nature.

Which is why it is so important to reiterate again and again that gender is not biology, it is culture. And why it is so important to keep this distinction.

Hnestly, if we can't discuss gender seperate from sex, we are basically admitting that those people have a point. Which i really don't want to do.

But that is scientifically illiterate. Gender isn't magic. Ignoring the environmental and psychosocial dimensions of cross-gender identification is at the heart of giving trans people justice.

When idiots says gender isn't real, I quiz them how they feel about early foetal development, womb conditions, and early brain development... that how would they feel if I called them 'dick for brains' given that's all they consider as to be their extents of definitive sexual dimorphism and all that's relevant, not necessarily your actual brain development... the center of your sapience and everything that you are...?

And when they stammer and have no answers for that, I feel like I've made some small difference. At least in terms of the mental fatigue and investment I'm willing to make when having to deal with these people back when I was in transgender student advocacy and community work. Helping trans students get jobs, find decent roommates, and access good doctor's offices and other services.

I am not doing anyone justice by ignoring the science. Trans people deserve justice. And knowledge, and respect for the facts, will be liberating... at least one may hope.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

When idiots says gender isn't real, I quiz them how they feel about early foetal development, womb conditions, and early brain development... that how would they feel if I called them 'dick for brains' given that's all they consider as to be their extents of definitive sexual dimorphism, not necessarily your actual brain development... the center of your sapience and everything that you are...?

They will just say that there is either no influence/difference or that it is part of sex anyway, counting every and all differences as part of sexual dimorphism, including the brain.

The whole word of gender came into use in the 50ies to avoid exactly that. To have a word for clearly non-biological stuff

Satinavian:
They will just say that there is either no influence/difference or that it is part of sex anyway, counting every and all differences as part of sexual dimorphism, including the brain.

And they'd be wrong. And if they're happy with being intentionally wrong, someone like me isn't going to change their minds. One does hope some manner of a Mill's utilitarianism and the morality of forming the most complete opinion possible holds sway.

And if it doesn't, then the fight itself is bigger than just transgender advocacy and rather a full blown distrust of empiricism and honest interrogation of the world.

When intentionally, objectively wrong people say 'gender doesn't exist, only sex' despite the wealth of information that exists that proves biology is incredibly messy, and social relationships to ideas concerning it even more so, what they're really saying is;

1: I don't give a fuck about how society treats trans people, because clearly gender doesn't exist (even though it does).

And/or...

2: Clearly I don't understand trans people and what they go through, and on that basis alone trans people earn the strife they get.

And/or

3: Clearly trans people often go through ridiculous pains and tortures over how others treat them for no reason, and clearly this has no basis in objective reality of why they do it 'cos I never had a problem with gender identity (and thus doesn't exist)...

For starters, it's fucking stupid to pretend like cross-gender identification and trans people in general don't exist. They clearly do... we even have a pretty good list of predictor traits and conditions that elevate the chances of its expression. So provably trans people exist in nature. That trans people, regardless of social evolution, still exist in spite of it. Have historically existed. Have certain environmental and biological conditions that elevate their chances to exist on a case by case basis.

And all of this is objectively provable. A cursory glance should tell you that gender matters, and cross gender identification is on one basis environmental and biological... that everything of humanity is environmental and biological... and if any argument against based on some fucking stupid act of handwaving this deserves derision and contempt as both intellectual dishonesty and intentional maliciousness.

No... cross-gender identification is not some 5 year old male playing with Barbies, or watching MLP and looking at one of the Mane 6 as a role model. We can actually codify gender dysphoria. We can do so because we have built up diagnostic understandings of it.

So if people are still willing to ignore basic understandings of the human condition, what more exactly can you expect? Should we treat things like anxiety disorders like PTSD as if divorced from either biological, environmental or psychosocial dimensions? That would be fucking stupid, right? Almost as stupid as saying it doesn't actually exist.

Yet why is it people with gender dysphoria are the only ones to be treated this way?

If the best you've got is 'cos, like sex not gender...' Then maybe you're just being dishonest. If the only reason is like; "Cos sex, not gender...' Why stop at sex? For what reason? Why not everyone over 140 IQ and everyone beneath it?

If sexual orientation doesn't really matter because it's 'related to sex' as if that wasn't a big enough fucking intellectual deadend... then surely IQ is a better measure? This is particularly better because sex isn't even that descriptive of humans. I have Klinefelter's which I would argue isn't really intersex, but I was infertile to begin with... So what fucking point is sex to me if natural procreation isn't that big a deal and gender doesn't exist? Why not just have IQ? Everyone has an IQ. Well, everyone cognizant to couple with can take a test, at least.

Socioeconomic standing? Anyone worth at least $4 million, and all the rest of the paupers. Also a better measure and far more descriptive than 'sex' in terms of people and their capabilities. Hard value of wealth.

Easier to tell, as well.

I can think of a dozen more qualifiers that better actually describe a person than their sex...

Funnily enough gender is one of them... and I'm still waiting for an answer why it wouldn't be...

Oh, and guess what? All of them have a mix of psychosocial, environmental and biological aspects to it. And guess what ... nobody handwaves those dimensions, either. Fancy that.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Oh snip!

First off, I?d like to politely ask you not to make martyrs of victims for the sake of your moral tirade, I get that you are very invested in the subject matter, but this is disrespectful.

Secondly, scientific research has, so far, yielded inconclusive results as to the nature of gender as an objectively identifiable trait, identifying as trans requires the individual to have a very specific interpretation of the concept and apply it to themselves in a away that makes them conclude as such, the same aspects that could make one guy conclude they're a "girly dude" can make another guy conclude to be trans.
There's a myriad of reasons how a person may come to that conclusion, psychological, biological or any varied combination of the two.

The most honest answer is simply: "We're not sure.", but that is not relevant as far as activism goes, even IF we hypothetically were to prove that the concept of gender is as valid as a metaphysical soul do we still have a bunch of dysphoric people that need help, that is the kind of justice that matters.

In terms of healthcare, one should be wary not to politicize it's research or methods, lest you risk misunderstanding the condition of the patient or deny them a treatment that they desperately need.

Combustion Kevin:

First off, I?d like to politely ask you not to make martyrs of victims for the sake of your moral tirade, I get that you are very invested in the subject matter, but this is disrespectful.

Yes, as a trans person talking about trans issues. Glad to see someone is trying to look out for my interests by telling me not to say that maybe society should stop hurting us at an inordinately high rate. Clearly I should be quiet .... for my own sake?

Secondly, scientific research has, so far, yielded inconclusive results as to the nature of gender as an objectively identifiable trait, identifying as trans requires the individual to have a very specific interpretation of the concept and apply it to themselves in a away that makes them conclude as such, the same aspects that could make one guy conclude they're a "girly dude" can make another guy conclude to be trans.
There's a myriad of reasons how a person may come to that conclusion, psychological, biological or any varied combination of the two.

Never said there was objective scientific proof that a person will be trans. I expressly wrote this. I said we have a pretty good list of predictor traits that we believe (know) elevate the chance of its expression. I also wrote before the reasons why it's better to think of gender as a spectrum because even if there were objective ideas of the environmental (prenatal development, etc), biological (genetics & womb conditions, etc) and psychosocial (cultural ideas of gender nonconformity) conditions relating to its expression, there are a multitude of reasons that may alienate and differentiate a person's understandings and expression of gender identity.

You know ... by simply looking at the world and recognizing that gender and trans people is a thing.

Also the ridiculous mental gymnastics that goes with trans people that someone assume that it is either/or 'biological' or 'environmental' or 'psychosocial' in its dimensions, without considering the fact that it just might be all of those things in its expression. You know ... like a whole lot of things about the human condition we wouldn't just say don't exist.

Even if there were entirely organic reasons for trans people to exist, is not then challenged by a conceptualization that gender is/isn't a social construct. Society clearly changes, and clearly there are biological causation for cross-gender identification.

Gender is not magic. It has explanations for being.

In terms of healthcare, one should be wary not to politicize it's research or methods, lest you risk misunderstanding the condition of the patient or deny them a treatment that they desperately need.

Politicizing it how? By telling people they're wrong if they think gender isn't a thing?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Politicizing it how? By telling people they're wrong if they think gender isn't a thing?

It might very well not be a thing, merely a way people contextualize human behavior and personalities along socio-cultural lines, you won't poof into non-existence if that were the case, in fact, the exact nature of gender won't affect your life much at all, it won't solve a person's dysphoria and won't dictate what is considered an acceptable expression of one's self or how they live their lives.
Some might try to, but given the general acceptance of the LGBT in general would make them very ineffective.

