Is gender mutable?

[lincoln]

Here's the stuff to consider:
What if we were never put into those 'boy', 'girl' categories? Never separated in school gym classes, never walked in separate lines through the hallways, nothing like that....
What if we thought of gender and sex in the way we approach race (it would be nice if we didn't notice however, but just to get a starter idea in the air....). Oh, that person is latino, mediterranean,asian, but ya whatever. You know, we just don't make as many assumption based on a physical feature like skin color.

So, is gender mutable? What do you think about not putting a persons sex on their drivers licence, or birth certificate, how would that change things? Do you think it would be a better world if this were so, if distinctions weren't made? What do you think would change? Would those classifications like hetero, homo, bi, trans, dissolve? Would more people be with people of the same 'sex'? What would happen to the traditional family model?

[Vagrant]

Here's the stuff to consider:
What if we were never put into those 'boy', 'girl' categories? Never separated in school gym classes, never walked in separate lines through the hallways, nothing like that....
What if we thought of gender and sex in the way we approach race (it would be nice if we didn't notice however, but just to get a starter idea in the air....). Oh, that person is latino, mediterranean,asian, but ya whatever. You know, we just don't make as many assumption based on a physical feature like skin color.

So, is gender mutable? What do you think about not putting a persons sex on their drivers licence, or birth certificate, how would that change things? Do you think it would be a better world if this were so, if distinctions weren't made? What do you think would change? Would those classifications like hetero, homo, bi, trans, dissolve? Would more people be with people of the same 'sex'? What would happen to the traditional family model?

There's been many social experiments done in this context, I probably couldn't find half of them if I tried.

Most findings indicate that little boys and little girls like the same things. However, mental faculties are not the same in kids -- the part of the brain dealing with kinetics is much larger in little boys, and the part dealing with verbalization is larger in little girls. However, as we grow older and our brains develop (as well as our bodies), differences in behavior become more apparent, but other parts also mature and reach the same level.

That's a pretty generalized statement, but it's probably the best answer I can give for the more scientific portion of your question.

In my opinion, even if you don't "assign" people a gender, there will always be a difference in genders -- the most obvious example is looking at any animal. The genders have clear differences. In fact, it's pretty uncommon to find a species where there is no gender difference, in both behavior and physical features. Even if we did away with all the societal bits and pieces associated with gender, there would be still basic differences in how the genders acted.

As for the bit about sexual orientation -- that seems to be more of a reaction that which is alien to a person. To most Europeans, cannibalism is alien, and therefore disturbing and wrong. But in many societies cannibalism was (or is) a part of ritual, and therefore perfectly acceptable (given a certain context). If you could raise people in a way where no sexual orientation seemed alien, the problem would quickly diminish. We would see more accurate representation of sexual orientation, but people's actual orientations would not change.

[Eyedears]

Lincoln, there's a fascinating book (by a female geneticist, no less) called BRAIN SEX that shows how very much male and femaleness are wired into us. Also read Tiger's WOMEN IN THE KIBBUTZ for an eye-opening acct. In my view, denying the differences between the sexes is as brutal as things like genital mutilation and binding women's feet. Beds of Procrustes never do any of us a favor.

PS (2 min. later): In my 20's I babysat intensively for almost 8 years. During that time, I noticed that even amongst the tykes barely able to walk yet, the boys gravitated towards the trucks and such, and the girls liked dolls, etc. I was reared by a father who basically saw me as his substitute-4-a-son daughter; I know what it's like to be treated as tho your boyness or girlness is exchangeable; believe me, as much as I enjoyed cognitive pursuits and as much as I hated girls (incurably tomboy, LOL!) all thru my grade-school years, I still gravitated towards nestmaking, needle arts and just all round femininity (albeit tempered by my INTJ-ness ;)---I've never been into chatter about fashion, hairdos, nails, etc.).

PPS (Sorry I think so much in hiccups :embarassed:) Consider how hard the unions worked, back in the early 20th c., for women to have things like a lady's lounge (after all, men don't get cramps); or what about maternity leave? Or what about the fact that for the most part, women simply don't have the upper body strength men have, no matter how much they might work out? Is it humane to expect a woman to shoulder the kind of heavy load a man of the same height can? And I don't at all relish the thought of unisex bathrooms in places like colleges or the military. I attended a women's college PRECISELY bec. I didn't want the barnyard atmosphere of the co-ed colleges, yet still, I was subjected to boyfriends in the showers, bec. their girlfriends had broken the curfew and allowed the guys to stay in their dormrooms overnite. That stunk. There're lots of other examples, but I'm sure you get the picture. To me, denying the built-in differences of the sexes is like saying a mouse is no different than an elephant.

[lincoln]

very cool I will do just that. Thanks!
Lincoln, there's a fascinating book (by a female geneticist, no less) called BRAIN SEX that shows how very much male and femaleness are wired into us. Also read Tiger's WOMEN IN THE KIBBUTZ for an eye-opening acct.



lincoln added to this post, 13 minutes and 16 seconds later...

As for the bit about sexual orientation -- that seems to be more of a reaction that which is alien to a person. To most Europeans, cannibalism is alien, and therefore disturbing and wrong. But in many societies cannibalism was (or is) a part of ritual, and therefore perfectly acceptable (given a certain context). If you could raise people in a way where no sexual orientation seemed alien, the problem would quickly diminish. We would see more accurate representation of sexual orientation, but people's actual orientations would not change.

Ya, I think I get what you're saying. That we wouldn't be so turned off by it (as some people are, the same sex bit that is) ,and are you also saying that people are born with a specific preference for V or P or both? Because I dunno how much genitalia could have to do with anything. But, then again, I dunno....just speculating. Maybe we'd just end up saying "well, I'm more of a penis person myself" (instead of saying I am a heterosexual or homosexual=)ha!

Yes, genders have clear differences but as a woman (smiles), I'm thinking, (I'm also guessing you're a man, but even if you are a woman..) how would my personality be altered and my behaviors be altered if those examples of what a woman should act like weren't around, and the whole what a woman should be bit and our place in the world etc...Women are still oppressed and all=) so, I just think this is fascinating....There will always be differences huh? Wow....
The differences may be there but can we really study the differences in a pure way, considering the impact that society has on how we perceive ourselves and all. I'll be back....I have a class on this on Thursday...
KEEP IT GOING PEOPLE

[Eyedears]

the whole what a woman should be bit and our place in the world etc... The only time I ever heard anything "woman should be..." was when I was about 7 years old and my mother told me (as I was running to the garage to get in the car for our outing), "Ladies don't run, [Eyedears]!" (To which I inwardly responded with, "Who cares about being a lady?!" LOL!) Both she and my (Kaiser Wilhelm German) grandmother---her mother---as well as my father's sisters, all of them were employed and quite independent-spirited. My father, mother and grandmother viewed education as a religion; the teachers were the priests and the subjects were the hallowed material. My father pushed and pushed the idea of my going into one of the professions ("When you're a lawyer, [Eyedears]....When you're a doctor,...When you've got your Ph.D....") It was a fait-accompli that I would get one or more of those degrees, but NEVER, EVER did he even ONCE say something like, "When you're married," or "When you've got kids." And yet, I very much WANTED to get married one day after college and have a passel of kids and live out in the country where they could grow up in a wholesome environment. I saw myself knitting, sewing, crocheting, quilting, baking bread, and homeschooling. I longed for that kind of life. Nobody propagandized me into desiring that (on the contrary). It was wired into me.

Truly, it's been a lonnnng time since we've heard anything like "woman should be..." On the contrary: the rabid feminists have been frothing at the mouth that in the past 10 years or so, there's been a resurgent interest amongst the younger women in the needle arts (knitting, crochet, sewing, embroidery). And how about the resurfacing of---GAAAG!---spike heels? No, sorry, nobody can convince me that femininity is purely cultural. Sure, a few things are, for example, in the old days, it was the Irish fisherman who did the aran knitting; the women just spun and washed the wool. And in Eastern Europe, male tailors abounded. But there are way too many "inclinations" hard-wired into us. Political ideologies violate us by ignoring---or worse yet, trying to snuff out---those realities.

Women are still oppressed and all =) I hope the smiley face indicates you mean that facetiously, bec. in the Western world, this is simply not true. (And even in Japan, it must be a fable, bec. consider that the first home knitting machine was invented in the early 40's by a Japanese WOMAN.) I myself do not feel "oppressed" (tho, yes, at times, certain males' male chauvinism grates on my nerves, but no amt. of political tinkering will ever eradicate that, bec. it's an underlying attitude, and politics can not extirpate underlying attitudes, cf. for example in the Soviet Union, where supposedly, racism was extinct, but as soon as the bloody sickle was lifted from those "republics," it became amply clear that this had been a fiction: racism was back with a vengeance. You can not kill a retrovirus using a hammer---and/or sickle {wink}).

[zibber]

Here's the stuff to consider:
What if we were never put into those 'boy', 'girl' categories? Never separated in school gym classes, never walked in separate lines through the hallways, nothing like that....
What if we thought of gender and sex in the way we approach race (it would be nice if we didn't notice however, but just to get a starter idea in the air....). Oh, that person is latino, mediterranean,asian, but ya whatever. You know, we just don't make as many assumption based on a physical feature like skin color.

So, is gender mutable? What do you think about not putting a persons sex on their drivers licence, or birth certificate, how would that change things? Do you think it would be a better world if this were so, if distinctions weren't made? What do you think would change? Would those classifications like hetero, homo, bi, trans, dissolve? Would more people be with people of the same 'sex'? What would happen to the traditional family model?

It's a nice thought experiment that exposes many genderspecific expectations to be cultural conventions. Arbitrary, fictional expectations. Just take any genderspecific norm and imagine them never to have been mentioned by anyone in your environment as something genderspecific. You never would have learned "who's supposed to do what".

(In gender studies discourse, the common term for physical "gender" is "sex", and "gender" is meant to imply the cultural construction we are conditioned to act out.)

And I don't at all relish the thought of unisex bathrooms in places like colleges or the military. I attended a women's college PRECISELY bec. I didn't want the barnyard atmosphere of the co-ed colleges, yet still, I was subjected to boyfriends in the showers, bec. their girlfriends had broken the curfew and allowed the guys to stay in their dormrooms overnite.

There's a "barnyard atmosphere" because of cultural, genderspecific expectations.

And how about the resurfacing of---GAAAG!---spike heels? No, sorry, nobody can convince me that femininity is purely cultural. Sure, a few things are, for example, in the old days, it was the Irish fisherman who did the aran knitting; the women just spun and washed the wool. And in Eastern Europe, male tailors abounded. But there are way too many "inclinations" hard-wired into us. Political ideologies violate us by ignoring---or worse yet, trying to snuff out---those realities.

You went there, but are you actually implying some sort of logical link between physiological "womanhood" and an "inclination" to wear high heels? You'll have to back that up in some way.

I hope the smiley face indicates you mean that facetiously, bec. in the Western world, this is simply not true. (And even in Japan, it must be a fable, bec. consider that the first home knitting machine was invented in the early 40's by a Japanese WOMAN.) I myself do not feel "oppressed"

This is what a lot of post-feminist antifeminists say. "I don't feel oppressed, so women must be just fine." Two things bother me about that. First, most obviously, you take your own situation to be representative of every woman (in the west). I won't waste any words explaining why that is wrong. Second, you don't feel oppressed. I'm in an interesting gender studies seminar group at the moment, and last week it turned out 90% of the "liberated women" in my group cannot leave the house without make-up. They feel super liberated and autonomous, but that's because they just refuse to think about genderspecific expectations affecting them. (This came up in a discussion about islamic head scarves, which are surprisingly comparable to make-up.)

Also, how does the invention of home knitting machines signify the liberation of women? A woman invented knitting machines in the 40s, so all claims of female oppression in Japan made after the 40s "must be a fable"?

[JohnDoe]

There's been many social experiments done in this context, I probably couldn't find half of them if I tried.

Most findings indicate that little boys and little girls like the same things. However, mental faculties are not the same in kids -- the part of the brain dealing with kinetics is much larger in little boys, and the part dealing with verbalization is larger in little girls. However, as we grow older and our brains develop (as well as our bodies), differences in behavior become more apparent, but other parts also mature and reach the same level.


This is bullcrap. The difference in the average values is well within the standard deviations. Or to put it simply the differences within the sexes are much larger then the differences between them. The arguments that cite the differences in the average values to justify arguments are sexist nonsense.

[Nemesis]

This is bullcrap. The difference in the average values is well within the standard deviations. Or to put it simply the differences within the sexes are much larger then the differences between them. The arguments that cite the differences in the average values to justify arguments are sexist nonsense.

The within-group variation is always accounted for in studies that examine structural differences within male and female brains. Studies that don't take the variation into account do not make it past review panels. This is standard protocol. That being said, there is a massive body of literature that has found significant differences between male and female brains (both within human populations and across a vast multitude of species). Like it or not, these differences exist. The only thing these studies note is that there are differences, not that there is an inferior/superior divide between the sexes. Some may twist this knowledge around to justify inherently sexist positions, but there is nothing sexist about pointing out well-documented differences.

[JohnDoe]

The within-group variation is always accounted for in studies that examine structural differences within male and female brains. Studies that don't take the variation into account do not make it past review panels. This is standard protocol. That being said, there is a massive body of literature that has found significant differences between male and female brains (both within human populations and across a vast multitude of species). Like it or not, these differences exist. The only thing these studies note is that there are differences, not that there is an inferior/superior divide between the sexes. Some may twist this knowledge around to justify inherently sexist positions, but there is nothing sexist about pointing out well-documented differences.

That was not what I said. Of course they account for within-group variation. My point was that I haven't seen any study where the difference between the sexes falls outside of the standard deviation range for male and female. Or to put it differently, while there exists a difference, the difference is small enough that there is far more of a contributing effect from normal variation within the female population then from any sex differences. Only in aggregate does the difference become detectable. (Although it is true that males have significantly fatter tails on the curves then women). If you have studies that show significant differences (ala way out side of standard deviation) then lets see them.

[lincoln]

They feel super liberated and autonomous, but that's because they just refuse to think about genderspecific expectations affecting them. (This came up in a discussion about islamic head scarves, which are surprisingly comparable to make-up.)

Also, how does the invention of home knitting machines signify the liberation of women? A woman invented knitting machines in the 40s, so all claims of female oppression in Japan made after the 40s "must be a fable"?

I'm with zibber on this one. I was being quite serious when I said that women are oppressed. I put the smiley face in there because I knew it would ignite a lot of debate.


*did you know that* da da da dum women who have children are paid less and hired less often than women without children, men without children, and men with children. What do most women fear???Answer: Being raped, murdered, robbed....What do most men fear???Anwser: Being made a fool of... I can't remember verbatim what the survey found but shit, I believe it.
How vigilent do you have to be at night in the city. I've been stalked before, attacked by some crack head (not that it doesn't happen to men) but let me see...men are always smothering me when I go out. That's not oppressive? I mean you may hang out in high society and all but in my world where people don't have manners or high IQs then things get pretty bad. Ever since I blossomed I've been a victim. Older men approaching me when I was just 14, god, and the comments all day long. I'm not bragging but there must be something about me (I'm not bragging) but my friends say that I get approached more than any woman they've ever hung around. They probably need to hang around more attractive women but still...I hate it....I finally have a break now that I'm in college and slightly older than the guys in my classes (therefore they are less likely to hit on me). I'm beginning to remember what it's like to feel human again. I just isolate myself because every cafe I go to, every bar, every beach I get hit on. I feel so self conscious at this point (I do work with it) that I wonder what it would be like to have been plain. How nice....my life would have been so very different.

[NoOne]

Personally, if I have a question to ask, I first examine myself to see if I can come to a first principle, a standard.

What am I?

A living organism. A living organism must acquire things from the environment in order to survive.

Thus one can say, an environmental acquisition system must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that sustains and promotes its life.

1) The respiratory system-oxigen. 2) The Digestive system-food. 3) The ocular-system-environmental mapping. 4) The vestibular-system-gravitational positioning. 5) manipulative-system-materials 6) procreative-system-mate. 7) Judgmental-system-wisdom.

It makes a great deal of sense to understand the concept and necessity of mate. The ways we learn respect, resources, etc, just like anything else. The decrease in awareness of the concept of mate, leads to ignorance and diminishes our ability.

1) To me, a woman is the life of man.
2) A man is defined as one male and one female.

A pair bond is the unit of social structure.

Comparing the idea of mate to such things as race, religion, etc, is a total ignorance of what life is. I can live without any notion of race or religion, I cannot survive without a mate.