It could also very well be a thing, but that won't stop bigots from riding the hate train, the nature of gender only has practical value to the people that help treat those who are in distress because of it.

Basically, the relevance of gender to people in general should be as impactful as a person's name, it won't change you as a person, but for decency's sake, you better get it right or you're gonna make communication very complicated for everyone involved.

Combustion Kevin:

It might very well not be a thing,

Prove it.

Merely a way people contextualize human behavior and personalities along socio-cultural lines,

Also known as psychosocial development. And given what we know of developmental psych, arguably biological. So, you know. The fact of the matter is that not all brains are the same ... or even developed the same in utero ... and that we know that prenatal hormone exposure influences development...

Here's a thing ... tell me why you don't think gender is a thing?

Or better yet ... show me a picture of an ungendered society...

You won't poof into non-existence if that were the case, in fact, the exact nature of gender won't affect your life much at all, it won't solve a person's dysphoria and won't dictate what is considered an acceptable expression of one's self or how they live their lives.

Proof would be nice ... after all if people didn't spend time during my formative years abusing me over something thatapparently doesn't exist, I might actually believe you. Speaking from personal experience, when I started transitioning, when I actually begun HRT on spironolactone and estrogen, it helped me a bucketload. It was great ... less depressed, less workaholic, managed to actually sleep properly, felt far more comfortable in my own skin. Had to pee a hell of a lot more, but diuretics... no complaints at all.

Legitimately happy that I hadn't really felt when I wasn't on a motorcycle and on a country road where I could open it up a bit more. Prior HRT the only way I could unwind was riding my bike, either that or drink far too much. After HRT, a whole host of psychological benefits.

I can't imagine that just not being a thing even in a society that didn't give a shit during my formative years. Precisely because all the abuse I suffered was reactionary to my comportment... not when I was totally closeted, but rather when I was increasingly upset by having to pretend I was okay in my own skin.

Unless people actually want to engage with why that might be, I'm going to continually assume people have no answer beyond the obvious that gender conformity is a thing, and that gender confirmation treatment options is therapeutic.

It could also very well be a thing, but that won't stop bigots from riding the hate train, the nature of gender only has practical value to the people that help treat those who are in distress because of it.

It doesn't matter if bigots continue riding that train. No one is legitimately expecting bigotry to end simply because I exist and I spent a few afternoons in an community work shop for trans students at one uni campus in a city of millions for 5 years. What matters is that it becomes a moral failure that governments can simply allow that bigotry to persist and remove trans people from their equal participation in society.

It becomes a moral failure when politicians who are supposed to be driven and guided by actual values that hypocrisy should be considered worse than losing an election. That justice for all is not just a buzzterm but rather a recognition we need to be better as people, even if that requires a hardstand on the values of basic accommodation of one's constituents.

It becomes a moral failure that a government that would openly reduce the rights and mobility of a group of people who already have precious little, and allow active hostility towards them in public places, and then demand their taxes despite provably reduced representation. That rather than ending their disenfranchisement in terms of the law, and the increased hostilities they face alone, by those that seek to make them more miserable and less socially mobile... they instead choose to allowt hese people greater means to solidify those social hatreds and cause more misery.

And if this basic concept of hypocrisy is worse than losing an election to represent the interests of all your constituents cannot survive when there are 'bigots on the train', then those bigots will always be there regardless of what I do.

KingsGambit:
This is extremely disingenuous. No we don't all "know the definitions of genders" or accept that they are separate from the sexes.

Then define what it means to be masculine and feminine in an absolutely cross cultural way without divorcing those traits from being explicitly tied to biology and then explain how they can then vary between societies. That's literally the reason sociologists distinguish between the two concepts -- one describing which bits and chromosomes a person has, and thus what likely hormones, bone structures, brain structures, reproductive roles, etc, etc they will or can have and the other describing what social behaviors are expected of such a person within a given society (which can vary quite a lot in the details, even if there will be broad cross-cultural trends [like a tendency to try to keep women out of apparent danger]).

Or to put it another way, it's one thing to say that in general males possess slightly more total brain mass (same can be said of nearly any organ, as males also tend to be overall larger) and a larger proportion of grey matter relative to white matter, but another entirely to (for example) say there's a biological reason why women should wear dresses and men shouldn't (if anything you's think the dangly bits that prefer being kept cool would suggest the opposite).

Lil devils x:
I think what people in western culture have decided of "what makes a real man" has been decided by men, rather than women. Women just have to deal with it as they have dealt with so many other things in the west. It is created by and enforced by men.

I'd disagree with this to a degree. I'd argue that women have more influence over what is considered masculine than they are generally willing to admit, essentially through sexual selection. If guys who wore pink frilly skirts were significantly and consistently more able to attract more attractive girls than guys wearing other things, within a decade pink frilly skirts would be considered one of the most masculine clothing items.

Or to put it another way, you know how people routinely claim that masculinity is a performance? Ask yourself this, who is the audience? And note that gay masculinity is not identical to straight masculinity - different performances for different audiences.

evilthecat:
women getting jobs will destroy society

I mean, that's the only one that actually caused some damage -- dramatically increasing the labor pool had a negative effect on wages and the expectation that both parents work (more a necessity than before due to the aforementioned depressed wages) means less parental hours available for, you know, actually raising children. Both eminently foreseeable side effects that we could have planned around, but didn't in a meaningful way.

trunkage:
I think the current thinking is that they are generally similar with some differences. The basic structure is the same but some areas are bigger in different sexes. Eg. Bigger Corpus Collosum in women, bigger motor control areas in men. When people were railing against the difference in the sexes decades ago, it was against things like "women can't maths due to their brain" becuase it was fundamentally not true and was more about men making sure women stayed away from their jobs, and women enforcing 'the family lifestyle.' I.e. Stay at home mum.

These days that has swung so far as to reach "acknowledging that the extreme end of the bell curve for a given trait might not have a 50/50 sex distribution and this might cause an organization able to be extremely picky that values such a trait to end up not selecting equal numbers of men and women is grounds for being fired because <Cathy Newman Voice>what you are saying is that women can't do math</Cathy Newman Voice>."

Schadrach:

KingsGambit:
This is extremely disingenuous. No we don't all "know the definitions of genders" or accept that they are separate from the sexes.

Then define what it means to be masculine and feminine in an absolutely cross cultural way without divorcing those traits from being explicitly tied to biology and then explain how they can then vary between societies. That's literally the reason sociologists distinguish between the two concepts -- one describing which bits and chromosomes a person has, and thus what likely hormones, bone structures, brain structures, reproductive roles, etc, etc they will or can have and the other describing what social behaviors are expected of such a person within a given society (which can vary quite a lot in the details, even if there will be broad cross-cultural trends [like a tendency to try to keep women out of apparent danger]).

Or to put it another way, it's one thing to say that in general males possess slightly more total brain mass (same can be said of nearly any organ, as males also tend to be overall larger) and a larger proportion of grey matter relative to white matter, but another entirely to (for example) say there's a biological reason why women should wear dresses and men shouldn't (if anything you's think the dangly bits that prefer being kept cool would suggest the opposite).

Lil devils x:
I think what people in western culture have decided of "what makes a real man" has been decided by men, rather than women. Women just have to deal with it as they have dealt with so many other things in the west. It is created by and enforced by men.

I'd disagree with this to a degree. I'd argue that women have more influence over what is considered masculine than they are generally willing to admit, essentially through sexual selection. If guys who wore pink frilly skirts were significantly and consistently more able to attract more attractive girls than guys wearing other things, within a decade pink frilly skirts would be considered one of the most masculine clothing items.

Or to put it another way, you know how people routinely claim that masculinity is a performance? Ask yourself this, who is the audience? And note that gay masculinity is not identical to straight masculinity - different performances for different audiences.

evilthecat:
women getting jobs will destroy society

I mean, that's the only one that actually caused some damage -- dramatically increasing the labor pool had a negative effect on wages and the expectation that both parents work (more a necessity than before due to the aforementioned depressed wages) means less parental hours available for, you know, actually raising children. Both eminently foreseeable side effects that we could have planned around, but didn't in a meaningful way.

trunkage:
I think the current thinking is that they are generally similar with some differences. The basic structure is the same but some areas are bigger in different sexes. Eg. Bigger Corpus Collosum in women, bigger motor control areas in men. When people were railing against the difference in the sexes decades ago, it was against things like "women can't maths due to their brain" becuase it was fundamentally not true and was more about men making sure women stayed away from their jobs, and women enforcing 'the family lifestyle.' I.e. Stay at home mum.

These days that has swung so far as to reach "acknowledging that the extreme end of the bell curve for a given trait might not have a 50/50 sex distribution and this might cause an organization able to be extremely picky that values such a trait to end up not selecting equal numbers of men and women is grounds for being fired because <Cathy Newman Voice>what you are saying is that women can't do math</Cathy Newman Voice>."

No, it doesn't work that way. HE has no problem being attractive to women:
image
Even Marylin Manson can look like he does and still get married.
image

Guys don't dress like that because of what other guys think, not because of women. Men are taught they don't want to be singled out by other guys and be targeted from a young age and it is enforced all throughout their life because they don't want to be harassed by other guys. Guys can find women who will want them regardless of what they wear.

the December King:

Lil devils x:
Every evening, the women go from home to home to make sure everyone has enough to eat and everyone is okay in every home. It is a core part of what it means to be Hopi in caring for each other and all things.

I'm curious- did the men not care? Were they not allowed go from home to home to help others as well, or even to show initiative and go their own?

Of course they care, and men could accompany the women if they wished, though I don't think I have ever seen that actually happen. It was just one of those long standing traditions that the mothers and grandmothers do. No one would tell someone they couldn't do it if they wanted to. Honestly, I think the men rather liked the women tending to them in such ways, so that may have been why they just let them do it and not do it themselves.

Combustion Kevin:

Lil devils x:

No, women who were not " slaves" were/ are considered property rather than a person who is seen as a equal. You have families trying to sell them off, the father of the bride to "give their daughter", asking for the fathers hand in marriage, allowing people to " tell the woman what is best for her" , men telling women what they should wear, where they can go, who they should talk to, how they can spend their money.. it is so deep in society at so many levels to pick away a person like they are not capable of determining these things for themselves and anyone else should have a say in it at all. They remove her choice about everything and try to influence or undermine her decisions at every turn. Even the church here tells women they should stay with men who beat or abuse them. It is disgusting.

I'm sorry if I upset you (or mistake you for being such, this is text speak after all), I do intend to learn more about your culture and try to relate it to my own in comparison, but I feel your view of what was considered "normal" in western societies is a little inaccurate, enslaving our own daughters, sisters, mothers and wives would not only be grossly sociopathic, it'd be downright dysfunctional, on top of the fact that no woman in her right mind would go along with it anyway so the whole system would fall apart anyhow, as far back as the middle ages do poets swoon of strong-willed (and pious) women inspired by tales that are far older then they are themselves.
And again, forcing them under threat of harm would be unacceptable, men who thought that way were ostracized or even ousted from the community if they went too far.
The church did encourage people to stay in abusive relationships though, and I agree that shit's fucked up but the church as a whole was hardly really invested in the well being of individual couples and more in the overall social cohesion of it's "flock".

Going back a little to courtship though, I agree that relationships should not be as materialistic as they are, but as a society we are incredibly individualistic, far more now than we ever were, starting a family requires a material necessity to be met as a result and people who can acquire and manage those, throughout all of history have men come up with little contests or trophies to try and woo the ladies, it's human mating nature, and as the tastes of the time change, so too do these contests, from sprinting to wrestling, to horse riding, to music and art, fencing, but food and resource gathering has always been a classic, everyone likes getting gifts, right?

Maybe I've made out the exchange to be far more mercenary than they really are, anyone who's ever had a relationship can tell you as much, but arranged marriage as you describe was only for the aristocratic layer of society, it was loveless, political and often quite Machiavellian, but it was what it was, even so, lord and kings alike spent fortunes for their daughters educations to give them an "edge" in the courtship game over other ladies, every lord likes a useful wife.
For commoners, all they want is someone that makes them happy and they can make happy in kind, someone with whom they can be a boon to their community, have kids and grow old, the machinations of politics are of no concern to them, they will keep living in the house their kids will inherit anyway.

I suppose the Hopi are so much communal because their communities are so much smaller, faces are much more familiar and you are more invested in your neighbor as a result, everyone is needed so there's no real competition for specific jobs, everyone organically grows into who they are meant to be, perhaps humans are meant to live that way, but alas, we have sprawling metropoli and grand nations of which the scale is difficult to fathom as a social network, it is simply a fundamentally different environment.

Lil devils x:

Toxic masculinity IS huge issue, and rampant in " jock culture" where they try to enforce " male codes" of toughness upon other males and torment those they perceive as weaker. The whole thing is pretty gross tbh. When the football team put a trashbag over that guys head and beat and kicked him for no other reason than he " looked different" so they wanted to show him what he gets for being weird it shows the lengths of just how toxic this can be. It is horrific and promotes extremely toxic behavior to society.

Bullying, even in such extreme and aggressive forms, is not a typically male behavior, nor is it normative between any group of people besides the criminally inclined, taking it as an example of "masculinity" seems neither fair nor accurate.
I will say though, there definitely seems to be an issue surrounding a modern "male identity", time are a-changing and a lot of boys are looking for guidance, however, more and more of them lack a father in the home to relate to and clinging to traditional archetypes just doesn't seem viable in an age of rapid modernization, some are told that being male shouldn't be and isn't relevant to who they are as a person though they can clearly see people respond to them differently than girls, have different assumptions and expectations of them, so it must mean something, right?

I bet there is a clear meaning to "being a man" even in Hopi culture, and honestly, I wish I could go and see it with my own eyes, but my meager student life ties me here, perhaps later.
What you describe to me at least sounds to an intensely more communal people where there is a far greater sense of trust and far less fear for social reprisal, it only makes sense, but this trust is key to tackling one's social or emotional woes and I'm often getting the feeling that men won't talk because they don't feel safe, that their words will be taken in a wrong way, that they'll be misunderstood or worse, interpreted maliciously or dishonestly.
An accusation of weakness would at least acknowledge their problem, as dismissive as it may be.

No, I am not upset about anything you have stated, it does upset me in the way I see women treated in western culture though. My perception is how I see women actually treated. I volunteer at the battered women's and children shelter and see these things first hand. I see patients come through my clinic who are in terrible circumstances due to how women are viewed here. It gets worse though... I was raped as a child, my sister was raped, my friends were raped, my cousin was raped, my grandmother was raped.. ALL BY DIFFERENT WHITE MEN. later I had another white man try to rape me again, I had two white men try to grab me and pull me into their truck. I had a white man try to kill me multiple times and wound up stabbing my neighbor. Yes, not only does it happen to " western women" but they do it to everyone else too.

56 percent of 2,000 women surveyed have experienced sexual violence, over 90 percent of that group has experienced violence at the hands of a non-tribal member.

The new report reveals the highest rates on record of violence against tribal women and men. It is also one of the first national reports to include significant research on the race of perpetrators, and showed that most were white. Andre Rosay, director of the Justice Center for the University of Alaska, who authored the study, said that by far the most glaring result was that almost every single victim experienced some sort of interracial violence.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affairs-why-native-american-women-still-have-the-highest-rates-of-rape-and-assault

I have seen how this works first hand. Bullying is perfectly normal for western men, Look at Trump. They elected him to be president right? It was the football team at my high school that beat the guy with a trash bag over his head. They also gang raped a girl in the parkinglot and no one did anything about it. This being the wealthiest per sq ft county in the state btw. This happens in wealthy suburbs, the " good neighborhoods" in two parent homes where their son wrecked his Ferrari in the high school parkinglot because a cheerleaders skirt flew up so his dad went and bought him a Lamborghini that same night instead because it is deeply ingrained in the culture. The men have no respect for women and think they can do whatever they want to whoever they please. This is exactly the mindset they have here:

ou know, I?m automatically attracted to beautiful ? I just start kissing them. It?s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don?t even wait. And when you?re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.Grab ?em by the pussy. You can do anything.

I was not surprised at all by Trump saying and thinking those things I see plenty just like him all over the place here. In school boys would chase and sexually assault girls forcing themselves on me and others holding us down and kissing us and grabbing our parts, rubbing on us. This happened daily throughout elementary , middle and high school. It is just how females are treated here.

Satinavian:
Having sexual orientation seperate seems very obvious and i don't have any understanding problem with that one. It is only with the other two.