[Skank]

When I returned to night classes at the local college to pick up a second degree I noticed how much different it was from twenty years ago. Students just see other students as students. We as a society have come along way in general acceptance. We're not there yet (nor do I feel we ever will be) but something is working.

Will people always approach people they find attractive? - I hope so.

[Elfrun]

Gender isn't a problem, it's the social expectations that go along with it, the two are very different.

Someone who is born as, and identifies as, a boy will always be a boy, to be told he can't do something because 'men don't do that' or 'only girls do that' adds restrictions that a child shouldn't have. Boys are taught that showing emotion is a weakness, that liking certain things makes them unacceptable socially (and vice versa for females) what do you think that does to the sensitive lil NF boy who likes playing with dolls and dancing? Those are the kind of expectations I would love to see gone, the expectation that there are do's and don'ts that should be adhered to despite what a child wants to do and enjoys doing.

An interesting read I saw elsewhere recently was X: A fabulous Childs Story by Lois Gould (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), it's fiction but talks of the concept of being genderless.

So, is gender mutable?

No gender is ingrained at birth, sex is changable however and the times that gender becomes a real problem is when it doesn't match someone's sex.

What do you think about not putting a persons sex on their drivers licence, or birth certificate, how would that change things?

That would make little to no difference.

Would those classifications like hetero, homo, bi, trans, dissolve?

No because with the exception of trans they are not about gender but sexual preference.

Would more people be with people of the same 'sex'?

Gender and sexuality are not the same thing. Reduction or removal of gender expectations in children may create more tolerance towards 'alternative' lifestyles but it won't turn people gay.

What would happen to the traditional family model?

Heh, what's a traditional family model?

[Vagrant]

That we wouldn't be so turned off by it (as some people are, the same sex bit that is) ,and are you also saying that people are born with a specific preference for V or P or both?

I don't think that's it. When I look at an attractive girl, I don't think about vagina. I just find her attractive. It's not even a conscious preference.

But, more to the point, I don't think people's orientation varies too highly based on upbringing. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and it's not surprising that many gays or lesbians fit some (but not all!) of those stereotypes. It's almost like they got the wrong body with the other gender's brain.

Yes, genders have clear differences but as a woman (smiles), I'm thinking, (I'm also guessing you're a man, but even if you are a woman..) how would my personality be altered and my behaviors be altered if those examples of what a woman should act like weren't around, and the whole what a woman should be bit and our place in the world etc...Well, I've always felt to have an androgynous mind partly owing to my status as an INTJ.

But there is some socialization that's obviously been engrained into me, and some that's been engrained into you. Some of the more obvious examples include society's pressure for men to be the food provider, men to initiate courtship (at least visibly), women to be pretty, women to be the caretaker -- whether of a family or something else. And there's plenty more. Some of these are based in our evolution, but are reinforced through society's pressure.

Women are still oppressed and all=) so, I just think this is fascinating....There will always be differences huh?Unless somehow we evolve to reproduce asexually. The only species that show no gender difference have only one gender (female).

*did you know that* da da da dum women who have children are paid less and hired less often than women without children, men without children, and men with children.

The reason is liability. Naturally a company wants a regular worker who doesn't have many sick days. Pregnancy leave basically means you have an employee who can go on vacation for a long period, meaning you temporarily lose a trained employee, and have to account for it in their absence.

I've been stalked before, attacked by some crack head (not that it doesn't happen to men) but let me see...men are always smothering me when I go out. That's not oppressive?

The problem is whether or not that's cultural oppression -- there's only so much our society can do to prevent cultural oppression of women. But we can't change a man's natural inclination to chase after a woman. Particularly an attractive woman.

[Prunesquallor]

There would probably be some differences still, a very few innate, but a lot is simply because people like a strong sense of identity and group belonging can be a part of that. They did a study of a person sitting in a park with a baby, pretending not to know it was male or female (just watching it for a moment, etc.) and the passers-by were extremely disturbed by this. Some even suggested undressing it to find out. Also studies showing that even infants are treated differently. There is such a strong urge to find and believe in differences between the sexes that people will make them up when they're not there. Which is why the results in so many of those experiements are seriously overstated, particularly by science journalists, and why brain scans of maybe twenty people are generalised to all of humanity, when they support conclusions people like. People want to believe there are differences and look for them, whether they're relevant or not.

I don't believe a perfect experiment is possible. Theoretically, if one were, I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two difference, but most are probably society. There's certainly clear evidence for societal effects, and I still need to find a large scientific study that showed significant differences which didn't have other issues. It's pretty hard to control to all forms of cultural effects. I'd be interested to see any, of course.

[timetraveler]

No, most of the scientific studies have shown clear evidence that it's not.

[jimnorris]

maybe i'm barking up a wrong tree and don't fully get the question but i like the gender differences. men and women are wonderfully different. we are perfect compliments to one another. for all of my adult life almost all of my best friends have been female and ESFJ's to boot. i find that for me they help me to stay in touch with the emotional side of myself that i otherwise have great difficulty in expressing. beyond just the obvious physical differences there are the mental ones. women in general have better social skills and emotional development while men generally do better at logic, analysis, and abstract. for lack of a better way to say it, my female friends help me stay in touch with my humanity. they help me remember that people do have feelings an it is ok to consider that in my dealings with them.

as far as designations go i think i am like most in that i am very tired of the endless amount that keep being foisted on us today. i getting burned out by trying to keep up with them all. that being said i still think they do help because it reminds us that others are not necessarily like me. the MBTI profile is a good example. most do not have my personality type but they are normal. we just have different talents and gifts. ;)

[LionsPride]

I'm usually in the nature trumps nurture camp when it comes to which one can override the other and I believe all the nurture in the world won't make a typical boy a girl in everything (minus a chromosomal test). However, I think that people place far too much faith in what behaviours actually come from nature. Boys like trucks, girls like dolls. Boys are rough, girls are delicate. The list goes on and I think that most of it is conditioning and confirmation bias. Don't get me wrong, each baby does seem to have a personality of its own, but as previously mentioned the difference between Cory and Billy could be significantly greater in favourite toys/ activities/ abilities than Sally and Billy and yet Cory and Billy will both be rewarded for 'boy' behaviour where as Sally will be rewarded for 'girl' behaviour. People treat girl and boy babies differently and to think that it won't have any affect on how the child will form their self identity is a mistake.

Now whether this sort of conditioning is good or bad, the debate is still out on that. On one hand the conditioning prepares the children for what the world will expect of them later, but on the other hand if we didn't condition them maybe there wouldn't be so much disparity in the roles. Not knowing where the nature and nurture line is drawn, especially pre-puberty and in mate selection doesn't make it any easier to determine what can or can not be changed.

As for how the world would be different if we stopped using gender on everything and anything? I can't see why knowing if I'm male or female makes a difference in vast majority of the applications where I'm required to fill it in. As far as I'm concerned people are far too preoccupied with it and needlessly bothered if they don't know what gender a person is. Heaven forbid you don't know which arbitrary box of gender characteristics to assign Pat Smith before you actually meet them. Maybe it's because there far too many gender based terms (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) we can't seem to get rid of. Wouldn't want to call a Mr. a Ms. would we? :rolleyes:

[firebee]

"Because my male ancestors threw spears at wooly mammoths, my inherent masculine nature leads me to interact with a small-scale plastic replica of a piece of construction equipment invented within human memory. This clearly has nothing to do with cultural influence."

It strikes me that there is a danger of conflating "There are physiological and psychological differences between the population of women and the population of men," with "We know what these differences are and how they manifest in the lives of individual women and men," or "The current set of gender roles stem directly from these differences, and are the only way that these differences could influence gender differentiation."

Gender identity -- the internal conclusion as to what gender you are -- appears to be fairly firmly fixed. Individual behaviors exist on a continuum and are generally subject to change -- to take a trivial example, the color coding scheme for babies has for some reason reversed from where it was a century ago. If you're going to answer "Is gender mutable?" you first have to answer "What is gender?"

[lincoln]

The reason is liability. Naturally a company wants a regular worker who doesn't have many sick days. Pregnancy leave basically means you have an employee who can go on vacation for a long period, meaning you temporarily lose a trained employee, and have to account for it in their absence.

But, MEN who have CHILDREN get PAID MORE than WOMEN who have CHILDREN and they are hired just as often as people who do not have children.
This is call DISCRIMINATION, which is equivalent to OPPRESSION in these types of situations.

The reason is liability. Naturally a company wants a regular worker who doesn't have many sick days. Pregnancy leave basically means you have an employee who can go on vacation for a long period, meaning you temporarily lose a trained employee, and have to account for it in their absence.

This again is discriminatory and oppressive. How can know if someone even wants a child. That's like assuming that a gay man who wishes to enter the military will try screwing all his bunk mates.Also, we are responsible for creating human beings does that not deserve some respect and consideration...Men are also eligible for paternity leave.

I can't see why knowing if I'm male or female makes a difference in vast majority of the applications where I'm required to fill it in. As far as I'm concerned people are far too preoccupied with it and needlessly bothered if they don't know what gender a person is.

Well, what I am trying to say (to a degree) is this...Watch a movie, almost any movie. What kind of a role do women have to play in them? Do you ever see men following women around in movies supporting their character? In almost every movie the man is the antagonist, the decisions he makes are what the film is centered around. It's his mind, his world, that is depicted, not the womans. Unless you have those super emotional movies with an all woman cast...
These are the things that make women the second class sex, the underdog. It is a subconscious thing.


The problem is whether or not that's cultural oppression -- there's only so much our society can do to prevent cultural oppression of women. But we can't change a man's natural inclination to chase after a woman. Particularly an attractive woman.

Our society does not need to protect women, that's the problem here, these are the kinds of notions we have to get out of our heads.
Man's natural inclination to chase a woman? Okay, yes all we must take action in order to acheive our goals. However, I do not often see women following men down the street making lude remarks (this isn't most men but still...). And to think how many old wealthy men that I was around growing up that hit on me when I was in my teens is horrible. I don't know how many women in their 50's go about whistling at and approaching young boys though. Haven't heard too much reported on that.


If you're going to answer "Is gender mutable?" you first have to answer "What is gender?"

un momento per favore...=)

[timetraveler]

I'm usually in the nature trumps nurture camp when it comes to which one can override the other and I believe all the nurture in the world won't make a typical boy a girl in everything (minus a chromosomal test). However, I think that people place far too much faith in what behaviours actually come from nature. Boys like trucks, girls like dolls. Boys are rough, girls are delicate. The list goes on and I think that most of it is conditioning and confirmation bias. Don't get me wrong, each baby does seem to have a personality of its own, but as previously mentioned the difference between Cory and Billy could be significantly greater in favourite toys/ activities/ abilities than Sally and Billy and yet Cory and Billy will both be rewarded for 'boy' behaviour where as Sally will be rewarded for 'girl' behaviour. People treat girl and boy babies differently and to think that it won't have any affect on how the child will form their self identity is a mistake.

Now whether this sort of conditioning is good or bad, the debate is still out on that. On one hand the conditioning prepares the children for what the world will expect of them later, but on the other hand if we didn't condition them maybe there wouldn't be so much disparity in the roles. Not knowing where the nature and nurture line is drawn, especially pre-puberty and in mate selection doesn't make it any easier to determine what can or can not be changed.

As for how the world would be different if we stopped using gender on everything and anything? I can't see why knowing if I'm male or female makes a difference in vast majority of the applications where I'm required to fill it in. As far as I'm concerned people are far too preoccupied with it and needlessly bothered if they don't know what gender a person is. Heaven forbid you don't know which arbitrary box of gender characteristics to assign Pat Smith before you actually meet them. Maybe it's because there far too many gender based terms (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) we can't seem to get rid of. Wouldn't want to call a Mr. a Ms. would we? :rolleyes:


The source of the gender conditioning and perhaps the main difference between men and women, the world has sympathy and compassion for women. When something bad happens to a woman everyone feels bad. When something bad happens to a man, too bad for the man. This starts when men are boys, boys are treated different by society even in school where they are told to be a man, be strong etc. Among men there is no pity, no sympathy, and no compassion for the weak. Whether these men are in prison, in highschool, in the corporate world, if the man is weak nobody respects him or cares about him.

This is why men associate being loved with being strong. On some subconscious level a vast majority of men don't believe that they'd be loved if they aren't strong. Society only reinforces this by basically destroying men who show any weakness whatsoever. Basically if a man is weak, he is treated as less than human and worse than an animal. If a woman is weak, it's okay because women are allowed to be weak.

That is the main difference between how the genders are treated by society. If you are a man and you aren't strong, there is nobody you can go to for protection. You either learn to protect yourself or you get harassed your entire life. On the other hand women are used to going to others for all sorts of support, whether emotional support or actual physical support, and this is the main difference. Men have no where to turn, no one to go to for protection, and a majority of men have no concept of what emotional support is all about because when they were boys they had no one to go to for emotional support.

On some level this is necessary, society is harsh and we don't really live in a world where weakness is allowed. If you are weak then you don't receive any respect, any rights, or any love, unless you are a woman and then society might make an exception for you.

[Vagrant]

But, MEN who have CHILDREN get PAID MORE than WOMEN who have CHILDREN and they are hired just as often as people who do not have children.
This is call DISCRIMINATION, which is equivalent to OPPRESSION in these types of situations.You missed my point.

My point was pregnancy leave -- not children. Pregnancy leave is basically an unplanned vacation, and it is a liability to a company, since they lose a trained individual for a certain amount of time (which could be DEVASTATING to a company if it occurred at the wrong time). I don't know how well the average man's pay lines up with the average woman's pay if you account for pregnancy leave in women, so if you have a source, please let me know.

This again is discriminatory and oppressive. How can know if someone even wants a child. That's like assuming that a gay man who wishes to enter the military will try screwing all his bunk mates.Also, we are responsible for creating human beings does that not deserve some respect and consideration...Men are also eligible for paternity leave.You pointed out that it is typically women who have already had children who have these problems -- not single women who have not had kids. In the company's mind, it is only logical that if it happens once, it probably will happen again. I'm not saying that companies are RIGHT in this mindset, but their focus is on money, not on equality beyond what they are legally required.

And I understand, I know just how much effort it takes for children. I'm a biologist, after all. ;) But businesses are still businesses.

PS, while paternity leave is available (sometimes), the vast majority of men don't take it. Some do, most men don't. However, all women giving birth take maternity leave.

In almost every movie the man is the antagonist, the decisions he makes are what the film is centered around. It's his mind, his world, that is depicted, not the womans.Be careful what you wish for, it is a double-edged sword.

Our society does not need to protect women, that's the problem here, these are the kinds of notions we have to get out of our heads.
Man's natural inclination to chase a woman? Okay, yes all we must take action in order to acheive our goals. However, I do not often see women following men down the street making lude remarks (this isn't most men but still...). And to think how many old wealthy men that I was around growing up that hit on me when I was in my teens is horrible. I don't know how many women in their 50's go about whistling at and approaching young boys though. Haven't heard too much reported on that.I certainly speak for myself when I say I wouldn't engage in that behavior. But not every man thinks or feels the same way I do.

And have you ever heard of cougars? I've gotten hit on by several of them.

However, I do not often see women following men down the street making lude remarks (this isn't most men but still...). Of course, you're referring to catcalls. Usually the men who engage in such behavior have been raised in a chauvinistic way, and thus it is a cultural fault there. Women don't engage in such behavior, because they've been told it's unacceptable to do so (it's not ladylike). I don't engage in such behavior, because I've been told it's unacceptable to do so.

And to think how many old wealthy men that I was around growing up that hit on me when I was in my teens is horrible.While I certainly wish this didn't happen, it does. The stereotypical human sexual interaction is a wealthy, strong man and a beautiful, young woman. I say stereotypical, because that's what a lot of old geezer ecologists thought would happen with humans. And, ironically, they weren't too horribly off -- most older, wealthier men have a higher chance of "scoring" than they would if they were poor and young. As a result, the rich old men get socialized to behave in a way to maximize their sexual prowess.

Is it right? Hell no. And I'm sorry you got treated that way. But I can't think of anything that could be done besides some vigilante ballbuster.

[Synamon]

PS, while paternity leave is available (sometimes), the vast majority of men don't take it. Some do, most men don't. However, all women giving birth take maternity leave.

In the United States. Which has the lowest mandated level of unpaid parental leave in the western world. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (Page 6 has a pretty chart) And 40% of Americans don't even qualify for it.