It's important to remember that having sexual orientation distinct from gender identity/expression wasn't obvious until comparatively recently (sometime between the 1950s and 1970s) and still isn't fully accepted today in practice.

If you believe that being heterosexual is the natural state of a human being, then desiring women sexually is part of what makes someone a man. If a woman (a person with a female body) desires other women, it stands to reason that their problem is to do with not having a properly female psychology, because someone who was female would naturally be heterosexual and desire men sexually. We can still see these assumptions at work in our society all the time, because in practice being non-heterosexual in any way is still treated as a form of gender non-conformity. Gay men will be accused of effeminacy even if they don't display it, even if they go out of their way to adopt a hypermasculine presentation.

And now perhaps you can see why expression is important, because none of these concepts is actually fully distinct, and yet you can easily separate all of them because they are interchangable.

A gay (sexual orientation) cis man (gender identity) adopts a hypermasculine presentation to deflect the accusaiton of not being a "real" man (expression).
A straight (sexual orientation) trans man (gender identity) adopts the same hypermasculine presentation to do exactly the same thing.
Another gay (sexual orientation) cis man (gender identity) adopts a more feminine presentation to express an identification with their own non-conformity (expression).
A straight (sexual orientation) cis man (gender identity) adopts the same feminine presentation to convey sophistication and urbaneness (expression).

Satinavian:
I don't feel an attachment to being male. Which might be why i can't wrap my head around gender idendity. It is even worse when dicorced from gender expression. That would be an attachment to ... what exactly ?

An attachment to the perception of oneself as a particular gender (and to being recognised and treated as such), often accompanied with the attachment to having a sexed body associated with your gender identity.

Again, I don't want to tell you about yourself because that's kind of rude, but if you didn't feel an attachment to being male, that in itself would probably be quite distressing. It's extremely uncomfortable to walk around knowing that people will look at you and perceive you in a way you don't perceive yourself. It leads you to fixate on all the parts of your body which are shaping how you're perceived as male and become incredibly self-conscious of them. Not to mention the more private and intimate consequences. How do you deal with a sexual partner wanting to touch your male genitals, for example? How do you deal with your (male) body being the centre of someone else's attention? How does that become a shared experience, rather than just something you're allowing a person to do for their own enjoyment?

Satinavian:
Wait a moment, now you are suddenly switching bodies. But bodies are fundamentally biological, so don't belong to gender, they belong to sex.

Bodies ultimately don't care how they are perceived by the mind which inhabits them. They just carrying on functioning or not functioning as the case may be. The reverse isn't true. Two identical twins with the exact same body can have different gender identities, because gender identity isn't a function of the body, it's a mental reaction to the body.

Bodies play a huge role in identity, and not just for trans people. It's why we use cosmetic surgery to repair the breasts of women who have had mastectomies (or men who have had orchiectomies), and why men experiencing male pattern baldness often experience a degree of distress (and may indeed lead men to wear wigs or toupees or take DHT blockers). Because having your body appear differently to the way you see yourself is distressing. Worrying about how your body will be perceived socially is distressing. We don't just say "eh, well, it doesn't really matter does it" even though in very real terms it doesn't. Why waste taxpayers money using silicone to reconstruct a missing breast? The body doesn't need that breast to keep going, if anything it's deterimental to the physical health of the person recieving it. But psychologically, it's often very important, not just in allowing someone to blend in socially but also in their self-perception and sense of themselves as female.

Satinavian:
I do believe you. There has to be some things, otherwise gender would not exist. But i can't imagine any examples at all (aside from stuff coming from different capabilities/needs of the supposedly switched body. But that would be biology again)

You don't think you'd be expected to dress differently? Behave differently? You don't think you'd be treated differently? Held to different standards?

evilthecat:
Not to mention the more private and intimate consequences. How do you deal with a sexual partner wanting to touch your male genitals, for example? How do you deal with your (male) body being the centre of someone else's attention? How does that become a shared experience, rather than just something you're allowing a person to do for their own enjoyment?

Didn't we just write about sexual orientation being a seperate thing ? If my sexual partner is aroused by my male body that would not change depending on what i identify as. And vice versa, if i am attracted to someone does not really depend of hoe he/she identifies himself/herself. (It might depend on gender expression depending on how many habits/characteristics that turn me on/off are counted as such. But certainly not idendity)

Bodies play a huge role in identity, and not just for trans people. It's why we use cosmetic surgery to repair the breasts of women who have had mastectomies (or men who have had orchiectomies), and why men experiencing male pattern baldness often experience a degree of distress (and may indeed lead men to wear wigs or toupees or take DHT blockers). Because having your body appear differently to the way you see yourself is distressing. Worrying about how your body will be perceived socially is distressing.

No need to convince me about that one. I fully understand how bodies are important for idendity and also how a lot of people can run into problems with that and how modifying bodies can help and is often the best way to go.

But if gender was mostly/only about body and being trans just another body issue, we wouldn't really need them.

You don't think you'd be expected to dress differently? Behave differently? You don't think you'd be treated differently? Held to different standards?

Yes, i don't think i would dress any different or expected to do so. I wear near exclusively jeans and a T-shirt or pullover. Which is the same thing most women around me wear most of the time. A part of my wardrobe even is intended for women and i use it because it just fits better than mans sizes and cuts for some reason. No one ever seemed to notice.

And treated differently ? Held to different standards? No, i don't think so, There is also nothing where i am aware of where i treat men and women differently or hold them to different standards. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that i am not aware of it. You can unfortunately never trust yourself about your own biases. Also excluding sexual attention, which is, while not exclusive, pretty one-sided. At the same time i don't feel like others around me act particularly different aside from some idiots stuck in the past.

Schadrach:

I mean, that's the only one that actually caused some damage -- dramatically increasing the labor pool had a negative effect on wages and the expectation that both parents work (more a necessity than before due to the aforementioned depressed wages) means less parental hours available for, you know, actually raising children. Both eminently foreseeable side effects that we could have planned around, but didn't in a meaningful way.

Theoretically, one might say more women entering the workforce from ~1950 onwards should have depressed wages. However, in practice, it didn't happen. Wage stagnation occurs, but it starts in the mid-1970s, only at the median and below, and is limited to north America. Thus women entering the workforce doesn't fit as an explanation. There are numerous reasons for why women entering the workforce had little or no effect. Part of it is that it was very gradual: the increase of women's participation in the workforce rose slowly, from ~30% working women in 1950 to ~50% in 2000 (and now ~60-70%), so job creation could easily expand to cope. What increased numbers of women working also did was increase demand - there are now plenty more earners who want to buy things so more workers are needed to provide those things.

Undoubtedly, there is some impact on childcare - on the other hand, there are more labour saving devices for household tasks, average working hours per week have also decreased in most countries by 10%-20% since 1950, more flexi-time or part-time work, working from home, and there's been increased male engagement in child-raising. So it's not as bad as it might seem.

What "planning" was supposed to be done is unclear to me. The government could not know in advance how many women would choose to work. The increase was slow and gradual, thus not prompting a shock that would demand attention. There is also the expectation that people organise their own lives, and that market (e.g. creches and nurseries) can provide. Indeed, society has largely adjusted to a considerable extent, even if not perfectly.

Lil devils x:

the December King:

Lil devils x:
Every evening, the women go from home to home to make sure everyone has enough to eat and everyone is okay in every home. It is a core part of what it means to be Hopi in caring for each other and all things.

I'm curious- did the men not care? Were they not allowed go from home to home to help others as well, or even to show initiative and go their own?

Of course they care, and men could accompany the women if they wished, though I don't think I have ever seen that actually happen. It was just one of those long standing traditions that the mothers and grandmothers do. No one would tell someone they couldn't do it if they wanted to. Honestly, I think the men rather liked the women tending to them in such ways, so that may have been why they just let them do it and not do it themselves.

I guess it could be that they liked being tended to by women, sure. It's a good call on your part based on your experiences. But that feels like, without asking those men directly of course, that they might associate that behavior with women now, and would feel awkward in that role. Not only that, I wonder how the mothers and grandmothers would feel watching men perform the(their?) role?

It's interesting to see how these things come about in a group of people that has developed with relatively unique gender role concepts to almost every other known modern culture.

Combustion Kevin:
Secondly, scientific research has, so far, yielded inconclusive results as to the nature of gender as an objectively identifiable trait,

Perhaps science isn't the right epistemological tool to use.

Gender is in large part a social construct; fluid with times and cultures. It's not like a body organ with independent physical existence that you can cut out, stick in a dish and dissect. Any attempt by science to examine it necessarily depends on this variability due to social construction. But what's key to remember is that things don't fail to exist or have meaning just because science isn't the most appropriate tool to examine them.

Agema:

Combustion Kevin:
Secondly, scientific research has, so far, yielded inconclusive results as to the nature of gender as an objectively identifiable trait,

Perhaps science isn't the right epistemological tool to use.

Gender is in large part a social construct; fluid with times and cultures. It's not like a body organ with independent physical existence that you can cut out, stick in a dish and dissect. Any attempt by science to examine it necessarily depends on this variability due to social construction. But what's key to remember is that things don't fail to exist or have meaning just because science isn't the most appropriate tool to examine them.

Are you telling me that dissecting a dollar bill isn't the most edifying method of examining economic questions? Madness, I tell you.

Lil devils x:

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:
I think what people in western culture have decided of "what makes a real man" has been decided by men, rather than women. Women just have to deal with it as they have dealt with so many other things in the west. It is created by and enforced by men.

I'd disagree with this to a degree. I'd argue that women have more influence over what is considered masculine than they are generally willing to admit, essentially through sexual selection. If guys who wore pink frilly skirts were significantly and consistently more able to attract more attractive girls than guys wearing other things, within a decade pink frilly skirts would be considered one of the most masculine clothing items.

Guys don't dress like that because of what other guys think, not because of women. Men are taught they don't want to be singled out by other guys and be targeted from a young age and it is enforced all throughout their life because they don't want to be harassed by other guys. Guys can find women who will want them regardless of what they wear.

I'd agree with Schadrach, women as well as men have a say in what is "masculine", women are not completely powerless bystanders who have no impact. Speaking as a guy who was "the nerd" in my highschool back before nerds were cool, I faced bullying from men, and rejection from women. Girls who turned me down often explained that they saw me as "weak" and unmasculine. The bullies in my school had women flock to them in droves. That was the behavior that was "rewarded" for men.

The bullying wasn't as terrifying as the rejection was to me. I did change the way I dress to try and avoid that rejection. To this day if I get comments or criticisms on how I dress, it's usually from women.

Satinavian:
Didn't we just write about sexual orientation being a seperate thing ? If my sexual partner is aroused by my male body that would not change depending on what i identify as.

Okay, so you've misunderstood. I wasn't talking about how your partner would feel about your body, but about how you would feel as someone who lacked attachment to being male. Your identity isn't determined by the sexual preferences of your partner.

Remember, we're talking specifically about psychology and medicine here, we're not talking about the definition of identity used in other social sciences or in everyday life. In psychology, identity is specifically your self-construal. The perception of others is relevant to identity, but only in the sense that the way others treat you can shape you how you see yourself, which in the case of gender identity actually isn't all that much.

Satinavian:
But if gender was mostly/only about body and being trans just another body issue, we wouldn't really need them.

Why not?

Where are you getting the idea that gender can have nothing to do with the body?

There are social and psychological elements to having a body, and to the way bodies differ. It's not just a physical state.

Satinavian:
There is also nothing where i am aware of where i treat men and women differently or hold them to different standards. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that i am not aware of it.

So, my original response here was a long list of really granular things which might change in this situation, but I'm not actually sure that's going to help. I think there's going to come a point where you just have to take it on trust. This is a gendered society. It's an extremely gendered society. There are so many things that happen every day of your life, tiny ridiculous stupid things which maybe seem meaningless, which have been influenced by gender. For most people, it's not going to feel weird, it's not going to feel like an imposition because there is nothing to compare it to. Again, it's a gendered society, normal life is gendered already.

If trust isn't enough for you, and you want proof, then if you want to see a gendered society in action your best bet is to break that societies' rules. I'm not even joking, it's a really interesting exercise. Do something which explicitly genders you as feminine, and do it seriously and without excusing or explaining yourself, then watch very carefully how people react. Even if you don't want to do this, or if you're afraid, then that could be a good jumping off point for self-reflection. What is the fear? What are the potential consequences? How will people react?

Then, armed with that knowledge, go back and watch how "normal" men and women behave. What are the rules for them? What reactions might get if they break the rules? Are the rules the same for everyone?

skywolfblue:

Lil devils x:

Schadrach:

I'd disagree with this to a degree. I'd argue that women have more influence over what is considered masculine than they are generally willing to admit, essentially through sexual selection. If guys who wore pink frilly skirts were significantly and consistently more able to attract more attractive girls than guys wearing other things, within a decade pink frilly skirts would be considered one of the most masculine clothing items.

Guys don't dress like that because of what other guys think, not because of women. Men are taught they don't want to be singled out by other guys and be targeted from a young age and it is enforced all throughout their life because they don't want to be harassed by other guys. Guys can find women who will want them regardless of what they wear.

I'd agree with Schadrach, women as well as men have a say in what is "masculine", women are not completely powerless bystanders who have no impact. Speaking as a guy who was "the nerd" in my highschool back before nerds were cool, I faced bullying from men, and rejection from women. Girls who turned me down often explained that they saw me as "weak" and unmasculine. The bullies in my school had women flock to them in droves. That was the behavior that was "rewarded" for men.

The bullying wasn't as terrifying as the rejection was to me. I did change the way I dress to try and avoid that rejection. To this day if I get comments or criticisms on how I dress, it's usually from women.

Who designed the clothing and " looks" that you think people wanted you to wear? Who made those designs popular and representative of a certain status quo or lifestyle? Again, this is overwhelmingly male designers doing these things as well. Women " going along with what was already decided for them" is not the same as women being responsible for it being that way. The women are simply responding to the preset options for what they perceive as lifestyle choices. In fact, sadly often women, especially teens are even pressured by other males as to who it is socially acceptable to date. I could not even begin to tell you the number of times I have heard guys tell me, "what do you see in that guy?", " you're too good for him.", " you're out of his league" and other terribly judgmental comments in an attempt to pressure me to dump a guy they do not socially approve of. I didn't have other girls doing this to me, it was always the guys. So when you are trying to date a girl, not only do you have to worry about what she thinks, you have to hope she does not give into the pressure being placed on her from other guys to approve of you as well. I see this as more of women just giving in and going along with it as well rather than being the instigators in this. In the end, Women are not the ones creating the clothes for you to wear, they are not the ones making them popular, they are simply going along with it due to pressure from others to do so, the same as you are.

You might be surprised to know that women wearing makeup to be considered attractive was designed and decided for them by men. All of the major makeup brands were created by Men. Men overwhelmingly design not only men's clothing, but women's as well. To sell them they pressured women to view themselves as unattractive and unable to attract a man if they did not have and use these things to make themselves more attractive. All of these things in society are being decided and enforced by men in the first place.

EDIT: I also think that some may misunderstand the reason why many women are dating/ attracted to men who are athletic and can " handle themselves" , even ones who appear to be bullies or abusive. This has everything to do with the presence of the violence and sexual violence being abundantly present in the society in the first place. It is not to condone the violence, it is to seek protection from it. When women are attacked or are aware of it happening to others, they will feel a need to have protection for themselves and their children from others who would do this to them if they did not have such protection. By having a male who will not allow harm to come to her or their children, she does not have to worry about being gang raped by the football team. It is a matter of survival at that point.

It reminds me of exactly what my sister did. She married the guy who had been her boyfriend from the time they were 12. She had never been with anyone else or dated anyone else all through High school. When she turned 18 they were married. He, just like my high school sweetheart, turned violent and she wound up on my doorstep with dark bruises around her throat. When she tried to leave him, the stalking and death threats came, not unlike the death threats I received from my ex as well. A big bear of a man, an actual prison guard, saw him attack her one day in her driveway. She did not know the man until that day when this happened. Her ex had blocked her in her driveway and took her phone and threw it and smashed it and grabbed her wrists and was trying to hold her down against her will while she was struggling attempting to to get away. The Prison guard then intervened, scared the crap out of her ex and chased him off. Needless to say, my sister is now married to the prison guard, although they have absolutely nothing at all in common. She was in danger and he kept her safe, and sometimes that may very well be the most important thing one needs when you are forced to live in a society where this type of violence is common. If the violence was not prevalent in the society in the first place, women would not see "protection" as being at the top of the priority lists of attributes they look for in a mate.

the December King:

Lil devils x:

the December King:

I'm curious- did the men not care? Were they not allowed go from home to home to help others as well, or even to show initiative and go their own?