It would not be fair to say that the "vast majority of men" don't take parental leave in other countries, especially in those where parental leave is a paid benefit.
Canada:
The proportion of fathers who took any kind of leave after a birth or adoption rose from 38 per cent in 2001 to 55 per cent in 2006, according to another Statistics Canada report.
source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. rental_leave_24JUN08.aspx)

Norway:
However, the Gender Equality Ombud's office reported in 1997 that over 70 per cent of fathers with the right to the paid leave took it that year, a very large increase over the 2.4 per cent registered for 1992. Since then, take-up of the paternity quota by fathers has been consistently high...
source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[LionsPride]

Well, what I am trying to say (to a degree) is this...Watch a movie, almost any movie. What kind of a role do women have to play in them? Do you ever see men following women around in movies supporting their character? In almost every movie the man is the antagonist, the decisions he makes are what the film is centered around. It's his mind, his world, that is depicted, not the womans. Unless you have those super emotional movies with an all woman cast...
These are the things that make women the second class sex, the underdog. It is a subconscious thing.

Overstatement much?

Look, mass media is responsible for a lot of things, but saying that they "make women the second class sex, the underdog" is putting the blinders on. Women have been second class citizens for a lot longer than T.V., movies, or the printing press for that matter. While mass media tends to take the present culture and stretches it to new extremes, it is often more of a distorted reflection of what is going on in culture than the dictator, as sad as that is. If mass media really was the driving force behind the role of gender in society than women out to be sending thank you letters to Hollywood for transitioning them from the housewife in Leave it to Beaver to the sexually liberated executive or ass kicking action hero. Personally, I'd rather give credit where credit is due, and it's not Hollywood.

[mrStevens]

Heh. This reminds me of the "root of all evil" type threads. A lot of the statements made have been conjectural and not backed up with evidence. It also seems like this thread is going all over the place. Like everyone is debating a moving target. Good world versus better world. Oppression versus free speech. Social conditioning versus natural instincts. Even EEO was brought up. I'm confused.

:huh:

[Vagrant]

In the United States. Which has the lowest mandated level of unpaid parental leave in the western world. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (Page 6 has a pretty chart) And 40% of Americans don't even qualify for it.

It would not be fair to say that the "vast majority of men" don't take parental leave in other countries, especially in those where parental leave is a paid benefit.Canada:

source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. rental_leave_24JUN08.aspx)

Norway:

source (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Ah, I assumed it was an unpaid leave.

[Nameless]

"well, I'm more of a penis person myself"
May I quote you on that?

The differences may be there but can we really study the differences in a pure way, considering the impact that society has on how we perceive ourselves and all. I'll be back....I have a class on this on Thursday...
KEEP IT GOING PEOPLE
I think this is why babies or young children are good to test on. Yes, they face other testing problems, but I think it's impossible to find somebody "pure", unless you had children for the sake of testing, but controlling what they see or not see would be their own form of society anyways.

[demaugustus]

So, is gender mutable?

Simply stated: No. So as long as a man has a penis and get's sexually aroused by a woman and a woman has a vagina and gets sexually aroused by a man, gender will never be mutable. Our species (and millions others) has been designed through evolution to procreate with two separate sexes to ensure the survival of the species. If gender, and the roles cultures assign to them, became "mutable" it would endanger the species, which would never happen because biologically we are programed to always recognize sexual differences.

Do you think about not putting a persons sex on their drivers licence, or birth certificate, how would that change things? Do you think it would be a better world if this were so, if distinctions weren't made? What do you think would change? Would those classifications like hetero, homo, bi, trans, dissolve? Would more people be with people of the same 'sex'? What would happen to the traditional family model?

As for the rest of your questions, and taking into account what I said above, I don't think gender or sexual preferences should ever be "mutable". To "mute" sexuality is to mute a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human and is thus oppressive to any individual or group. Rather, I believe we should accept each other for the differences that we have in our sexuality. Once there has been acceptance of sexual differences then I believe that it will be easier to allow equal opportunity for all individuals.

[The Psyentist]

The freakish Dr. Money did a twin study about gender nature vs nurture.

Whenever I have this kind of discussion with friends I away bring up hormones...those obnoxious little thing that have a surprising impact on behaviour. I tend to think genetics are a stronger factor in this case because the gender roles had to come from somewhere...like genetic predispositions. The woman to be nurturing and the man to be assertive and protecting.

But I think some people could be rather "androgynous" if they didn't conform to gender norms. But they do. That's one of the reasons I find the female gender tiresome. They think they are equal with men...and they think that means they actually act the same as men...but they expect special feminine treatment that has been endorsed by traditions that told women to be quiet and submissive and pretty.

I don't know...this stuff is confusing and irritating.

[firebee]

Simply stated: No. So as long as a man has a penis and get's sexually aroused by a woman and a woman has a vagina and gets sexually aroused by a man, gender will never be mutable.

If we're going to define "man" and "woman" that way, we're going to have a significant population of third-gender people. What social roles do they get?


To "mute" sexuality is to mute a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human and is thus oppressive to any individual or group.


"Mutable" is a synonym of "changeable". It does not mean "able to be silenced".


Rather, I believe we should accept each other for the differences that we have in our sexuality. Once there has been acceptance of sexual differences then I believe that it will be easier to allow equal opportunity for all individuals.

I tend to agree -- denying an aspect of an person's nature either because it contradicts or because it is in line with some given set of gender roles is pointlessly damaging. We should rather focus our attention on finding a sustainable social place for as many people as possible so that their talents are not unduly wasted.

[demaugustus]

If we're going to define "man" and "woman" that way, we're going to have a significant population of third-gender people. What social roles do they get?

Most of the population consists of heterosexuals (those who get aroused mostly by the opposite sex), so I was speaking in generalities; as I was for most of my previous post because this is a very complex topic. No one person is 100% heterosexual, so you ask about the people who span into the realm of bisexual and homosexual. I suppose if a majority of a population can recognize that no one individual is completely heterosexual, then we may be able to assign roles for bisexuals and gays into such a culture; roles, that is, that aren't oppressive to their sexuality. Some may argue that being homosexual is not natural or is counter productive to procreation. I say that such arguments are superfluous because a significant portion of the human population engages in it, as with other two sexed creatures, so it still must be a fundamental aspect of humanity (or even of certain two sexed animals), and to deny a homosexual his human need to be homosexual is oppressive for that individual. Interestingly, there have been some cultures in the past that have embraced third-gender people.



"Mutable" is a synonym of "changeable". It does not mean "able to be silenced".

A play with words. If sex is "changeable", in the context in which the OP makes it, then we are in a sense "muting" it aren't we, with the logic I provided earlier?

[Synamon]

Most of the population consists of heterosexuals (those who get aroused mostly by the opposite sex), so I was speaking in generalities; as I was for most of my previous post because this is a very complex topic. No one person is 100% heterosexual, so you ask about the people who span into the realm of bisexual and homosexual. I suppose if a majority of a population can recognize that no one individual is completely heterosexual, then we may be able to assign roles for bisexuals and gays into such a culture; roles, that is, that aren't oppressive to their sexuality. Some may argue that being homosexual is not natural or is counter productive to procreation. I say that such arguments are superfluous because a significant portion of the human population engages in it, as with other two sexed creatures, so it still must be a fundamental aspect of humanity (or even of certain two sexed animals), and to deny a homosexual his human need to be homosexual is oppressive for that individual. Interestingly, there have been some cultures in the past that have embraced third-gender people.
What are you on about? This thread is about gender roles and gender /= sexuality.

As firebee said, you can't assign gender based on sexual orientation. Being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with gender.

[timetraveler]

The freakish Dr. Money did a twin study about gender nature vs nurture.

Whenever I have this kind of discussion with friends I away bring up hormones...those obnoxious little thing that have a surprising impact on behaviour. I tend to think genetics are a stronger factor in this case because the gender roles had to come from somewhere...like genetic predispositions. The woman to be nurturing and the man to be assertive and protecting.

But I think some people could be rather "androgynous" if they didn't conform to gender norms. But they do. That's one of the reasons I find the female gender tiresome. They think they are equal with men...and they think that means they actually act the same as men...but they expect special feminine treatment that has been endorsed by traditions that told women to be quiet and submissive and pretty.

I don't know...this stuff is confusing and irritating.


What many masculine women don't seem to understand is that gender roles exist because someone is needed for these roles. If a woman is going to take the mans role thats fine with me. She just has to understand that this role has nothing to do with simply wearing pants and talking like a man, she must have the right temperament for this role. The role is that of protector of the family, and if shes used to other people protecting her as opposed to protecting herself and others, she may breakdown under pressure and or not live the role properly.

The individual in the mans role should be the individual best able to deal with certain kinds of situations, and if she works well under certain pressure and has the resources to support and protect herself and others, she will be able to accept the role.

I honestly don't know why any woman would want to be in a man's role, it sucks. The vast majority of men are in that role because they don't know anything else, or don't have a choice, but the women who choose this role, do they know anything else or have a choice? Are they simply the best who are available to fill these positions?

I agree that men and women are equal, I believe the gender roles are biologically necessarily, I do not agree with post genderism. I think that perspective is hopelessly naive. Just because we get rid of gender it's not going to remove the need for people to fill these roles.

[Storm]

PS (2 min. later): In my 20's I babysat intensively for almost 8 years. During that time, I noticed that even amongst the tykes barely able to walk yet, the boys gravitated towards the trucks and such, and the girls liked dolls, etc. I was reared by a father who basically saw me as his substitute-4-a-son daughter; I know what it's like to be treated as tho your boyness or girlness is exchangeable; believe me, as much as I enjoyed cognitive pursuits and as much as I hated girls (incurably tomboy, LOL!) all thru my grade-school years, I still gravitated towards nestmaking, needle arts and just all round femininity (albeit tempered by my INTJ-ness ;)---I've never been into chatter about fashion, hairdos, nails, etc.).

Personal observations usually aren't very good because they are full of confirmation bias. But, just to use my example against yours:

I taught pre-school for 5 years. I have taught thousands of children (summer camps had 100 kids every 3 weeks, 5 sessions a summer). I did notice gender differences, but many of these differences weren't innate, but were a result of children trying to learn cultural norms. One of the first cultural norms children are exposed to is gender differences - girls and boys dress differently, are expected to do different things, like different colors. Interestingly, boys and girls would often play the same games, but put a spin on it. For instance, girls when playing with blocks are building a "Princess Castle," boys are just building a "Castle." Girls want to play with the pink castle, boys want to play with the "real" castle.

Most interesting, you could easily tell how traditional a family's values was from their children's behavior. Children from very traditional households adhered strictly to gender expectations, even at the tender age of 4. Children where the dad stayed at home and the mom worked were more willing to play with both genders or engage in the "wrong" gender's games.

I caught little girls bullying little boys. There were girls who loved to run and play in the mud. There were boys who preferred to sit and color. Sadly, sometimes a child would engage in the "wrong" gender's games and other children would make fun of them of it. I would stop this when I saw it, but I'm sure some adults would discourage their child from such play themselves.

Not that I think men and women are exactly the same (obviously, not), but the differences are grossly exaggerated by culture.

So, what differences did I notice? Well, I found this whole thing pretty interesting, so I started trying to see if I could notice anything. When I noticed a supposed difference, I would watch to see if I could spot the same behavior in the other gender in the same frequency - often I could and the "difference" was chalked up to cultural bias.

Girls were usually able to attention for slightly longer. Boys liked more active games, but it was by no means a hard and fast rule. I did notice that looking at children as individuals instead of imposing gender roles upon them was much more useful. Some children like arts and crafts, some would rather run. Some children have dominate personalities and will bully others if you don't watch them. Some can't pay attention, some need to be reassured.

Not that any of my observations are scientific, just thought I'd add to the confusion. ;)

[firebee]

What many masculine women don't seem to understand is that gender roles exist because someone is needed for these roles. If a woman is going to take the mans role thats fine with me.

What folks who are not masculine women don't seem to understand is that being masculine does not necessarily require taking on one particular interpretation of "the man's role". Even if one happens to be a man.


She just has to understand that this role has nothing to do with simply wearing pants and talking like a man, she must have the right temperament for this role.

Dare I ask just what constitutes "talking like a man"?


The role is that of protector of the family, and if shes used to other people protecting her as opposed to protecting herself and others, she may breakdown under pressure and or not live the role properly.

Any person who is incapable of defending themselves and others, and who is dependent on the protection of other people, is bound for pain and suffering as a result of that defect. Regardless of whether they are a man or a woman.

Also, it sounds suspiciously like those of us who have not started a family have just been converted into Barbie and Ken dolls. That's an even broader degenderification than one based on sexual orientation.


I honestly don't know why any woman would want to be in a man's role, it sucks.


Possibly because, from a certain perspective, the "woman's role" sucks worse?

[timetraveler]

What folks who are not masculine women don't seem to understand is that being masculine does not necessarily require taking on one particular interpretation of "the man's role". Even if one happens to be a man.


I disagree. Society defines what masculinity is not us. If you look in any society anywhere, one portion of the population is selected to protect the other portion. It's always been this way, you can get rid of the words masculinity and man, and these people would still exist and it would change absolutely nothing but the language. To be man is to adopt the role of protecting others, and a good example is police offers. There are female police officers who have saved lives or who are capable of saving lives, these police officers function as a man according to their role in society.



Dare I ask just what constitutes "talking like a man"?

Talking in a deep voice, talking "macho", talking "tough", none of this has anything to do with being a man but a lot of people associate it with manhood. If you are capable of saving lives or if you have saved a life, or if you provide support which keeps others alive, that makes you a man.


Any person who is incapable of defending themselves and others, and who is dependent on the protection of other people, is bound for pain and suffering as a result of that defect. Regardless of whether they are a man or a woman.


This does not change the fact that women are not programmed to defend themselves. How many women do you see lifting weights in gym? How many women do you see learning martial arts? How many women do you know who know how to use a gun? I'm not saying physical self defense is the only form, but there is a remarkably large percentage of women who do not believe in self defense at all and who take a completely pacifist position of turn the other cheek. These women would be more likely to break down and cry than pick up a gun.

I do not want to lead anyone to believe that all pacifists are women because there are men who are pacifists too. The point I'm trying to make is the male role in society has traditionally been that of protector, in specific the man exists to protect the pacifist. The pacifist individual is not always biologically female, but they are an individual who is unwilling to defend themselves. Individuals who are unwilling to defend themselves are only able to exist if others are willing to defend them. As a result boys were trained from a young age to protect these sorts of individuals, this is why some men choose professions the military, or to become police officers.


Also, it sounds suspiciously like those of us who have not started a family have just been converted into Barbie and Ken dolls. That's an even broader degenderification than one based on sexual orientation.


Some peoples minds are warped into that but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual function of gender in society. You cannot remove gender from society beyond just masking it by removing the words. The reason you cannot remove it is because as long as there are pacifists who are unwilling to protect themselves, there will be men who will train and program themselves to protect those people. Women can take on the role too but the simple fact is that it will always be a necessary role in society.



Possibly because, from a certain perspective, the "woman's role" sucks worse?


An individual who adopts the womans role has the option to be a pacifist. If you adopt the mans role you lose that option. You cannot turn the other cheek when peoples lives depend on you. I'm not saying you have to be macho, or a bully, but you realize that you have a wife and child who must be protected and you are the best suited for that task. It's really that simple.

The roles are the protectors and the protected.

[firebee]

If you are capable of saving lives or if you have saved a life, or if you provide support which keeps others alive, that makes you a man.

I guess we've figured out why I get called 'sir' from behind so often.

Learn something new every day; I thought for sure it was the hair and the shoulders.


How many women do you see learning martial arts?


About half of the students that I assist in teaching.


How many women do you know who know how to use a gun?


Most women I know, at least nominally. It ain't rocket surgery.


The roles are the protectors and the protected.

Then why not call them that?

[timetraveler]

I guess we've figured out why I get called 'sir' from behind so often.

Learn something new every day; I thought for sure it was the hair and the shoulders.



About half of the students that I assist in teaching.



Most women I know, at least nominally. It ain't rocket surgery.



Then why not call them that?


Using a gun isn't easy as most people don't know how to shoot properly. And even among people who technically know how to do it, wouldn't be able to because they don't have the right temperament. I understand that plenty of women take martial arts, but it's still more common for men than for women in the general population. I don't know what line of work you do but if you carry a gun, teach martial arts, and get called sir, you aren't the typical woman.

Why not call them the protectors and the protected? Because we invented the words male and female. These words were invented during a time before society was well organized and the society was hunter gatherer. It had to be split like that because a certain segment of the population had to specialize in the use of weapons and in martial arts.


I tell women I know all the time that they should learn to use a gun, or learn martial arts, but a majority of women tell me they are afraid of guns, or they have other people to protect them so they dont feel like they need to protect themselves. Of course some women do know martial arts and can use a gun, but the majority of women I know don't know either. And this is just physical self defense, a lot of women including working women believe in equality on the level of being able to work any job a man can, but on the other hand these same women are unable to accept men who do not act like traditional men. What I'm saying is a lot of women are traditional in every way, except they want to be treated fair at work.