Of course they care, and men could accompany the women if they wished, though I don't think I have ever seen that actually happen. It was just one of those long standing traditions that the mothers and grandmothers do. No one would tell someone they couldn't do it if they wanted to. Honestly, I think the men rather liked the women tending to them in such ways, so that may have been why they just let them do it and not do it themselves.

I guess it could be that they liked being tended to by women, sure. It's a good call on your part based on your experiences. But that feels like, without asking those men directly of course, that they might associate that behavior with women now, and would feel awkward in that role. Not only that, I wonder how the mothers and grandmothers would feel watching men perform the(their?) role?

It's interesting to see how these things come about in a group of people that has developed with relatively unique gender role concepts to almost every other known modern culture.

You know you're right. I am going to ask some of the men why they don't do that, and get back with you on that. I think the way you view roles in the first place is even different. Many men did what was considered "feminine roles" and women did not think much of it really. Neither men or women were " possessive" of " their traditional roles, and although there were less males and females that participated in what are seen as " opposite" gender roles, they were not discouraged in any way from doing so. Instead they were encouraged and praised for helping. This was something they could choose to do, not something that was not made available to them as a good option. All options were made available to everyone. IF anything, in Hopi culture, you would think the pressure would be on them to do opposite gender roles due to the social status of two spirits. Social status of two spirits were high and they were very popular among both men and women and highly thought of and served important roles in the community. Even with all of the benefits of that however, most males still chose to do what was considered traditional male things and females primarily chose to do traditional female things. Most people did do opposite gender things now and then, and it was not a big deal for them to do so, but for the most part they did not. For example, Men traditionally gathered the firewood, but every now and then you would see women do so as well and no one thought them weird to do so.

Seanchaidh:

Are you telling me that dissecting a dollar bill isn't the most edifying method of examining economic questions? Madness, I tell you.

This assumes that there isn't the methodology there or sound hypotheticals for things like gender identity. When there is, and clearly it's multifaceted, and that alone does not mean that gender itselfcannot be socially constructed.

Only idiots would assume 'social construct' cannot have an empirical relationship to the human condition and its multifaceted constitution of being. Once again, we wouldn't be performing these ridiculous mental gymnastics over other conditions of humanity that are equally nebulous, yet we wouldn't turn around and say they don't exist.

Just because something is nebulous and has multifaceted dimenions and is impossible tonail down to a single causative agent does not mean it doesn't exist or somehow inconsequential. Because clearly it is consequential with a cursory glance at the world and of history, and regardless of what forms society takes there'll always be trans people ...

There are definite scientific dimensions to understanding gender identity. Pretending otherwise is merely ignoring patterns.

Pretending as if there in't a body of science dedicated to understanding this, a body of empirical research, good therapeutic licence to offer gender affirming treatment options, and proven therapeutic benefits of doing so ... that is all science.

It is not mysticism. And treating the subject as if ignoring thebody of research, and as if it is merely a mystical subject of the human condition, does people actually looking for help and acceptance a disservice. Through knowledge, good praxis. Through good praxis, practical understanding and assistance.

evilthecat:

So, my original response here was a long list of really granular things which might change in this situation, but I'm not actually sure that's going to help. I think there's going to come a point where you just have to take it on trust. This is a gendered society. It's an extremely gendered society. There are so many things that happen every day of your life, tiny ridiculous stupid things which maybe seem meaningless, which have been influenced by gender. For most people, it's not going to feel weird, it's not going to feel like an imposition because there is nothing to compare it to. Again, it's a gendered society, normal life is gendered already.

If trust isn't enough for you, and you want proof, then if you want to see a gendered society in action your best bet is to break that societies' rules. I'm not even joking, it's a really interesting exercise. Do something which explicitly genders you as feminine, and do it seriously and without excusing or explaining yourself, then watch very carefully how people react. Even if you don't want to do this, or if you're afraid, then that could be a good jumping off point for self-reflection. What is the fear? What are the potential consequences? How will people react?

It is less that i don't believe you and more that i want to understand how this society is gendered.

Even if i really think about it, i can hardly come up with ideas about how to act in a way that genders me feminine. There is oviously wearing dresses or skirts but i mentioned that one several rimes and long ago. There might be makeup, but in the current mainstream culture makeup is suppossed to be subtle, a women with noticable makeup is likely a foreigner or immigrant if it is beyond lipstick. Also there are enough men that do the subtle makeup too to look younger or hide a bad skin. Not that many, but they count as feminine for that alone, only as vain.
There are people who thing cutesy stuff is feminine. But i buy and use cutesy stuff already whenever i want and it does not cause any irritation by the mayority of people, only those who have this idea. My father once told me he had to learn rules about how when a couple walks on a sidewalk, the men had to take the roadside and similar rules. But is is not only that i never have seen such stuff followed, i am in a minority in my generation even knowing about that and i am not that young anymore.
Just remembered there is still a purse which is considered feminine and used by many women. But otherwise i am out of ideas.

Satinavian:
It is less that i don't believe you and more that i want to understand how this society is gendered.

Even if i really think about it, i can hardly come up with ideas about how to act in a way that genders me feminine. There is oviously wearing dresses or skirts but i mentioned that one several rimes and long ago. There might be makeup, but in the current mainstream culture makeup is suppossed to be subtle, a women with noticable makeup is likely a foreigner or immigrant if it is beyond lipstick. Also there are enough men that do the subtle makeup too to look younger or hide a bad skin. Not that many, but they count as feminine for that alone, only as vain.
There are people who thing cutesy stuff is feminine. But i buy and use cutesy stuff already whenever i want and it does not cause any irritation by the mayority of people, only those who have this idea. My father once told me he had to learn rules about how when a couple walks on a sidewalk, the men had to take the roadside and similar rules. But is is not only that i never have seen such stuff followed, i am in a minority in my generation even knowing about that and i am not that young anymore.
Just remembered there is still a purse which is considered feminine and used by many women. But otherwise i am out of ideas.

With the risk of sounding flippant: Read a book. There are hundreds of books written by women about the experience of being a woman. I always like to point to Rebecca Solnit's excellent essay Men explain things to me (long read, totally worth it) as a great introduction to understand how society is gendered.

I can't speak for Evilthecat, but while I can see how some actions that would absolutely make our gendered society stand out (try wearing a dress instead of a suit to your next black tie event), I also don't think it is a great way of truly seeing how it is gendered. Because so much of the gendering is deeply rooted, pervasive in every day life and often totally invisible to us as we go about our lives. Just today I read about a woman who used to "hide" her boyfriend when they hired contractors to renovate her summer house, because if he was around the contractors would invariably ask him about the details of the job, despite it being her house, her name on the work order and him being totally unqualified to talk about house renovation. That might strike you as extreme, but I can share tons of stories like that, about car salesmen who turned to my male friend (who was mostly with me as a sounding board) when it came to talking the details about what kind of car "we" wanted or how the staff of body product stores always seem to assume I'm the customer when I tag along with my male friends when they go to buy shaving or showering products.

We don't even need to go into personal experience, we can just look at how women still do the vast majority of household chores and child caring. How men still overwhelmingly assume responsibility for house repairs or the household car(s) and often care for the household economy. We can look at how women's clothing is universally more revealing then men's clothing and tend to show off or highlight areas that are traditionally attractive to men. If we want to go really nitpicky, just look at the fact that men and women are still given different kinds of names and that, baring a few unisex names, you can often instantly tell if a person is a man or a woman just from hearing their first name.

I am not saying this is easy. It has taken me a decade at this point to hone my ability to identify gender differences in my every day life. If you want to see them it takes time, training and a lot of reading to first understand them and then learning to see them when you encounter them. The trick of a man walking out in make-up and a dress is neat for showing that they exist, but to really see them you need to dive much deeper than that.

Having read through this, and not really being educated enough in the subject to add anything; it is all rather intriguing - is there any recommended academic reading that I could delve into for more in depth understanding? Such as any covering the broad spectrum of current day knowledge and varied human experience in the subject? From as early as I can remember, gender conformity always felt like some added bullshit alongside patriotism and other annoyances. Growing up with a sister who exhibited infinitely more masculine traits than I ever will probably contributed to that, along with no male role-models, or any role-models to be fair - but most the males were more like anti-role-models...if there's a term for that at all. Long words and complicated sentences aren't a problem, am a more comfortable reader than speaker/writer as of yet.