These women believe men should treat them the same way men traditionally treated women. These women believe men should still act and perform as men, even protect them physically if necessary. At the same time some of these women also promote pacifist policies such as gun control. I think women who believe in some of the concepts you are promoting don't want to let go of all the traditional romantic notions of how a man should act.

He's supposed to ask her on a date. (Men are supposed to be assertive)
He's supposed to protect her physically. (Men are supposed to protect women)
He's supposed to sacrifice and work hard on the job. (Men are supposed to work and not be nurturers or houseworkers)
He's supposed to pay for dates, open doors etc (Men are supposed to put women first)

Basically our society just has more people trying to take the male role, but if more women are going to take the male role, then more males are going to have to take the traditionally female roles. Men are going to have to learn to cook, and change diapers, and do laundry. Men are going to have to learn how to raise children. The housewife has to become the househusband, and men are going to have to be trained for this role as well starting in childhood.

Ken and Barbie? Boys are going to have to learn to play house as well as play soldier.

[firebee]

I don't know what line of work you do but if you carry a gun, teach martial arts, and get called sir, you aren't the typical woman.

Apparently, per your division of the genders, I'm not a woman at all. This strikes me as deeply strange, given that the configuration of my body is unambiguously female and I feel no great inclination to identify as male.


Why not call them the protectors and the protected? Because we invented the words male and female.

... invented those words to refer to the sexual characteristics of people, and later refined them to refer to the configuration of their chromosomes or to their internal sense of gender.

Defining "male" as "person capable of pursuing an interest in the martial arts" is, to say the least, rather nonstandard usage -- and depending on the particulars of how you define "capable", could classify most people as "male" or hardly any. On the other hand, describing the functions you discuss as "protectors" and "protected" provides a succinct description of the relevant behaviors and produces much less confusion as to which bathroom one should be using.

It seems to me that there ought to be at least a passing relationship between the label "woman" and the presence of a vagina. But maybe I'd better leave that question to the actual women.

[demaugustus]

What are you on about? This thread is about gender roles and gender /= sexuality.

As firebee said, you can't assign gender based on sexual orientation. Being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with gender.

Like I said earlier: So as long as there is sexual tension between the two primary sexes, male and female, roles will be assigned to them. Read through my first post. I don't know how I can be any more clear. I assumed when firebee said "third-gender people" she was referring to those people who's sexual drive does not match their perceived sex by the rest of society, rather than their genetic gender which determines their sexual drive, considering there are very few people who are genetically asexual or homosexual. If firebee is referring to some other kind of "third-gender" which I don't know about, a person who splits in half to reproduce or adds a complementary type of sperm in a threesome between two men and a woman, then I have no idea what firebee is talking about.

As firebee said, you can't assign gender based on sexual orientation. Being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with gender.

Sexual attraction has everything to do with gender and the roles in which we assign them. Gender is all about reproduction; thus, it's about heterosexuality in humans because we have two sexes which are needed to reproduce, in general. When I said...

Simply stated: No. So as long as a man has a penis and get's sexually aroused by a woman and a woman has a vagina and gets sexually aroused by a man, gender will never be mutable.

...you can include the other biological factors that make us male or female, such as neurological and other physicals aspects, such as sexual dimorphism in our species.

[lincoln]

Look, mass media is responsible for a lot of things, but saying that they "make women the second class sex, the underdog" is putting the blinders on. Women have been second class citizens for a lot longer than T.V., movies, or the printing press for that matter. While mass media tends to take the present culture and stretches it to new extremes, it is often more of a distorted reflection of what is going on in culture than the dictator, as sad as that is. If mass media really was the driving force behind the role of gender in society than women out to be sending thank you letters to Hollywood for transitioning them from the housewife in Leave it to Beaver to the sexually liberated executive or ass kicking action hero. Personally, I'd rather give credit where credit is due, and it's not Hollywood.

Well, I was responding to those that were arguing that oppression of almost every kind no longer exists for women. That's all, I was just trying to be relevant. But, you are most right, centuries my dear, centuries.

Heh. This reminds me of the "root of all evil" type threads. A lot of the statements made have been conjectural and not backed up with evidence. It also seems like this thread is going all over the place. Like everyone is debating a moving target. Good world versus better world. Oppression versus free speech. Social conditioning versus natural instincts. Even EEO was brought up. I'm confused.

Yes, I agree, I was thinking about how I responded to some people, in that it may drive us even further off topic. However, I'm not too sure that there is a way to stay on target here. Gender and sexuality are developed by several things. It's about history, it's about traditional gender roles, family traditions, religion, sexual behaviors. I would agree, that we are getting off topic, but I'm glad to see people reaching for those things. I think it's about developing a clearer focus.
I just got out of a three hour class that had to do with gender and sexuality. We engage in discussions the entire class. I'll tell ya, most people don't really want to think. They are extremely lazy and set in their ways. So I'm glad to read every single post here. I was doing most of the talking...
What is gender? Well, we can say that we are assigned a gender at birth, we are expected to carry out those gender roles. These roles are nurtured by social interactions, educational institutions, parents etc..Then, what do we attribute to each gender? There are physical cues- facial hair for men, breasts for women...behavioral cues, power dynamics and sexual cues...Then there is the question of what gender you identify with. The who am I? of it all. What gender do you feel most comfortable belonging to. I know that I am more the androgynous sort.. Always been like that..I can look back and see that I prefered to play with boys because I like physical activity, I didn't like dresses when I got older because it set me apart from the gender I felt that I most belonged to...Yes, girls are active, but I really wasn't that motivated to compete on any social level with people. Girls were more inclined to do that. I just wanted to get the best grades and play soccer and football. I wasn't like the other girls (not that they didn't want good grades)....but I remember missing having boys in my life. Our gender roles eventually kicked in and got in the way of everything. All my fun was spoiled =)
Sex and gender intersect..there are few clear lines that can be drawn here. Sexual identity in its most basic form is, what kind of genitalia do you have and what do you do with it and whom with. I sympathize with both sexes too. I want to make that clear. Women and men both have their work cut out for them. Conflict between sexes isn't necessarily always obvious. Gender to me is a very interesting thing. It's hard to pin down, but has so much to do with the decisions we make and our behaviors..

[Nemesis]

...you can include the other biological factors that make us male or female, such as neurological and other physicals aspects, such as sexual dimorphism in our species.

To be a pain in the ass I have to point out that we do not really have sexual dimorphism in a strict sense. Yes, in terms of chromosomal sex, there is male or female... one or the other. However, there are a large number of hormonal variations that produce ambiguous genitalia and rote hormonal profiles (Androgen insensitivity syndrome, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 5-Alpha reductase deficiency, etc.). People with these hormonal variants can appear to be entirely male or female in appearance (despite ambiguous genitalia) and self-identify as such, yet have contradicting chromosomal profiles. Often, these folks will shift their self-identified gender identity over the course of their lifespan.

Furthermore, even people with generally sex-typical genetic, chromosomal, and gonadal hormone profiles can experience a degree of flux in terms of sex-typical neurological development. In men, if there is a lower number of androgen receptors in various brain regions, circulating androgens cannot masculinize those areas of the brain and they remain female typical. It's vital to note that in terms of biology, female is the default sex and it is the influence of androgen that leads to masculinized profiles. This pattern extends from fetal development to genital development and neural development across the lifespan. There is plenty of room for flux along the way. Trying to shoehorn the radical variance we see across all these things into 2 distinct binary categories doesn't really work.

Yes, there are distinct differences that occur between the majority who fall into sex-typical categories, but these are not absolute.

**Note** This post was not a response to demvesalius exclusively, but I thought it would be noteworthy for the discussion as a whole.

[demaugustus]

To be a pain in the ass I have to point out that we do not really have sexual dimorphism in a strict sense.

When I was referring to sexual dimorphism I was thinking more in terms of the size difference we see between males and females, males being larger than females as a whole, dating back to Australopithecus to Homo sapiens; likely the result of a degree of polygamy in our ancestral lines. One could only guess that the way women and men have perceived each other through millenia in this way that there has been some neurological accommodation, or maybe it was the other way around, the chicken vs. the egg, I don't know.


Yes, in terms of chromosomal sex, there is male or female... one or the other. However, there are a large number of hormonal variations that produce ambiguous genitalia and rote hormonal profiles (Androgen insensitivity syndrome, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 5-Alpha reductase deficiency, etc.). People with these hormonal variants can appear to be entirely male or female in appearance (despite ambiguous genitalia) and self-identify as such, yet have contradicting chromosomal profiles. Often, these folks will shift their self-identified gender identity over the course of their lifespan.

Furthermore, even people with generally sex-typical genetic, chromosomal, and gonadal hormone profiles can experience a degree of flux in terms of sex-typical neurological development. In men, if there is a lower number of androgen receptors in various brain regions, circulating androgens cannot masculinize those areas of the brain and they remain female typical. It's vital to note that in terms of biology, female is the default sex and it is the influence of androgen that leads to masculinized profiles. This pattern extends from fetal development to genital development and neural development across the lifespan. There is plenty of room for flux along the way. Trying to shoehorn the radical variance we see across all these things into 2 distinct binary categories doesn't really work.

I've read this stuff, and I, to an extent, agree; but, how much of the population really fits into the categories you describe? Not fitting into your "prototypical" male or female?

, there are distinct differences that occur between the majority who fall into sex-typical categories, but these are not absolute.

**Note** This post was not a response to demvesalius exclusively, but I thought it would be noteworthy for the discussion as a whole.

I agree. I hope from my previous posts that people understand that I'm not speaking in absolutes. I thought I made that clear, even though this was not exclusive to me.

[firebee]

I am a very confused panda.

I am an entity who has... let me check... indeed, has a vagina. And given that said vagina gives every appearance of being attached to a normally functioning uterus (Do you want details, boys?!), I'm inclined to think that I most likely have the usual set of chromosomes associated with females, i.e. 46 XX. It's always been my impression that this gives me a fairly decent lock on the title of "woman", particularly since my internal gender sense is more or less female.

It appears, though, that things are not necessarily that simple, being as...

So as long as a man has a penis and get's sexually aroused by a woman and a woman has a vagina and gets sexually aroused by a man, gender will never be mutable.

... apparently, one's gender is defined partly by who one gets sexually aroused by -- and I'm quite positive that both men and women have done that for me. Now, okay, my vagina does comfort me somewhat, but still there's this degree of ambiguity. I want to be sure! It'd be embarrassing, after all, correcting those folks who call me 'sir' and it turns out I'm the one who's wrong.

So let's seek another opinion.


Talking in a deep voice, talking "macho", talking "tough", none of this has anything to do with being a man but a lot of people associate it with manhood.

It's fortunate that we've ruled this point out, because while I'm not physically capable of talking in a deep voice, I do sing alto and I'm not sure I can entirely escape accusations of talking "tough" given the frequency with which I remind people that I can kill them with my middle finger. Lord knows, apparently I don't need any more contradictory markers of gender, because...


If you are capable of saving lives or if you have saved a life, or if you provide support which keeps others alive, that makes you a man.

... well heck, my First Aid certification is still valid, so apparently I'm a man. See? This is confusing enough as it is without performing a frequency spectrum analysis of my speaking voice.

Furthermore, about that middle finger thing...


This does not change the fact that women are not programmed to defend themselves.


... it, among other things, is pretty well programmed in. I pass knives like Yuumura Kirika and it takes an effort of will for me to walk through rather than around a group of people. I caught a glimpse of my horse stance in the mirror this morning and it kinda scared me.

Programmed? Yeah, I'm fairly sure I can say that -- and hence, apparently, I'm not a woman.


These women would be more likely to break down and cry than pick up a gun.


Probability of firebee breaking down and crying...? In certain narrowly defined social situations... definitely nonzero. Possibly deliberately so, being as I was recently advised that the delivery of five-paragraph essays does not constitute "emotional openness". Probability of firebee picking up a gun... hang on one second... quite high.

But wait, there's more!

Men are going to have to learn to cook, and change diapers, and do laundry.

Apparently, being a single person who has not starved to death, being capable of putting clothes in a container and pushing the button marked "ON", and -- being literate and possessed of reasonable spatial sense -- most likely capable of changing diapers (Those are the white things on a baby that are kinda like pads, right?) has some sort of impact on my masculinity. Of the negative sort. I can practically feel my cock shriveling up and falling off, which is quite a trick given that it's made of silicone and not actually attached to me.

Perhaps I'm a metrosexual?

Can somebody please help me out here? Do I go in the bathroom with the pants-wearing picture on it, or the skirt-wearing one? I need to know this before tomorrow, as I've got a long meeting on campus and don't want to be arrested for public indecency...

[lincoln]

Can somebody please help me out here? Do I go in the bathroom with the pants-wearing picture on it, or the skirt-wearing one? I need to know this before tomorrow, as I've got a long meeting on campus and don't want to be arrested for public indecency...

Um....garsh so hard to answer. A little in each would be most revolutionary...especially if you manage to use the urinal.

[Nemesis]

I've read this stuff, and I, to an extent, agree; but, how much of the population really fits into the categories you describe? Not fitting into your "prototypical" male or female?


That's very hard to say, but I'm glad you asked. In regards to the hormonal conditions I outlined (pertaining to genital ambiguities), the reported cases are fairly sparse. However, and this is strange, when babies are born with ambiguous genitalia it is protocol for doctors to perform surgery immediately to make the genitalia look male or female typical (depending on which one it looks more like). The creepy part is that this is the only medical procedure that allows for deception to occur. That's right, the children are operated on without parental consent or knowledge immediately after birth. Thus, many cases go completely unreported to researchers. The hospitals don't provide numbers to the researchers and who the hell knows who the parents are. So the actual number is unknown, but it is likely higher than the current research reports.

Here's a couple citations for that; These should also provide some good stats to look at.

Sarah M Creighton, "Editorial: Surgery for Intersex" (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2001; 94:218-220).

Sarah M Creighton, Catherine L Minto, Stuart J Steele, "Cosmetic and anatomical outcomes following feminising childhood surgery for intersex conditions" (Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology 2001; 14:142).

In regards to neurological sex variants, again, it is very hard to give solid numbers. The research on this is in it's infancy and has primarily used animal models to test it. Before you all cringe at that, there are important things to consider; Mainly, in animal models it is very easy to create non-sex-typical neurological profiles through prenatal stress and the blocking (or administration) of hormones during critical periods of brain development. The interesting thing about this is that the animals used in these experiments (mainly rats) only have a couple critical periods, whereas human animals have many critical periods (across the entire lifespan) where these effects can take place. So, again, these variations probably occur much more than one would expect.

More citations to take a look at;

Gerardin, D. C. Pereira, O. C. Kempinas, W. G. Florio, J.C Moreira, E.G. & Bernardi, M.
M. (2005). Sexual behavior, neuroendocrine, and neurochemical aspects in male
rats exposed prenatally to stress. Physiology and Behavior. 84, 97-104.

Velazquez-Moctezuma, J., Dominiquez, S. E., & Cruz, R. M. L. (1993). The effect
of prenatal stress on adult sexual behaviour in rats depends on the nature of
the stressor. Physiology & Behavior, 53, 443-448.

Of course, this is all a long winded way to say I don't have a damned clue what the actual rates are. There are numbers provided in some of the research, but there are so many factors which makes those numbers unreliable. However, there is a lot of reason to suggest that the rates reported are underestimated. That's the fun of looking at these things... answer one question and 10 more pop up.

EDIT: I suppose I should offer an opinion on the OP's question. Yes, I think gender is entirely mutable. Also, I think sex is also mutable (to some unknown degree). Being that we typically base our gender identities on our biological sex (or not), I think there is a great deal of mutability.

[timetraveler]

Apparently, per your division of the genders, I'm not a woman at all. This strikes me as deeply strange, given that the configuration of my body is unambiguously female and I feel no great inclination to identify as male.


It means you are a masculine woman. You are biologically a woman, but you think and act as a man. Please do not be offended.


... invented those words to refer to the sexual characteristics of people, and later refined them to refer to the configuration of their chromosomes or to their internal sense of gender.

Male and Female existed prior to humankind having any scientific knowledge. Some cultures have 3 genders, but most have two, and at this point the gender roles are what must be preserved. We have the ability to let people choose their body so if we define gender merely based upon that then what are transsexuals?


Defining "male" as "person capable of pursuing an interest in the martial arts" is, to say the least, rather nonstandard usage -- and depending on the particulars of how you define "capable", could classify most people as "male" or hardly any. On the other hand, describing the functions you discuss as "protectors" and "protected" provides a succinct description of the relevant behaviors and produces much less confusion as to which bathroom one should be using.


All who are male are capable of learning the martial arts on some level. It's just about self defense, not so much physical but on every level, psychological, emotional, spiritual.


It seems to me that there ought to be at least a passing relationship between the label "woman" and the presence of a vagina. But maybe I'd better leave that question to the actual women.


A man can give his body a vagina, and physically be a woman. This has nothing to do with the role they take in society. If they think, act and live as a woman, that is the role they have and that is how they will be treated. It might have required the presence of a vagina 20 years ago but now we can let individuals choose their physical gender so thats no longer a good classification. The only good classification now is going to be based on how they think and act, and the role they adopt(function). If they function as a woman then they are the woman in the relationship. If they function as a man then they are the man of the relationship.





timetraveler added to this post, 26 minutes and 33 seconds later...

I am a very confused panda.

I am an entity who has... let me check... indeed, has a vagina. And given that said vagina gives every appearance of being attached to a normally functioning uterus (Do you want details, boys?!), I'm inclined to think that I most likely have the usual set of chromosomes associated with females, i.e. 46 XX. It's always been my impression that this gives me a fairly decent lock on the title of "woman", particularly since my internal gender sense is more or less female.


You are biologically a woman, but you function as a man. I don't think we can maintain gender based on who has a vagina because transsexuals also have vaginas, and women can have penises grown in a lab and inserted. This is being done as we speak, and in 20 years it will only become more efficient to the point where we won't be able to distinguish biological gender except under a microscope. So you are female in the classic sense, but in the new world you function as a male so you are male by function.



... apparently, one's gender is defined partly by who one gets sexually aroused by -- and I'm quite positive that both men and women have done that for me. Now, okay, my vagina does comfort me somewhat, but still there's this degree of ambiguity. I want to be sure! It'd be embarrassing, after all, correcting those folks who call me 'sir' and it turns out I'm the one who's wrong.


Sexual arousal has nothing to do with gender. Gay men are men. Transsexuals are shemen until they are post-op and then they are biologically women. Only their function and behaviors can determine what their true gender is. Do they like cooking and sewing or do they like martial arts and lifting weights? That has more to do with it than whether or not their body looks feminine, or how they talk. It's what they do and how they think that matters.



It's fortunate that we've ruled this point out, because while I'm not physically capable of talking in a deep voice, I do sing alto and I'm not sure I can entirely escape accusations of talking "tough" given the frequency with which I remind people that I can kill them with my middle finger. Lord knows, apparently I don't need any more contradictory markers of gender, because...


Exactly, you function as a man. You think as a man. So I'd have to treat you as a man, even if you might physically look like a woman. Anyone who can kill me with their middle finger is someone I'm going to have to treat as a man based entirely on their capabilities. If we are in robbery and all of us are in a room, we now have to work as a team to stop the robber and in this situation because of your capabilities I'm going to have certain expectations from you that I wouldn't have from the woman curled up in the corner of the room crying. I'd probably focus my energy on saving the scared helpless woman than invest my energy in saving you because I know you can fend for yourself. That is what being a man is all about and you deserve that respect that we men give each other.




... well heck, my First Aid certification is still valid, so apparently I'm a man. See? This is confusing enough as it is without performing a frequency spectrum analysis of my speaking voice.


Yes you function as a man in our society. To be precise you are a masculine woman, but you'll be treated as a man by society because of your function so in reality you are a man with special feminine powers. It simply means you have the ability to look feminine and wear a mask if you choose, or you can show your masculinity, but its the same function so you are still ultimately going to be treated as a man in this world.



... it, among other things, is pretty well programmed in. I pass knives like Yuumura Kirika and it takes an effort of will for me to walk through rather than around a group of people. I caught a glimpse of my horse stance in the mirror this morning and it kinda scared me.

Programmed? Yeah, I'm fairly sure I can say that -- and hence, apparently, I'm not a woman.


It's not apparent. I'd have to talk to you some more, see how you react to situations, watch you in action. But if what you say about yourself is true, you are a living definition of what manhood is all about and are more man than most men.


Probability of firebee breaking down and crying...? In certain narrowly defined social situations... definitely nonzero. Possibly deliberately so, being as I was recently advised that the delivery of five-paragraph essays does not constitute "emotional openness". Probability of firebee picking up a gun... hang on one second... quite high.


LOL well you prove all my theories correct.


Apparently, being a single person who has not starved to death, being capable of putting clothes in a container and pushing the button marked "ON", and -- being literate and possessed of reasonable spatial sense -- most likely capable of changing diapers (Those are the white things on a baby that are kinda like pads, right?) has some sort of impact on my masculinity. Of the negative sort. I can practically feel my cock shriveling up and falling off, which is quite a trick given that it's made of silicone and not actually attached to me.


But once again what are you better at? You aren't equally good at both so what are you more dedicated to? If you are going to focus on nurturing babies then you need to put the guns and weapons down, and invest yourself in that. You can't risk getting yourself hurt because the babies need someone to cook dinner for them. Do you see what I mean? It's a balance. Every man and every woman has some level of capabilities to do either role, but their capabilities are not going to be equal.

Men often want to take care of babies and do housework and most men can figure some stuff out, but while a man can cook it does not mean he can cook well. While a man can wash clothes it does not mean he does a good job at it. While a man can do these things hes ultimately not going to be as good at it as someone whos primary function in life is mastery of these arts.


Can somebody please help me out here? Do I go in the bathroom with the pants-wearing picture on it, or the skirt-wearing one? I need to know this before tomorrow, as I've got a long meeting on campus and don't want to be arrested for public indecency...

You don't need help. Be whoever you want or need to be. Just don't expect to be everything for everybody. Nobody is going to be good at all things. The natural instincts and abilities which allow you to be calm enough to save lives, will work against you in other situations. Trust me I know this from experience, when you are in situations where you don't react the way people expect, they will tell you that you aren't right.

[Frag]

But once again what are you better at? You aren't equally good at both
Why not?

Why must we make a bimodal classification even as the distribution becomes normal?

[Nemesis]

Yes you function as a man in our society. To be precise you are a masculine woman, but you'll be treated as a man by society because of your function so in reality you are a man with special feminine powers. It simply means you have the ability to look feminine and wear a mask if you choose, or you can show your masculinity, but its the same function so you are still ultimately going to be treated as a man in this world.


It sounds to me like you are basing all of your posts on some internal standard that is based on your own personal definitions of gender division. I really doubt that many people really buy into your strange notions of masculinity and femininity. This is the first time I've ever heard of someone referring to a woman as "a man with special feminine powers". Where are you coming up with these notions?

[timetraveler]

Why not?

Why must we make a bimodal classification even as the distribution becomes normal?

Because practice makes perfect. There isn't enough time in a day for anyone to be good at everything. Neuroscience dictates whether or not an individuals brain operates in a certain way. Personality indicates how that humans brain is operating at any given time. You'll have a more accurate measure of gender through a personality test and a FMRI brain scan than you would have by examining their body. It's 2009 and men can easily become women physically, as time passes eventually the procedure will be so perfect that even if you examined them you wouldn't know whether they were born a man or a woman. It's their thinking and behavioral patterns which wont change even if their body does change. If they think and act like a man and they wear a dress then you know that regardless of how they look, they function in society as a man would and you cannot underestimate psychology and sociology.


It sounds to me like you are basing all of your posts on some internal standard that is based on your own personal definitions of gender division. I really doubt that many people really buy into your strange notions of masculinity and femininity. This is the first time I've ever heard of someone referring to a woman as "a man with special feminine powers". Where are you coming up with these notions?

My standard allows for transsexuals and it is therefore a more accurate standard. Otherwise transsexuality is not allowed to exist under the current binary system. I figured that we cannot have physical genders anymore because it's simply not accurate. The option is to either believe in post genderism, or change your concept of gender so that it allows for transsexuals. I decided to preserve the concept of gender by applying it to function within a society (social gender), rather than keep the concept of physical gender which in my opinion is being phased out. We are entering a period in human history where physical gender is slowly being erased and any human can become any gender they want.

Gender is becoming a social concept like race. It's not going to remain a biological concept unless you measure it under a microscope and most people don't care about what goes on under a microscope. Ultimately if men can physically transform into women and even give birth, then physically they are women. But in my thinking if an individual functions in society as a woman then socially they are a woman. Social function is determined by personality type and neuroscience, which is much less likely to change over time. Biological function such as whether one has a vagina or not, or whether one can give birth or not, that is completely mutable so if you believe that is gender then yes gender is completely biologically mutable.

I don't believe gender is determined merely by whether or not one has a vagina and breasts, as a result I do not believe gender is mutable. Gender is as much a social/psychological condition as it is a physical condition.

[KEM10]

I actually signed up to this forum because of this thread.

There are innate differences between men and women beyond the penis/vagina. The first step is that there are different chemical balances in the brain based around your chromosomes. I have very effeminate male friends, and they still look like a man in a skirt when they wear a skirt, this is because of their genes that force them to develop to have more shoulders and less hips, more defined collar bones, pronounced jawline, and that "manly" swagger that is based off the lack of hips. Yes, he looks more like a woman than most men, but he is still definitely male.

Then because of these chemicals we mentally develop differently (and no one is worse, it's just different). Numerous studies have been done based off of how men and women process data for problems, and overwhelmingly the men ignite their logic portions of their brain and decide faster while women hit the logic centers and then move it over to their social lobes to see how it will interact with the imaginary people in the problem.

I have numerous studies on this stuff and a few class books about this as well (soc, psych, and even an econ one based around the patterned choices).

The short answer is "NO" the genders cannot be interchangeable because it is hardwired.
The long answer is "NO" because of the hardwiring, the social criteria, family unit, (and in some circles) religious beliefs.

PS: When I get back to school I will find a study that tested male and female infants on how they chose what toys to play with, and then their second study with chimps (they thought the children were already hit by our social influences and needed to make sure)

[demaugustus]

Firstly, Welcome to the forum.

I actually signed up to this forum because of this thread.

There are innate differences between men and women beyond the penis/vagina. The first step is that there are different chemical balances in the brain based around your chromosomes. I have very effeminate male friends, and they still look like a man in a skirt when they wear a skirt, this is because of their genes that force them to develop to have more shoulders and less hips, more defined collar bones, pronounced jawline, and that "manly" swagger that is based off the lack of hips. Yes, he looks more like a woman than most men, but he is still definitely male.

Secondly, I just want to clarify that I was never only referring to just the penis and the vagina and I did acknowledge that there are many more differences beyond that, but didn't describe them. You and nemesis have done that very well for me and have only strengthened my argument. I didn't originally intend to make a huge investment in this thread.

[Storm]

It sounds like timetraveler is just saying that gender (masculinity and femininity) are socially defined. And then goes on to describe how society is currently defining them (well, more like 1955 society, but anyway).

Gender roles are defined societally, and an individual can't change them. But society has a whole can and does. Do some research on gender roles - in some cultures and times farming was a feminine activity, in others it's masculine. Gender roles change over time, they aren't innate.

Right now we're seeing a change to gender roles as people realize the previous ones were restrictive and unnecessary. Perhaps we will eventually do away with gender roles as they become more and more outdated.

Further, since gender roles are socially defined, it's entirely possible for a person of either sex to assume the role of either gender. It's incorrect to say that "because you do Y, you are a man." You should say "because you do Y, you are considered masculine."

[LionsPride]

It's incorrect to say that "because you do Y, you are a man." You should say "because you do Y, you are considered masculine."

Despite society's pervasive use of masculine and feminine terms to try and reinforce roles based on sex, I'm still going to stand against their use as archaic and unnecessary on the basis that the terms masculine and feminine are used to describe things that anyone can do and more often than not 'feminine' is synonymous with 'things that make people with these traits inferior to those with masculine traits'.

Now if you want to call having a pronounced Adam's apple masculine, by all means feel free to do so.

[KEM10]

Now if you want to call having a pronounced Adam's apple masculine, by all means feel free to do so.

The problem with that is where do you draw the line?
I have a pronounced Adam's apple, so I am a masculine.
I am also a Math major, the national statistic for women who study natural sciences are around 10 to 20% depending on what you include. Is that masculine too?

Then you have to go through the issue of which gender do you pick, your genetic gender (where you get the Caster Semenya issue) or the chosen one (then at what stage would they be "finished"?)

[LionsPride]

The problem with that is where do you draw the line?
I have a pronounced Adam's apple, so I am a masculine.

No, *you* aren't masculine, your Adam's apple is. ;) I was implying that the only traits that have a half-assed chance at being legitimately masculine and feminine are those that are directly tied to physical sex differences. Even then, I say half-assed because people still tie supremacy to certain physical features such as strength (suggesting that being 'feminine' is to be weak). I picked Adam's apple because having one isn't actually tied to any power balance of the sexes that I was aware of.

[KEM10]

Therefore, being muscular is masculine since men develop muscle and it is increased based on higher testosterone levels. By this logic, strength is masculine, since muscles mean power.

Your issues are more of a social issue. People see being strong as a good thing and strength = man (i.e. throws like a girl). But there are amazing things that men can't do as easily; traverse social schemes, multi task, communicate deep feelings with few words, give birth. Everyone needs to just admit that there are difference in the sexes but to sit down and characterize them and weigh out which are better to tally it up is asinine.

I am different from a woman, I am not better or worse, I am just different. I excel at different tasks, some of which are from genetic disposition and some are from cultural upbringing (and no one is completely sure where to draw the line). However, I am still different, and that is why I am considered a sexist.

[Synamon]

Therefore, being muscular is masculine since men develop muscle and it is increased based on higher testosterone levels. By this logic, strength is masculine, since muscles mean power.

Your issues are more of a social issue. People see being strong as a good thing and strength = man (i.e. throws like a girl). But there are amazing things that men can't do as easily; traverse social schemes, multi task, communicate deep feelings with few words, give birth. Everyone needs to just admit that there are difference in the sexes but to sit down and characterize them and weigh out which are better to tally it up is asinine.

I am different from a woman, I am not better or worse, I am just different. I excel at different tasks, some of which are from genetic disposition and some are from cultural upbringing (and no one is completely sure where to draw the line). However, I am still different, and that is why I am considered a sexist.
By your logic women don't have muscles. False. I happen to hit a golf ball the same distance as my father and my husband. So which of us is masculine?

Some men can "traverse social schemes, multi task, communicate deep feelings with few words". None of those things have anything to do with gender.

I don't know if you are sexist or not, but denying women or men the opportunity to do "non-traditional" things is sexist. Gender stereotypes are sexist. The first step on that road is equating gender to tasks the way you did in your post.

[Storm]

Despite society's pervasive use of masculine and feminine terms to try and reinforce roles based on sex, I'm still going to stand against their use as archaic and unnecessary on the basis that the terms masculine and feminine are used to describe things that anyone can do and more often than not 'feminine' is synonymous with 'things that make people with these traits inferior to those with masculine traits'.

Oh, I agree that gender concepts and roles are largely unnecessary and inaccurate. However, that doesn't change that gender concepts and roles exist. Which was my point - gender is mutable because either sex can assume the roles of either gender.

[LionsPride]

Everyone needs to just admit that there are difference in the sexes

So what? Really, who cares that there are differences in the sexes? The only reason that the differences mean anything except as a method to determine who you need to have sex with to procreate is because people want to use the differences to justify why they treat one person differently from the other. This isn't that much of a step above the people that use the differences to justify why women should have to do the stuff that men have deemed to be 'unmanly', which is a small step up from those that use the differences to explain why women really are inferior.

Here's a concept for you, how about you stop assigning a broad range of traits to a person based on the tackle they were born with and rather than trying to account for all the exceptions to the rule we just toss out the rule instead? I know, that would mean that we would have people fulfilling gender roles based on what they want to do and their abilities indicate that they are best at rather than what society has deemed to be traditional/non-traditional, call me a radical for believing that a person's actual traits should be considered above the traits they are 'supposed' to have...:rolleyes:


Oh, I agree that gender concepts and roles are largely unnecessary and inaccurate. However, that doesn't change that gender concepts and roles exist. Which was my point - gender is mutable because either sex can assume the roles of either gender.

I know Storm, I just wanted to reinforce that the fact that they do exist doesn't mean that they ought to exist.

[KEM10]

The logic was men develop them larger and easier (it's a testosterone thing which isn't limited to men but just in greater supply). My point was that yes, we can cross the barriers of the sex stereotypes, however the stereotypes started for a reason. Men have more testosterone which leads to more physical strength. Women have a stronger lobe connecting their left and right brains making the ideas shared a little faster and complete. These are facts that have been proven, but it isn't the limiting factor that it may have come out as in my previous post.