Xsjadoblayde:
Having read through this, and not really being educated enough in the subject to add anything; it is all rather intriguing - is there any recommended academic reading that I could delve into for more in depth understanding? Such as any covering the broad spectrum of current day knowledge and varied human experience in the subject? From as early as I can remember, gender conformity always felt like some added bullshit alongside patriotism and other annoyances. Growing up with a sister who exhibited infinitely more masculine traits than I ever will probably contributed to that, along with no male role-models, or any role-models to be fair - but most the males were more like anti-role-models...if there's a term for that at all. Long words and complicated sentences aren't a problem, am a more comfortable reader than speaker/writer as of yet.

You're not really going to find anything 'academic' to understandingaspects of gender identity that is also broad. Is there any specific aspects you'd like to know about? After all 'academic' examinations of the subject matter tend to limit themselves to specific sociological examinations concerning a singularly cultural environment and understanding the interplay to gender. For example if you're interested in family dynamics and gender-atypical educational impacts, then you'll find no shortage of psych and sociology papers if you have access to things like JStor.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
You're not really going to find anything 'academic' to understandingaspects of gender identity that is also broad. Is there any specific aspects you'd like to know about? After all 'academic' examinations of the subject matter tend to limit themselves to specific sociological examinations concerning a singularly cultural environment and understanding the interplay to gender. For example if you're interested in family dynamics and gender-atypical educational impacts, then you'll find no shortage of psych and sociology papers if you have access to things like JStor.

Ah, sorry, I had a niggling feeling I had worded it all improperly, hence why google is nae often my friend. It would probably be multiple readings, which isn't a problem, and quite expected. Anything exploring the current understanding either sociological/psychological (both are equally as important) for trans people, also anything exploring known differences in other cultures towards gender, plus anything involving the extent of the permeation in modern day (Western?) society of established gender expectations, effects on people psychologically who do or do not choose to confirm perhaps. There's more yet not coming to mind, but hopefully that might be enough to start with. Interest is broad but accompanied easily with indecision. Perhaps a less academic but well-researched recommendation would be a good idea also if there is the availability. Apologies for possibly even worse wording as am not confident there has been any improvement in that regard. Usually communicative posting is restricted enough to avoid that, but the desire to learn more isn't going away, so am clumsily pawing the "would you like to know more?" button.

Xsjadoblayde:

Ah, sorry, I had a niggling feeling I had worded it all improperly, hence why google is nae often my friend. It would probably be multiple readings, which isn't a problem, and quite expected. Anything exploring the current understanding either sociological/psychological (both are equally as important) for trans people, also anything exploring known differences in other cultures towards gender, plus anything involving the extent of the permeation in modern day (Western?) society of established gender expectations, effects on people psychologically who do or do not choose to confirm perhaps. There's more yet not coming to mind, but hopefully that might be enough to start with. Interest is broad but accompanied easily with indecision. Perhaps a less academic but well-researched recommendation would be a good idea also if there is the availability. Apologies for possibly even worse wording as am not confident there has been any improvement in that regard. Usually communicative posting is restricted enough to avoid that, but the desire to learn more isn't going away, so am clumsily pawing the "would you like to know more?" button.

Well, assuming you're interested in developmental psychology concerning cross-sex identification concerning things like womb conditions and genetic correlations to transgender identification, there are interesting studies concerning twins studies. The problem with those is they suffer low participant counts and cover huge expanses of time. That being said there is a noticeable correlation well above the norm that non-monozygotal twins share elevated chances if transgender identification happens in one sibling. Which is why we postulate the strong basis of prenatal hormone exposure on brain formation rather than just genetic.

The big problem is that you still have the unrecordable of things like one twin seeing the hardship and abuse that their sibling goes through, as well as native conflict leading to neurodivergence events. As I was saying before, twins that were raised together often have strange neuroses not found in the other otherwise not seen in twins raised apart. And part and parcel of that is simply close contact with a sibling for whom is raised at the exact same time in the exact same home conditions, in a singular socioeconomic background within a uniform exposure to larger cultural frameworks.

It really is a case where you can't treat humans as merely compounds in a chemical laboratory and experiment andexpect the same things with the same methodology. Because simple exposure changes everything.

There's the neuroscience studies that were born with greater magnetic resonance tomography imaging in terms of the relationship of HRT and brain performance. Positron-emission tomography studies of the relationship of cross-gender identification, hormone therapy, and serotonin transmission density for trans men, specifically. Which helps give credene between the mind-body problem relationship of why HRT improves mood and diminishes anxiety felt by numerous trans people.

There are those studies which affirm the role of psychosocial and environmental aspects of psychology. Such as neuroplasticity.

In terms of the sociological aspects of looking at culture itself and purely psychosocial related aspects of gender you could try looking at cultures for which have never considered gender as binary. Places like Thailand or India. And seeing the unique aspects of gender and unique troubles trans people face there.

Of which there are objectively a metric fuckton of sociological and psychosocial papers written about it.

The problem is that a lot of this stuff is relegated to things like JSTOR, Elsevier and university libraries in general.

I have a real problem with how trans issues are treated in the public sphere, where by people mystify various aspects of it in a way that we don't do so for other aspects of the human condition. Often solely talking about the individual experience rather than any concertive effort to bring what we do know into the public discussion. Because we actually know quite a bit, and we know that there'll always be trans people on the basis background of the things we've seen, and the various aspects of it that we have built as time has gone on.

So you'll see a ton of books about the subject, but most of the trans affirming ones that simply write from the basis of 'we exist' often ixnay known causal predictors of trans identification that we can see. You know, the things that objectively prove we exist as per mechanics in human development and nature.

Which is dangerous.

So this is kind of the problem of why I have trouble recommending something ... because I honestly don't really agree how it's portrayed in media and a lot of resources are hidden behind a bourgeois education wall.

It panders to all those scientifically illiterate bigots screaming 'SJW' when we tell them to shut up or fuck off (and preferably both). Like all the nonsense that they'll talk about 'balanced political portrayal oftrans issues' which isjust a dogwhistle for bigoted people not to want to have to confront that trans peopleexist, it is not a 'psychological problem' ... it's a known aspect of the human condition with empirical dimensions as to known neurological events. And it's normal. It is not aberrant in the same way we don't treat things like sexual orientation as aberrant psychology.

But metaphysical consistency of appraisal and congruence of application of things like psychometrics is apparently too much of a 'political statement' ... whatever.

See, this is the problem of mystifying the subject... You can't afford to. Not unless you actually hold knowledge as important to understanding.

In short/tl;dr; You won't find any grand narrative that I feel comfortable of saying you should read. Because I honestly can't think of any good suggestions for it. They're useful in that they often outline the personal abuse and torments trans people suffer throughout their lives ... but they're all at loggerheads of demystifying trans people.

And that's what is sorely needed.

No doubt they'll be any number of fucking idiots that will scream how that is 'politicising trans people' when someone like Bill Nye tries to break it down for them ... but they can fuck right off to that darkened cave lair if they want to. The hypocrisy is that I would happily de-politicize trans people and the correlations of cross-sex identification ... but by giving peple facts about it, suddenly you'll get idiots accusing me of politicizing the fact.

As if trans people themselves are political entities simply for being trans. And those types of bigots will always exist. They will always be there. They will always seek to do harm and force a particular narrative over simply acceptance of the fact that trans people exist and we have an increasing amount of research to show that will always be the case due to a multitude of causal factors. From prenatal hormone exposure events, genetics, early childhood development, psychosocial dimensions, and more.

And the problem is much of that research is locked behind a university pay wall precisely because the resistance to simply getting those wads of paper (digital or otherwise) and simply slamming it into people's heads is 'too political' ...

In short, you're never going to get a 'big narrative' of gender. And why people say things like 'gender is a spectrum' is precisely because everything informs it. Psychosocial and psychosexual dimensions, environment and biology.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Well, assuming you're interested in developmental psychology concerning cross-sex identification concerning things like womb conditions and genetic correlations to transgender identification, there are interesting studies concerning twins studies. The problem with those is they suffer low participant counts and cover huge expanses of time. That being said there is a noticeable correlation well above the norm that non-monozygotal twins share elevated chances if transgender identification happens in one sibling. Which is why we postulate the strong basis of prenatal hormone exposure on brain formation rather than just genetic.

The big problem is that you still have the unrecordable of things like one twin seeing the hardship and abuse that their sibling goes through, as well as native conflict leading to neurodivergence events. As I was saying before, twins that were raised together often have strange neuroses not found in the other otherwise not seen in twins raised apart. And part and parcel of that is simply close contact with a sibling for whom is raised at the exact same time in the exact same home conditions, in a singular socioeconomic background within a uniform exposure to larger cultural frameworks.