Gender is not mutable, there are thought process that go along with just the idea of men and women that are natural to us. This is an example that I use a lot (that actually got me slapped by a feminist) but it proves my point better than I could dream of.
For the women:
If you were getting sized for a bra at Victoria's Secret, would you let a man size you? He is an employee and has been working there for two years. He is completely competent in the task, he's just a man. (Also interchangeable with male gynecologist)

For the men:
Would you let a female doctor do your physical?

Spoiler:
If you hesitated or are thinking the scenario would pan out differently if it was the other gender, they aren't interchangeable.

[Synamon]

This is an example that I use a lot (that actually got me slapped by a feminist) but it proves my point better than I could dream of.
For the women:
If you were getting sized for a bra at Victoria's Secret, would you let a man size you? He is an employee and has been working there for two years. He is completely competent in the task, he's just a man. (Also interchangeable with male gynecologist)

For the men:
Would you let a female doctor do your physical?

Spoiler:
If you hesitated or are thinking the scenario would pan out differently if it was the other gender, they aren't interchangeable.
Your example is crap.

I had a male gynecologist/family doctor for years. At the moment my doctor is a female and guess what, my husband goes to see her as well for his physical (his appointment is Tuesday as a matter of fact). It's not an issue for me or him AT ALL. All the doctors I mentioned were chosen based on their abilities, not their genders.

If the gender of the doctor sticking their finger up your ass bothers you, then I guess we have established whether or not you are sexist.

[LionsPride]

For the women:
If you were getting sized for a bra at Victoria's Secret, would you let a man size you? He is an employee and has been working there for two years. He is completely competent in the task, he's just a man. (Also interchangeable with male gynecologist)

Given the number of successful male gynecologists, I don't see your point. As to the comment about the bra fitting I think the heart flutters that are generated around such a thing are ridiculous and outdated, but same sex fitters of clothing may be a legal need these days due to the prevalence of suing for 'harassment'. I would like to add that a bra fitter is not a 'professional' on any level of the same degree as a doctor and as such would not be nearly as protected from hearsay as doctor might.

For the men:
Would you let a female doctor do your physical?

Again, there are female doctors with male clients so I don't see your point. The fact that some people feel uncomfortable in the presence of the opposite sex proves nothing about gender roles. If I said I didn't like the idea of a brunette conducting my exam would that justify that roles associated with hair colour are not mutable?

[timetraveler]

It sounds like timetraveler is just saying that gender (masculinity and femininity) are socially defined. And then goes on to describe how society is currently defining them (well, more like 1955 society, but anyway).

Gender roles are defined societally, and an individual can't change them. But society has a whole can and does. Do some research on gender roles - in some cultures and times farming was a feminine activity, in others it's masculine. Gender roles change over time, they aren't innate.

Right now we're seeing a change to gender roles as people realize the previous ones were restrictive and unnecessary. Perhaps we will eventually do away with gender roles as they become more and more outdated.

Further, since gender roles are socially defined, it's entirely possible for a person of either sex to assume the role of either gender. It's incorrect to say that "because you do Y, you are a man." You should say "because you do Y, you are considered masculine."


Please describe this postgender world that you are talking about. I know you say my concepts of gender are from the 1950s (actually they go all the way back to hunter gatherer and tribal society), but you offer no clear alternative. How can we have a world without division of labor? It is obvious that as the world becomes more complex and difficult, specialization becomes more important. So who is going to accept the male roles in society? Or are you saying someday that there will be no male roles in society?

When you say I should say "because you do Y, you are considered masculine" are you advocating that we get rid of the concept of gender altogether? Why have a need for the words male and female if there will be no such thing in the future? Even if we get rid of these words the social roles will always exist and we will just invent new words to describe the people who accept these functions and gender will return. So what exactly is the postgenderist future you and others are advocating? Here is your chance to promote the "new" world without gender, explain why it would be better than my way and you might bring me over to your side of thinking.

So far everyone who advocates for postgenderism and who says the 1950s way is wrong, offers either no alternative or an alternative that would make everyone more miserable than they were in the 1950s. So far if we keep listening to post genderists, the female roles will be phased out completely. Look at how it is now where both men and women work and so now we just have less parenting, it's not like anything has become better(equal doesn't mean better) so what is the post gender utopia?

If the post gender utopia is a world with only masculine types, I don't want that future.

[firebee]

If you were getting sized for a bra at Victoria's Secret, would you let a man size you?

Absolutely. Why not?


Would you let a female doctor do your physical?


Being as I'm evidently a man by certain standards, I think I'm entitled to this one also. I don't pick my doctors according to gender, and have consequently had both varieties. I've no problem with either a male or female doctor examining me.


If you hesitated or are thinking the scenario would pan out differently if it was the other gender, they aren't interchangeable.

Your trump card, such as it is, seems to be challenging folks who in some cases have very little body shyness with nigh-unto-completely-mundane acts of personal service. And I'll see your male gynecologist and raise you a male massage therapist.

If you're looking to score points with contrived scenarios, you're going to have to contrive harder.

[Synamon]

Please describe this postgender world that you are talking about. I know you say my concepts of gender are from the 1950s (actually they go all the way back to hunter gatherer and tribal society), but you offer no clear alternative. How can we have a world without division of labor? It is obvious that as the world becomes more complex and difficult, specialization becomes more important. So who is going to accept the male roles in society? Or are you saying someday that there will be no male roles in society?

The alternative is to divide the labour based on ability, not gender. Novel approach for those of you who are 50 years behind the times, to be sure.

What is this scary future you foresee when we do away with gender roles? Men and women will participate equally in society. They will decide for themselves if they want to be an engineer or a nurse, regardless of gender.


Your trump card, such as it is, seems to be challenging folks who in some cases have very little body shyness with nigh-unto-completely-mundane acts of personal service. And I'll see your male gynecologist and raise you a male massage therapist.

*raises hand* I've had both male and female massage therapists.

[Prunesquallor]

...so apparently I'm a man... :suspicious:

[KEM10]

Then you guys are altruistic and better than I am. I wasn't comfortable getting a physical by a woman, it wasn't that she wasn't qualified but that I was hoping my "first time" would be special (it's a joke). However I have had the massage by the man.

I have met a lot of people that this was the epiphany in my argument where they understood where I was coming from. I would still like to go down clutching my flag saying, if there is that just basis for staving off lawsuits then there is still at least a probability for my answer to not be wrong and that people see the sexes as different and because of that they are not mutable.

I should note that this is me giving up on trying to show how the differences impact our lives in a group setting. If you still with to pursue this argument out of curiosity or to strike an extra blow in hops of reforming me you can do so in the private messaging.

Goodnight

[Prunesquallor]

Then you guys are altruistic and better than I am. I wasn't comfortable getting a physical by a woman, it wasn't that she wasn't qualified but that I was hoping my "first time" would be special (it's a joke). However I have had the massage by the man.

I have met a lot of people that this was the epiphany in my argument where they understood where I was coming from. I would still like to go down clutching my flag saying, if there is that just basis for staving off lawsuits then there is still at least a probability for my answer to not be wrong and that people see the sexes as different and because of that they are not mutable.

Goodnight

Of course people see them differently. That doesn't mean they are different in all the ways people believe. People used to see black people as stupider, and there were whites who would never go to a black doctor - still are people like that, I'm sure. Doesn't mean racism is anything other than hatred and prejudice.

[Storm]

Please describe this postgender world that you are talking about. I know you say my concepts of gender are from the 1950s (actually they go all the way back to hunter gatherer and tribal society), but you offer no clear alternative. How can we have a world without division of labor? It is obvious that as the world becomes more complex and difficult, specialization becomes more important. So who is going to accept the male roles in society? Or are you saying someday that there will be no male roles in society?

A world in which what people do is based on ability. I know, a crazy concept. "Male" roles will be fullfilled by men and women. Another crazy concept, I know.

When you say I should say "because you do Y, you are considered masculine" are you advocating that we get rid of the concept of gender altogether? Why have a need for the words male and female if there will be no such thing in the future? Even if we get rid of these words the social roles will always exist and we will just invent new words to describe the people who accept these functions and gender will return. So what exactly is the postgenderist future you and others are advocating? Here is your chance to promote the "new" world without gender, explain why it would be better than my way and you might bring me over to your side of thinking.

You'r confusing sex and gender. Sex is biological based (chromosomes and naughty bits). Obviously, we're always going to have that. Gender is culturally based and there is no reason for it. Here's why it's better: Having peopld do what they are actually good at and like is much better than forcing people into boxes. Think about how much better the world could have been if 50% of it wasn't left uneducated.

You then make another mistake, you assume that men and women will necessarily fullfill current gender roles along the sex line. A look at the real world will show you this is not true. There are male nurses and female doctors.

So far everyone who advocates for postgenderism and who says the 1950s way is wrong, offers either no alternative or an alternative that would make everyone more miserable than they were in the 1950s. So far if we keep listening to post genderists, the female roles will be phased out completely. Look at how it is now where both men and women work and so now we just have less parenting, it's not like anything has become better(equal doesn't mean better) so what is the post gender utopia?

If the post gender utopia is a world with only masculine types, I don't want that future.

The fact that you think to eliminate gender roles would necessarily lead to all masculine roles shows your bias - that femininty is useless and inferior. It assumes no free person would choose to do "feminine" jobs unless it was forced upon them.

Hopefully, in a world without gender roles, teaching, child care taking and parenting (how insulting that you think this is a purely feminine role.) will be embraced and fullfilled by people who like to do those things.

When I taught pre-school, some of the best loved teachers were males. Shocking, I know.

Oh, and my last physical was done by a doctor of the opposite sex. Doctors are professionals, I trust they aren't thinking sexual thoughts while checking to see if I have cancer. Although I'm sure some are (not any that I would knowingly see). Do you also feel uncomfortable going to a gay doctor?

[demaugustus]

Setting the evolution of sexual differences aside, humans are very cultural/social creatures. We adjust our cultures/societies to the environment we're confronted with to adapt faster to that environment than waiting millions of years to change biologically through evolution; it is why we are so successful as a species in terms of reproductive success. If having distinguished roles for the sexes means allowing our species to reproduce more efficiently for a given environment, then those roles are perfectly justifiable from a reproductive/survival standpoint.

Let's say war or natural disaster happened and destroyed the modern world as we know it, via nuclear war or a catastrophic volcanic eruption. Many of the liberties women enjoy in the modern world would be diminished as a whole because, once again, men and women would have to take on more "primitive" tasks. Maybe not in all scenarios, but it's the most likely outcome because men are generally better equipped physically and mentally for war, hunting, and strenuous labor (aside from giving birth). I'm sure there are some women who would argue with that, but human stereotypes exist for, what I believe, as a primitive device to keep a clan unified in extreme or harsh environments. Stereotypes may not work always in the modern world, but they likely played an important social/cultural role in keeping the clan together.

So is gender mutable? Given what I said above, it may be possible to make it seem like it's mutable in an "advanced" society or culture, but history thus far has showed that "advanced" civilizations are only a flash in the span of time. In fact, they're not even a "flash in the span of time" because a civilizations has yet to exist that has made gender roles completely mutable.

[timetraveler]

The alternative is to divide the labour based on ability, not gender. Novel approach for those of you who are 50 years behind the times, to be sure.

What is this scary future you foresee when we do away with gender roles? Men and women will participate equally in society. They will decide for themselves if they want to be an engineer or a nurse, regardless of gender.


The reason we have "men" and "women" is because there was a time when men and women did not have equal abilities physically. Men were physically bigger, there was no steroids to make women artificially big like there are today. So men were simply more suited for doing certain kinds of work which had to be done. This may have been hunting, or lifting heavy objects.

The scary future is a future where the government or some authority decides that nobody is allowed to be feminine. I'm talking about everyone being forced to shoot guns, and be militant.

Why will this happen? Because the future I see will be so competitive, scary and dangerous that only the militant will be able to survive. The only reason humanity isn't in a state of complete and total war is because we have pacifists, who refuse to defend themselves and who go out of their way to protest it. When you say you want women to be able to be equal to men, theres nobody advocating that men should be able to live as women did in the 1950s. So all that is happening is that the housewife is being phased out entirely, parenting is being outsourced entirely to daycare centers, children are having to become tougher, stronger, smarter, in a world which is progressively becoming more dangerous.

There is no one to protect children as it is. If women are to perform as men, meaning if we phase out the housewife role entirely, then all children will have to fend for themselves. There will be plenty of children who don't make it. Some children will shoot up their schools, some will commit suicide, some will join gangs and get shot or be sent to prison. And of course society will blame the guns, the cartoons, the video games, the internet, and when all of those excuses run out they will say "where were their parents?". The answer is that their parents were working their 12 hour shifts, and their children weren't strong enough for the roles they were placed into.

People who want to get rid of the housewife and 1950s concepts don't understand that originally women and men were treated as equal by industrial society. There was a time when every man, woman and child, worked 12 hours a day in the factory. They all had to go to work from 6AM to 6PM every day of the week. They had to fight to get Sunday off, and fight more to get Saturday off. From there they had to create child labor laws, so that children didn't have to work 12 hours a day. The only reason children have it easy today is because of these child labor laws. After children were allowed to stay home from work and have a childhood, men fought so their wives could stay home and not have to work 12 hour days in the factory.

We are in the process of going back to how it used to be where everyone works 12 hour days.
The husband will spend 12 hours on the job every day if not more, the wife will spend 12 hours a day at her job or more, and the child will have to spend 12 hours at school a day to compete with the Chinese. Now I can understand why someone who has a job they like would want to spend 12 hours a day doing it, but if you have a job you hate you'll have to spend 12 hours a day doing that, as will your partner, and your child will have to spend 8 hours at school and another 4 studying math and science.

That is the future I see as a "nightmare". Why do you want it? What is the point of having everyone live that way? As soon as you bring back equality thats exactly what the corporate masters will do, they will say "since everyone is equal, you can all work 12 hours a day now."
Honestly this only seems to benefit corporate bosses who want to produce the ideal worker, so of course if theres not enough men (socially defined), they'll say we need to have gender equality, and remove the concept of gender, but how is that different from the principal telling students we need to remove the concept of "child", as a stealth mechanism to remove childhood and once again treat children as little adults?

I would be more sympthetic to postgenderism if it actually resulted in a better environment and a better world. But a more masculine world is not a better world in my opinion. In my opinion we should be promoting feminism and feminine traits in society rather than create more "men". We have too many men as it is.

[Frag]

All of your ranting is completely one-way. There is as much a phase-out of the housewife, as bringing in of househusbands.

There has not been an exclusive change in gender roles towards the masculinization of women as you are trying to imply.

[timetraveler]

A world in which what people do is based on ability. I know, a crazy concept. "Male" roles will be fullfilled by men and women. Another crazy concept, I know.


You are repeating what I already said. I said that the genders will always exist as long as the roles exist. So the definition of men and women will be based on function and social roles, so your statement doesn't really make much sense when gender is socially defined.


You'r confusing sex and gender. Sex is biological based (chromosomes and naughty bits). Obviously, we're always going to have that. Gender is culturally based and there is no reason for it.


Gender is culturally defined, thats what I've said all along. And in this culture it's always going to be necessary because there will always be a need for masculine/male roles in society. The only way I see us getting rid of gender is if we get rid of the feminine/female roles in society, so no more housewives, no more pacifism, everyone must be drafted and everyone must work.
Some cultures are already headed in this direction and I don't see how it's a better direction.


Here's why it's better: Having peopld do what they are actually good at and like is much better than forcing people into boxes. Think about how much better the world could have been if 50% of it wasn't left uneducated.


If you've been reading what I've been saying, I've said that gender is based on function and social roles. If someone thinks and acts like a male, (masculine traits), they are male and belong in male roles. I never disputed this. I just think we should keep the genders because not everyone is going to be good at acting male. We don't expect everyone to be into martial arts, shooting guns, blowing stuff up, fixing cars and doing construction, do we? I never said sex has anything to do with it, sex is mutable while gender is not, for the very reason that you mention that not everyone is going to be good at everything and most people are going to be better at either being a male or being a female.


You then make another mistake, you assume that men and women will necessarily fullfill current gender roles along the sex line. A look at the real world will show you this is not true. There are male nurses and female doctors.


If sex is mutable, what does sex have to do with gender? You misinterpreting what I wrote. I said transsexuals are proof that sex is mutable. I said gender is not mutable because gender is based around the neuroscience of the brain. You cannot make a person who is shell shocked somehow change their brain so they can do more masculine activities. Some people just aren't ever going to be good at it, and even among the masculine there are different levels. You have some masculine people like myself who can do certain things, but I have my limits. Then you have others who can run into a burning building and save a baby, or join the marines and volunteer to go to the front line and kick the door in. Thats not the sorta thing I'd ever volunteer for but I recognize some people are built for those sorts of activities. It's always going to be like this where some are just designed for it and some aren't, and gender will once again be used to determine how to train individuals based upon how much their brain can handle and based on what activities they are good at. The people who go around doing masculine things will be socially defined as men.


The fact that you think to eliminate gender roles would necessarily lead to all masculine roles shows your bias - that femininty is useless and inferior. It assumes no free person would choose to do "feminine" jobs unless it was forced upon them.


Thats not what I assume. What I assume is that society will discriminate against those currently defined as "males" based upon stereotypes that males just aren't good at raising children. Why do you think in child custody situations women still get the children even when in some cases the woman is the masculine one? It doesn't make a difference because society
operates on a different level. So it's not my personal belief that it should be that way, I'm saying it is this way or it will be that way whether we like it or not. I don't even want it to be the way is now because it sucks now. Those currently defined as males in todays society are not given equal treatment, males don't get to be househusbands, males don't get to stay home, go shopping and raise kids. I know Sarah Palins husband is a rare exception but most of the time males can't do that and I betcha if there were a custody dispute Sarah Palin would still win the kids. The men who function as women in todays society still get forced to pay child support, still get treated as a man by other men, by the courts, by the schools,

I don't think it's hard for you to figure out that as things are today the post genderist ideal doesn't work at all. If a boy decided to play with dolls in school, he'd get bullied every day by other students, called a sissy, teachers would ignore it, his parents would probably tell him to be a man and fight to protect himself. Who is the boy supposed to go to? Theres no sympathy for him, and this is why your ideal doesnt work. It does not work because there is not an equal amount of sympathy and compassion for men and women.


Hopefully, in a world without gender roles, teaching, child care taking and parenting (how insulting that you think this is a purely feminine role.) will be embraced and fullfilled by people who like to do those things.

All nurturing roles are traditionally feminine. Teaching, child care, parenting, are feminine. And why be insulted that it's a feminine role? It's just as important to teach as it is to hunt. The problem you are neglecting to consider is that hunting pays more than teaching, and parenting while anyone can do it, everyone is always suspicious of a man in these roles.


When I taught pre-school, some of the best loved teachers were males. Shocking, I know.

According to their role in society they are female.


Oh, and my last physical was done by a doctor of the opposite sex. Doctors are professionals, I trust they aren't thinking sexual thoughts while checking to see if I have cancer. Although I'm sure some are (not any that I would knowingly see). Do you also feel uncomfortable going to a gay doctor?

Why care what they think as long as they keep their mouth shut? I think you are confused about many of my positions. My position is that gender is socially defined, and that gender is in the brain. Because gender is in the brain of the individual, some individuals will be suited to be trained to be male, some individuals suited to be trained to be female, and some will be able to be trained to be either one. But there will always be males and females because the roles will always require a completely separate array of skills.

If you are going to choose to be male, when you are a child you'll be trained to be male and to adopt the male roles. Maybe you'll join the boyscouts, learn wrestling and martial arts, survivalism, and life saving skills. If you are going to choose to be female thenyou will be trained to be a nurturer, trained to teach, trained to provide emotional support, and to do jobs like work for a crisis hotline or social work, or you can be trained to be a housemate and learn to cook, clean, pay bills and shop.

But as it is today this isn't being taught in school. So how exactly are children supposed to choose their gender if you don't even give them the option to choose how they are trained?
Most children don't get trained in school, they get trained by their environment which tells them what gender they are, what their role is, how to act and how not to act, and this is reinforced by their parents and by everybody they come into contact with.

So your post gender ideal will always be impossible. It would take billions of investment in teaching all the lifeskills so that an individual can make a choice. I don't see post genderists opening up a summer school or camp for children to teach them to be a certain gender. We have the boyscouts and boysclub teaching boys to be men. We have institutions which exist to teach boys to be men and institutions to teach girls to be women and they decide who to teach based on SEX, not based on the gender of that persons brain.

So I don't see how your ideal society could ever work. You'd have to have a club for young children where they'd learn both cooking and hunting in the same day. The child would have to go and hunt, then learn recipes on how to best cook what they hunted, then be taught how to change diapers, and be taught how to start a fire. Yes it's possible on paper but tell me how you'd organize it? Take a child who is a blank slate who has not yet chosen their gender, so you have to train them to be both male and female until they are old enough to choose.



All of your ranting is completely one-way. There is as much a phase-out of the housewife, as bringing in of househusbands.

There has not been an exclusive change in gender roles towards the masculinization of women as you are trying to imply.

How many househusbands do you know sir? When there is an equal percentage of househusbands and housewives thats when we can say there is equality.

[Frag]

How many househusbands do you know sir? When there is an equal percentage of househusbands and housewives thats when we can say there is equality.
Have you actually got a point you can back up with evidence, or do you just want to play switcheroo games all day?

[firebee]

Honestly this only seems to benefit corporate bosses who want to produce the ideal worker, so of course if theres not enough men (socially defined), they'll say we need to have gender equality, and remove the concept of gender, but how is that different from the principal telling students we need to remove the concept of "child", as a stealth mechanism to remove childhood and once again treat children as little adults?

So... treating women as adults is no different from treating children as adults?

...interesting.


In my opinion we should be promoting feminism and feminine traits in society rather than create more "men".

I'd find that a little more convincing if you hadn't previously defined "having a complete emotional breakdown in the face of anything resembling danger" as an essential female quality. The world needs more hysterical sobbing? Really?

[timetraveler]

Have you actually got a point you can back up with evidence, or do you just want to play switcheroo games all day?

Okay here are some facts to back up my statements.


The report showed that mothering full time at home is a widespread phenomenon, including 5.6 million women, or nearly 1 in 4 married mothers with children younger than 15. By comparison, the country's stay-at-home dads number 165,000.

Taken from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


5.6 million housewives, 165,000 househusbands. The numbers prove my point.





So... treating women as adults is no different from treating children as adults?

...interesting.



I'd find that a little more convincing if you hadn't previously defined "having a complete emotional breakdown in the face of anything resembling danger" as an essential female quality. The world needs more hysterical sobbing? Really?

No. I never said women aren't adults, but they aren't men either and should not be treated as men.

And yes while it's considered feminine to sob in that situation, these same individuals who sob in that situation are really good at comforting others. It's not that they are children, but they can relate well to children and comfort a child in a way that men cannot. If a child is crying in a room filled with men, the men will tell the child to stop crying. If a child is crying in a room filled with women the response is very different, especially if the child is a girl.

All I can say is there are some situations where men end up not being all that helpful. How am I supposed to help a person who is having an anxiety attack if I've never experienced that? How am I going to help people who need emotional support? There are roles which require a type of thinking I'm not all that good at. I'm not good at relating to people emotionally, I can relate intellectually but how is that going to help the situation?

[Synamon]

Okay here are some facts to back up my statements.



5.6 million housewives, 165,000 househusbands. The numbers prove my point.
We don't all live in the US. Did you see the parental leave data I posted in this thread earlier? When given the opportunity, many fathers choose to participate in child rearing.

[timetraveler]

We don't all live in the US. Did you see the parental leave data I posted in this thread earlier? When given the opportunity, many fathers choose to participate in child rearing.

I do think men want the opportunity. It's a matter of society not giving men the opportunity. Even if society does let an individual choose their gender, at what age will they be old enough to decide? 21?25? Will gender by decided by an exam or what?

Basically without gender how will we know which individuals are physically and psychologically prepared for certain jobs and roles? Gender is a sort of informal training system. And in some cultures it's formal, you aren't born a man but you earn your manhood. You earn your womanhood etc.

[Frag]

5.6 million housewives, 165,000 househusbands. The numbers prove my point.
Actually no, it proves the exact opposite; that gender roles are not the absolutes nor necessary as you deem.

[timetraveler]

Actually no, it proves the exact opposite; that gender roles are not the absolutes nor necessary as you deem.

If what you said was true and there was equality between the sexes, then the role of homemaker would be evenly distributed between the sexes. You wouldn't have 5 million to 100,000 like that if social gender was something men/women could choose or if it didn't matter. If what others are saying is correct then for their theory to be true these numbers must represent that equality.

[Frag]

Strawman argument. I did not state there is equality between the sexes.

[Synamon]

Basically without gender how will we know which individuals are physically and psychologically prepared for certain jobs and roles? Gender is a sort of informal training system. And in some cultures it's formal, you aren't born a man but you earn your manhood. You earn your womanhood etc.
Without gender stereotypes people will be able to do whatever they choose. By your earlier definitions I'm not "physically and psychologically prepared" for any of the female roles so clearly society failed to train me. Now what? Gee, maybe instead of training (read:brainwashing) children we could let their interests and abilities dictate their roles.

[firebee]

No. I never said women aren't adults, but they aren't men either and should not be treated as men.

You are juxtaposing them against children and assigning them tasks (such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping) that can be performed by a trained monkey. The gestalt is, shall we say, not flattering.


How am I supposed to help a person who is having an anxiety attack if I've never experienced that? How am I going to help people who need emotional support?

How am I supposed to help a person who is having an anxiety attack, if the stress of being around a person who is having an anxiety attack causes me to have one as well? And that said -- it's entirely possible to be prone to anxiety and still be functional under pressure. I should know, as I am such a person. I'm capable of managing my anxiety, rather than helpless in the face of it -- and hence, I'm capable of pointing other anxious people in the right direction.

Emotional instability is not a good base from which to provide emotional support.

[lincoln]

People who want to get rid of the housewife and 1950s concepts don't understand that originally women and men were treated as equal by industrial society. There was a time when every man, woman and child, worked 12 hours a day in the factory. They all had to go to work from 6AM to 6PM every day of the week. They had to fight to get Sunday off, and fight more to get Saturday off. From there they had to create child labor laws, so that children didn't have to work 12 hours a day. The only reason children have it easy today is because of these child labor laws. After children were allowed to stay home from work and have a childhood, men fought so their wives could stay home and not have to work 12 hour days in the factory.

Not exactly true....The fight against child labor was first fought by the AFL. The only reason being, that children would work for less pay, which meant they could take jobs away (or were taking jobs away) from men. Women were also paid less than men (quite a bit actually). They certainly weren't paid enough to start their own lives. Their incomes were seen as supplementary (just like children's) to the family unit. Now, the AFL was also a rather idealistic organization, that was seeking to reestablish the pre-industiral family ideals.
Another tidbit women were actually forced by unions and men who rallied together after the first world war, to leave the jobs they had taken over....It all seems unfair for both sexes...but....why couldn't the men just park themselves at home and shut up about it, like the women were expected to do.
As far as that gender utopia thing goes...a) whatever women having been doing with their lives is usually fairly vital, so it will still get done..b) it is just important that women continue to pursue independence for a lot of reasons...domestic violence being one...





lincoln added to this post, 137 minutes and 27 seconds later...

What many masculine women don't seem to understand is that gender roles exist because someone is needed for these roles. If a woman is going to take the mans role thats fine with me. She just has to understand that this role has nothing to do with simply wearing pants and talking like a man, she must have the right temperament for this role. The role is that of protector of the family, and if shes used to other people protecting her as opposed to protecting herself and others, she may breakdown under pressure and or not live the role properly.

I was going to finally go to sleep, but I just had to say something...DUDE!
Women, hold their own gosh darnit. Have for ever so long. Think what it is to raise a large family, the stress of it all, the workload, the emotional and physical stamina that one must have. I just betcha, that women have had to, not only do as much work (certainly, at least, before we became a consumer society) as men, but also raise the little ones. That's a heck of a lot of work. My grandmother, went to grad school, raised 6 children and worked full-time or close to it. Granted, she waited until some of the kids were older before she went back to school but.....here is the tickler...my grandfather was a school teacher who also (?!somehow?!) had time to coach the track team...so, can 'SHE' do it good sir, she most certainly can, she's been doing it

and about that "right temperament" do you mean, can she handle being bullied in the workplace? Really, I don't get it...and "protector of the family" huh...well, cheers to the women who stay and home and take care of their children, love them, work for them and their husbands day and night. If that isn't protecting, then I don't know what it is.

Your argument sounds very similar to something I just read.... During the first world war they were drafting far more black men than white. Because, (I'm paraphrasing (poorly)black families obviously have a lower standard of living, and don't need the breadwinner as much as the white families,who are used to living well do...
Similar in a way...

[timetraveler]

Without gender stereotypes people will be able to do whatever they choose. By your earlier definitions I'm not "physically and psychologically prepared" for any of the female roles so clearly society failed to train me. Now what? Gee, maybe instead of training (read:brainwashing) children we could let their interests and abilities dictate their roles.

You think people can become these things without any training? Whether you want to become a cop, a lifeguard, a war hero, a master chef, a hairstylist, or a nurse these professions all require trainings, years of training. The child has to be prepared for this when they are young.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take the childs interest into account, and I'm not saying adults should be forced into certain gender roles. I'm saying we must keep the concept of gender because thats how we currently train people for these roles. You cannot just wake up one day and be a man, or wake up one day and be a woman. Someone has to show you how to be a man and how to be a woman.


You are juxtaposing them against children and assigning them tasks (such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping) that can be performed by a trained monkey. The gestalt is, shall we say, not flattering.


Just because you don't respect these professions and call them trained monkeys, a trained monkey can be taught to swim, a dog can be trained to save lives, any animal can be trained. But some monkeys have the temperament to be trained to do certain assignments while some monkeys do not. I'm not good at cooking, cleaning, or shopping. I don't have the patience for shopping. I don't know thousands of recipes. I don't know how to organize a closet. And there are a lot of things I don't know or am not good at and I respect the people who are good at what I'm not good at.

We can juxtapose them against children, against monkeys, against robots. The point is that some people are good at cooking, good at styling hair, good at picking out clothes and fashion, good at organizing and keeping a house neat, good at nursing, counseling, teaching, sewing. Whether you respect these professions or not, whether you think you can do it better or not Martha Stewert goes on TV and makes a living catering to these people.

No they don't like guns or weapons and wouldn't have the temperament to use one.
No they don't have the temperament to save a life even if it means their own.

So they aren't going to be given those sorts of assignments because they aren't able to survive the training. Removing gender won't change anything because you'll always have people who wont be right for the kinda work you do. You may go around teaching martial arts, saving lives, but a lot of people in this country just don't or wont do what you do. Unless you can explain why they are different without labeling them, we will need the concept of gender.


How am I supposed to help a person who is having an anxiety attack, if the stress of being around a person who is having an anxiety attack causes me to have one as well? And that said -- it's entirely possible to be prone to anxiety and still be functional under pressure. I should know, as I am such a person. I'm capable of managing my anxiety, rather than helpless in the face of it -- and hence, I'm capable of pointing other anxious people in the right direction.

Emotional instability is not a good base from which to provide emotional support.


It's not stressful for some people to be around emotionally unstable individuals. They have the training and skills so that they are good at relating to others. They know what to say and how to say it. They've felt an anxiety attack and can understand and relate to the person who is experiencing it. I'm not saying they should be emotionally unstable and in the position of psychiatrist or social worker, but it requires a rare set of skills to be able to sit down and connect with anybody. As far as anxiety goes, it's important to have experienced it and overcome it because thats how you can share your techniques on overcoming anxiety.

Everybody feels anxiety, but we don't all feel it the same way. The individuals who are determined to be masculine feel anxiety but it's just adrenaline, and it makes them think faster, run faster and actually operate better. Another group of individuals feels anxiety so powerful and so strong that it overwhelms their senses and their body completely shuts down. How would the first group of individuals relate to the second group of individuals if they've never felt anything that intense before so as to even know what the second group is feeling?

That is the problem I face with people. I don't know what some people are feeling, I see looks on their faces and I know they are feeling fear, or pain, or happy, but I don't know what those emotions actually feel like to them physiologically unless I ask. A lot of INTJ's have the problem of being trapped in their own head, of not being able to fully relate to the emotions of others. A lot of INTJ's are narcissists, but we learn to read the cues and signals enough to have an idea that another individual is feeling uncomfortable and we go out of our way to keep them comfortable. When the other individual is uncomfortable for what seems like no reason, and it's not caused by us, it's not something most INTJ's instinctively know how to deal with.

That means there are other personality types that are better suited to help these people. I realize I'm at the INTJ forum so many people here are going to be masculine or at least relate to the masculine style of thinking and feeling, but please don't get my views wrong. I do not belittle the feminine role, I think the feminine role is more important than the masculine role. The masculine role is important because it's the masculine individuals who protect the species from predators, or who invent the tools and objects which allow other masculine individuals to directly protect. The gun, the spear, rope, many inventions which would be considered to have military properties were actually invented by tribes as a way to protect women and children.