It really is a case where you can't treat humans as merely compounds in a chemical laboratory and experiment andexpect the same things with the same methodology. Because simple exposure changes everything.

There's the neuroscience studies that were born with greater magnetic resonance tomography imaging in terms of the relationship of HRT and brain performance. Positron-emission tomography studies of the relationship of cross-gender identification, hormone therapy, and serotonin transmission density for trans men, specifically. Which helps give credene between the mind-body problem relationship of why HRT improves mood and diminishes anxiety felt by numerous trans people.

There are those studies which affirm the role of psychosocial and environmental aspects of psychology. Such as neuroplasticity.

In terms of the sociological aspects of looking at culture itself and purely psychosocial related aspects of gender you could try looking at cultures for which have never considered gender as binary. Places like Thailand or India. And seeing the unique aspects of gender and unique troubles trans people face there.

Of which there are objectively a metric fuckton of sociological and psychosocial papers written about it.

The problem is that a lot of this stuff is relegated to things like JSTOR, Elsevier and university libraries in general.

I have a real problem with how trans issues are treated in the public sphere, where by people mystify various aspects of it in a way that we don't do so for other aspects of the human condition. Often solely talking about the individual experience rather than any concertive effort to bring what we do know into the public discussion. Because we actually know quite a bit, and we know that there'll always be trans people on the basis background of the things we've seen, and the various aspects of it that we have built as time has gone on.

So you'll see a ton of books about the subject, but most of the trans affirming ones that simply write from the basis of 'we exist' often ixnay known causal predictors of trans identification that we can see. You know, the things that objectively prove we exist as per mechanics in human development and nature.

Which is dangerous.

So this is kind of the problem of why I have trouble recommending something ... because I honestly don't really agree how it's portrayed in media and a lot of resources are hidden behind a bourgeois education wall.

It panders to all those scientifically illiterate bigots screaming 'SJW' when we tell them to shut up or fuck off (and preferably both). Like all the nonsense that they'll talk about 'balanced political portrayal oftrans issues' which isjust a dogwhistle for bigoted people not to want to have to confront that trans peopleexist, it is not a 'psychological problem' ... it's a known aspect of the human condition with empirical dimensions as to known neurological events. And it's normal. It is not aberrant in the same way we don't treat things like sexual orientation as aberrant psychology.

But metaphysical consistency of appraisal and congruence of application of things like psychometrics is apparently too much of a 'political statement' ... whatever.

See, this is the problem of mystifying the subject... You can't afford to. Not unless you actually hold knowledge as important to understanding.

In short/tl;dr; You won't find any grand narrative that I feel comfortable of saying you should read. Because I honestly can't think of any good suggestions for it. They're useful in that they often outline the personal abuse and torments trans people suffer throughout their lives ... but they're all at loggerheads of demystifying trans people.

And that's what is sorely needed.

No doubt they'll be any number of fucking idiots that will scream how that is 'politicising trans people' when someone like Bill Nye tries to break it down for them ... but they can fuck right off to that darkened cave lair if they want to. The hypocrisy is that I would happily de-politicize trans people and the correlations of cross-sex identification ... but by giving peple facts about it, suddenly you'll get idiots accusing me of politicizing the fact.

As if trans people themselves are political entities simply for being trans. And those types of bigots will always exist. They will always be there. They will always seek to do harm and force a particular narrative over simply acceptance of the fact that trans people exist and we have an increasing amount of research to show that will always be the case due to a multitude of causal factors. From prenatal hormone exposure events, genetics, early childhood development, psychosocial dimensions, and more.

And the problem is much of that research is locked behind a university pay wall precisely because the resistance to simply getting those wads of paper (digital or otherwise) and simply slamming it into people's heads is 'too political' ...

In short, you're never going to get a 'big narrative' of gender. And why people say things like 'gender is a spectrum' is precisely because everything informs it. Psychosocial and psychosexual dimensions, environment and biology.

That's been very informative and provided some sense of direction on what to search for, thankyou. And for such detailed reply, there was a distinct worry the enquiry wouldn't be taken seriously.
Have heard in talks about how valued twins happy to co-operate with researchers are for science, but hadn't quite considered the full extent of how much they can provide until now. Must be awkward for the potential hounding they experience from curious professionals.

Your issue with recommendation there is understandable, it sounds like a bit of a mine-field to navigate through. Agreed that the paywalling of information keeping knowledge for only those wealthy or privileged enough is a definite prevailent issue. Though there are a couple of alternative methods I can try, without garuntee of success, but better than submitting to a system designed against the philosophy of freely accessable accumulated scientific data, while in service of lucrative publishing corporations' control and capital. (Google scholar was the one we were pointed towards during University, but have now signed up to Jstor also).
In a hope to narrow the search parameters; is there anything to specifically avoid - red flags to look out for - signs that point to the work being, at best - an unhelpful waste of time, or worst - actively harmful and disingenuous? If it helps, i'm not hoping for a grand narrative of any sort, just research and information to expand currently limited understanding.

When it comes to people claiming anyone else is being "politicised" to dismiss their struggles, it's rather weird to me as I believe every human is politicised as long as they have to live in any country that requires them to abide by laws and societal expectations. It shouldn't be pejorative the way they use it. Like if anyone works with or cares for any disabled people and sees the system failing them regularly, so they look to working hard to get politicians and parties in power that promise to help these vulnerable people, that's not politicising them, it's giving a shit. If people see healthcare failing them and their loved ones so campaign regularly for MPs who look to healthcare reform, is that politicising yours' and everybody else's health? What about stagnation of wages and not being able to earn a living wage? People that care about losing their jobs are just politicising their own shitty situation. How selfish!
In the end, it's often used by people who cannot empathise with the struggles of said particular people or anybody that cares about them, so naturally project their own very narrow perception onto it to justify what they don't understand (Am trying to limit myself with the use of the term "projection" these days but people keep damn well doing it!).

As long as there are problems that people face, they have no legal option but to use the process of political voice for change... anything anybody cares to fight for can be claimed as "politicising" by complete and utter bunglecunts.

As a slight aside; in a recent debate online about brexit I got accused of being a gender studies student out of nowhere as if it was something to be ashamed of. Even though there was no mention of anything related to gender whatsoever. It was honestly quite baffling and stood out amongst the average attempt to insult. Yet here I am. So maybe they were on to something all along? Maybe everybody else who argues against brexit are all repressed gender studies students in the making!

Samtemdo8:
Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives?

Silently, in the shadows...watching, judging.

What is the overall cultural attitudes?

From whose perspective?

And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

Often enough, it doesn't. Interestingly, there's potential stigma from both the gay and straight populations for different but strangely similar reasons....

Lets just say I never seen a true bisexual person portrayed as a normal person and not treated as just some kinky fetish like in the case of women swining both ways in porn and what not.

Sarah Lance from Legends of Tomorrow. I mean, she screws her way through history, which is hardly normal, but it's not treated like some sort of freaky fetish. She likes men and she likes women and she's not bashful about it.

Samtemdo8:
So where does breeding the human species and family come into play when people self identifies as a different gender?

You can't expect me to believe that a transman thinks he is a women and expects to act like a mother and have her own children, and in the case of adoption, children who are not of his blood.

People adopt all the time, and I can't imagine why being trans makes this any different.

Something Amyss:

Samtemdo8:
Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives?[/qupte]

Silently, in the shadows...watching, judging.

What is the overall cultural attitudes?

From whose perspective?

And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

Often enough, it doesn't. Interestingly, there's potential stigma from both the gay and straight populations for different but strangely similar reasons....

Lets just say I never seen a true bisexual person portrayed as a normal person and not treated as just some kinky fetish like in the case of women swining both ways in porn and what not.

Sarah Lance from Legends of Tomorrow. I mean, she screws her way through history, which is hardly normal, but it's not treated like some sort of freaky fetish. She likes men and she likes women and she's not bashful about it.

[quote="Samtemdo8" post="528.1056038.24266706"]So where does breeding the human species and family come into play when people self identifies as a different gender?

You can't expect me to believe that a transman thinks he is a women and expects to act like a mother and have her own children, and in the case of adoption, children who are not of his blood.

People adopt all the time, and I can't imagine why being trans makes this any different.

Were you responding to me directly or was someone else doing it and you are responding to that person?

I can't tell because the formatting is all screwy.

There, all purdied up.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here