I do not equate womanhood with childhood in 2009, but womanhood is a state of mind which should be protected. The last thing we need is a world where everyone is fighting everyone, we need some people who can tell the masculine types to put the weapons down. Trade is a feminine invention, it was women who invented trade. While the men hunted and brought fur and other items back to the tribe, it was the women who had the social skills to trade in the form of barter. It was women who developed written and spoken languages and even to this day if you look at the neuroscience of a womans brain, women are biologically better at communication than men. That is evidence which backs the theory that women were the great communicators, diplomats, traders, they held civilization together during a time when men couldn't.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





timetraveler added to this post, 47 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Not exactly true....The fight against child labor was first fought by the AFL. The only reason being, that children would work for less pay, which meant they could take jobs away (or were taking jobs away) from men. Women were also paid less than men (quite a bit actually). They certainly weren't paid enough to start their own lives. Their incomes were seen as supplementary (just like children's) to the family unit. Now, the AFL was also a rather idealistic organization, that was seeking to reestablish the pre-industiral family ideals.


They believed industrial society was destroying the family and how is that different from our situation today? Yes women got paid less than men and that is unfair, but thats not why men fought against it. Not everything in life was/is about money.


As far as that gender utopia thing goes...a) whatever women having been doing with their lives is usually fairly vital, so it will still get done..b) it is just important that women continue to pursue independence for a lot of reasons...domestic violence being one...


Just because something is vital doesn't mean it will get done, and be done well.



I was going to finally go to sleep, but I just had to say something...DUDE!
Women, hold their own gosh darnit. Have for ever so long. Think what it is to raise a large family, the stress of it all, the workload, the emotional and physical stamina that one must have. I just betcha, that women have had to, not only do as much work (certainly, at least, before we became a consumer society) as men, but also raise the little ones. That's a heck of a lot of work. My grandmother, went to grad school, raised 6 children and worked full-time or close to it. Granted, she waited until some of the kids were older before she went back to school but.....here is the tickler...my grandfather was a school teacher who also (?!somehow?!) had time to coach the track team...so, can 'SHE' do it good sir, she most certainly can, she's been doing it


I was raised by women who worked. I know first hand the affect it has on women. Just because 5% of women can raise 6 kids, go to grad school and not break down at some point it does not mean a majority of women can do this or do it well. In my opinion it's not right for anybody to raise kids as a single parent while also working a full time job. Usually these individuals have to sacrifice career advancement, and while they can do the job they never really seem happy, at least the women in my life didn't.


and about that "right temperament" do you mean, can she handle being bullied in the workplace? Really, I don't get it...and "protector of the family" huh...well, cheers to the women who stay and home and take care of their children, love them, work for them and their husbands day and night. If that isn't protecting, then I don't know what it is.


Thats nurturing, thats as vital as protecting. Protecting is having the resources to take the child to a hospital, or the ability to directly save the childs life. Protecting is having the ability to shoot a burglar who breaks into the house, or the ability to perform CPR. Nurturing is not the same as protecting. I was nurtured by the women in my family but never was rarely if ever protected.


Your argument sounds very similar to something I just read.... During the first world war they were drafting far more black men than white. Because, (I'm paraphrasing (poorly)black families obviously have a lower standard of living, and don't need the breadwinner as much as the white families,who are used to living well do...
Similar in a way...


Not similar at all. I'll put it as plainly and as bluntly for you as I can. American families 2009 are less safe than American families were in 1950. In specific children grow up less safe now than they did 50 years ago. The people who grew up in the 50s have no idea how dangerous the world is for children growing up in 2009, they simply cannot fathom the dangerous reality. The babyboomers have no idea how scary the world is for children now. A lot of them grew up in a time where they had the illusion of security, todays children do not have any illusion of security at all.

I don't think it's right, which is why I say there has to be somebody who adopts the protector role. If you have ONLY women then there will be no one to protect the kids. And despite what you may have been lead to believe, love cannot protect you from predators. Sometimes only violence can protect you. If single women want to learn to shoot guns and do martial arts on top of their job and raising kids more power to them, but none of the women who raised me were doing that stuff.

[Prunesquallor]

So, you're saying that temperament is important in these roles....but that they should be divided by whether one is male and female, rather than by, for example, temperament?

[timetraveler]

So, you're saying that temperament is important in these roles....but that they should be divided by whether one is male and female, rather than by, for example, temperament?

No, I'm saying gender is in the mind. Gender is temperament and social training. If you think and act masculine then you are a man. But you need to have the right temperament to be a man in the first place, along with the right training.

Plenty of people are born male, but don't have the right temperament to live as a male and so they have a sex change, and live life as a woman. There are also boys who try to live life as a man and fall flat on their face, they don't have the right temperament or training to be a man. They have a mans body without the mind behind it.

[Prunesquallor]

No, I'm saying gender is in the mind. Gender is temperament and social training. If you think and act masculine then you are a man. But you need to have the right temperament to be a man in the first place, along with the right training.

Plenty of people are born male, but don't have the right temperament to live as a male and so they have a sex change, and live life as a woman. There are also boys who try to live life as a man and fall flat on their face, they don't have the right temperament or training to be a man. They have a mans body without the mind behind it.

But that's complete foolishness.

The concept of 'masculine' was created when there were real divisions between the sexes in behaviour - divided down sex lines. As discrimination lessened, in some places, people were more free to follow their temperaments, which were not so strongly along sex lines. Social pressure still keeps a lot of people from following their temperament. If that were eliminated, then it would simply be people following their skills and gender would not be involved. It would not fall down gender lines. After all, the world is not so simplistic that two 'roles' suffice for anything anyway. Gender roles change to accomodate society, the people filling them, the realities the society is facing...it is blind to the extreme to assume that the 1950s interpretation of gender is the definitive one.

[timetraveler]

But that's complete foolishness.

The concept of 'masculine' was created when there were real divisions between the sexes in behaviour - divided down sex lines. As discrimination lessened, in some places, people were more free to follow their temperaments, which were not so strongly along sex lines. Social pressure still keeps a lot of people from following their temperament. If that were eliminated, then it would simply be people following their skills and gender would not be involved. It would not fall down gender lines. After all, the world is not so simplistic that two 'roles' suffice for anything anyway. Gender roles change to accomodate society, the people filling them, the realities the society is facing...it is blind to the extreme to assume that the 1950s interpretation of gender is the definitive one.

You are angry because some women were forced to act feminine when they are not, or some men were forced to act masculine when they are not. But the thread is about whether gender is mutable, not about equality between the sexes. I accept that there is inequality between the sexes and it goes both ways.

What you fail to understand is that even if you eliminate gender it will be replaced by something else. It's like if you eliminate the highschool diploma or the ranks in the military you are just going to cause them to invent something else and it might not actually be better. Also I never said I had the 1950s interpretation of gender. Your interpretation of gender seems to depend on sex. Sex has nothing to do with my interpretation of gender. So sexual inequality has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying gender is needed because individuals have to be trained to be a man from boyhood, or trained to be a woman from girlhood. Nobody wakes up at 18 and is a man or woman. Temperament alone does not make you a man or woman either. You need temperament and training, and what you are proposing would remove all the training. You aren't offering any new system to train people so essentially the training mechanism would be removed entirely and we will have boys teaching themselves to be men and learning the wrong way. I know because I was one of those boys who did not have a father around to teach me, and I'm fortunate to not be in prison somewhere.

So explain to me if you have a group of boys with no training, how are they supposed to learn the skills and discipline to be a man? Enlist in the army? Are we supposed to take a college course in manhood, pass an exam and get certified as a man? You do realize that not all boys make it to manhood, some remain as boys their entire life.

[Prunesquallor]

You are angry because some women were forced to act feminine when they are not, or some men were forced to act masculine when they are not. But the thread is about whether gender is mutable, not about equality between the sexes. I accept that there is inequality between the sexes and it goes both ways.

What you fail to understand is that even if you eliminate gender it will be replaced by something else. It's like if you eliminate the highschool diploma or the ranks in the military you are just going to cause them to invent something else and it might not actually be better. Also I never said I had the 1950s interpretation of gender. Your interpretation of gender seems to depend on sex. Sex has nothing to do with my interpretation of gender. So sexual inequality has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying gender is needed because individuals have to be trained to be a man from boyhood, or trained to be a woman from girlhood. Nobody wakes up at 18 and is a man or woman. Temperament alone does not make you a man or woman either. You need temperament and training, and what you are proposing would remove all the training. You aren't offering any new system to train people so essentially the training mechanism would be removed entirely and we will have boys teaching themselves to be men and learning the wrong way. I know because I was one of those boys who did not have a father around to teach me, and I'm fortunate to not be in prison somewhere.

So explain to me if you have a group of boys with no training, how are they supposed to learn the skills and discipline to be a man? Enlist in the army?

If sex is unrelated, then don't call it masculine or feminine, or being a "man" or a "woman".

You offer training for people in their interests. This is fine. So long as the training is useful. Assuming they have certain gender-based interests is not. Naming them after genders, if there is indeed no relationship, is also not fine.

[timetraveler]

If sex is unrelated, then don't call it masculine or feminine, or being a "man" or a "woman".

You offer training for people in their interests. This is fine. So long as the training is useful. Assuming they have certain gender-based interests is not. Naming them after genders, if there is indeed no relationship, is also not fine.

So are we going to have to invent a college course in manhood and let individuals take it, pass an exam and be a certified man? How is this system supposed to work?

[Prunesquallor]

So are we going to have to invent a college course in manhood and let individuals take it, pass an exam and be a certified man? How is this system supposed to work?

A) You're still calling it manhood. If either gender, either sex can fill this role you're associating with masculinity, then it's not manhood.
B) no. It does not require a course. This is generally part of upbringing, so why change it now?
C) The usual methods. Parents, for example, teach their children how to be useful intelligent human beings. Hopefully schools help.
D) Supplementing functional training from schools, etc. but none of it directed at "manhood" or "femininity" since that's all bollocks.

[timetraveler]

A) You're still calling it manhood. If either gender, either sex can fill this role you're associating with masculinity, then it's not manhood.
B) no. It does not require a course. This is generally part of upbringing, so why change it now?
C) The usual methods. Parents, for example, teach their children how to be useful intelligent human beings. Hopefully schools help.
D) Supplementing functional training from schools, etc. but none of it directed at "manhood" or "femininity" since that's all bollocks.

1. I call it manhood because you cannot separate manhood from masculinity anymore than you can separate water from wet.
2. It does require a course because it's not going to remain a general part of upbringing if we are going to be postgender. As a parent how would I know what gender my boy wants to be? How would I know what temperament he is going to have? If I put a gun in his hand and force him to go hunting with me he might resent me for forcing him to be masculine. If hes masculine and raised by women he might resent them for forcing him to be feminine. So why not give the individual the choice to take a course or courses in college to teach them what it means to be a man or a woman? We have sex education, why not this?
3. My parents couldn't teach me to be a man so you are completely wrong. My father wasn't around and to assume every child has two parents is falling back into the 1950s nuclear family paradigm that you say you are against.
4. Masculinity and femininity are not bullocks. You can say gender (male and female) is bullocks and have a debate but how can you dispute that masculine and feminine traits exist? You just think by getting rid of the words that it will solve everything? Who and what is going to teach boys to be men? Girls to be women? Without Gender where will kids go to learn to be Men or Women? What references will they have if you remove all the words like gender, masculinity, manhood, womanhood?

I think you risk making the current situation much much worse because you will have a bunch of boys who grow up without fathers live an even more confused life because nobody shows them what they are because theres no word for it. So now they are simply going to know what they are not. Also if you don't have gender then you cannot study the psychology and mindsets of masculine individuals. How are we going to help masculine individuals if we don't have a word for their thinking and behavior?

You have shown that the postgender world would be different but you haven't given evidence to show that it would be better. At least as things are now I'm not confused about who and what I am. In the post gender world I'd have been confused up until my 20s because there wouldn't be books, or words to describe how I felt or thought.

[Prunesquallor]

1. I call it manhood because you cannot separate manhood from masculinity anymore than you can separate water from wet.
2. It does require a course because it's not going to remain a general part of upbringing if we are going to be postgender. As a parent how would I know what gender my boy wants to be? How would I know what temperament he is going to have? If I put a gun in his hand and force him to go hunting with me he might resent me for forcing him to be masculine. If hes masculine and raised by women he might resent them for forcing him to be feminine. So why not give the individual the choice to take a course or courses in college to teach them what it means to be a man or a woman? We have sex education, why not this?
3. My parents couldn't teach me to be a man so you are completely wrong. My father wasn't around and to assume every child has two parents is falling back into the 1950s nuclear family paradigm that you say you are against.
4. Masculinity and femininity are not bullocks. You can say gender (male and female) is bullocks and have a debate but how can you dispute that masculine and feminine traits exist? You just think by getting rid of the words that it will solve everything? Who and what is going to teach boys to be men? Girls to be women? Without Gender where will kids go to learn to be Men or Women? What references will they have if you remove all the words like gender, masculinity, manhood, womanhood?

I think you risk making the current situation much much worse because you will have a bunch of boys who grow up without fathers live an even more confused life because nobody shows them what they are because theres no word for it. So now they are simply going to know what they are not. Also if you don't have gender then you cannot study the psychology and mindsets of masculine individuals. How are we going to help masculine individuals if we don't have a word for their thinking and behavior?

You have shown that the postgender world would be different but you haven't given evidence to show that it would be better. At least as things are now I'm not confused about who and what I am. In the post gender world I'd have been confused up until my 20s because there wouldn't be books, or words to describe how I felt or thought.

1. So you retract your statement saying that sex has nothing to do with gender?
2. Because it's not a skill, it's a social role that is becoming less and less relevant. People teach their kids what is relevant for the kids to know, using some input from the kids
3. Parents are often inadequate, yes. I was using 'parents' as a short form for "whoever brings up the child"
4. The traits exist. The association with sex is created by society, often arbitrary, and has no inherant relationship whatsoever to whether a person is male or female. It is an association that was built up over time, altered over time, and is still altering.

So you're confused. So are most people. A limited number of boxes into which someone is supposed to fit - when they don't - would confuse anyone. Allowing people - despite the existence of a penis/vagina - to pursue their interests is rarely confusing. Except, perhaps, for people who are not comfortable without an arbitrary system telling people what to do. Remove the arbitrary systems and there are genuine reasons to do things. SO much more sensible.

As for it being better: legally, I am a person, I am not under the thumb of a husband who owns all my property, it is not legal for him to beat me or rape me, I am allowed to have a job, despite being "better suited for childbirth"....yeah, so far so good.

[Storm]

Wow, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

So, you're position, timetraveler, is that gender roles must be learned at an early age or people will be hopelessly confused and unable to function in society at all? In otherwords, that before a person can decide what they like to do, they must be "trained" to do it?

Most people, when presented with options, can easily decide which they prefer. I don't have to trained as a cop in order to know I don't want to be one.

Further, you have conceded that ability and interest in deciding which gender roles to take on do not necessarily line up with the sexes (Men chose female jobs, women chose male jobs).

You then propose, for efficiency, that men be taught how to behave like men, and women be taught how to behave like women despite the fact that these roles do not necessarily fit the person.

[timetraveler]

1. So you retract your statement saying that sex has nothing to do with gender?

My concept of manhood has nothing to do with the sex of the individual. The individual is a man when they pass the test. If you save someones life for example and I witness that then you've passed the test. It's very similar to the ritual where the gang beats in its members, or the fraternity does it's ritual. In general manhood is passed down through a test or series of tests and when you see what the person is made of thats when you know. It's not simply a matter of them having male bodies.

2. Because it's not a skill, it's a social role that is becoming less and less relevant. People teach their kids what is relevant for the kids to know, using some input from the kids.

Perhaps this is where we fundamentally disagree. Manhood is a series of skills that take time and training to learn. A perfect example is you take a young boy 18 and enlist him in the military, you can't just give him a gun and send him out to war without basic training can you? So everyone receives basic training, and them further they receive specialized training based on their temperament and capabilities. It's 2009 so women can be protectors too, but it still requires training. You don't develop discipline overnight, integrity is a skill, self control is a skill.

3. Parents are often inadequate, yes. I was using 'parents' as a short form for "whoever brings up the child"
Then we agree that it takes more than parents to bring up a child. The childs mind must be molded and trained or they could have many psychological problems. A perfect example of a problem many masculine men have is PTSD.

4. The traits exist. The association with sex is created by society, often arbitrary, and has no inherant relationship whatsoever to whether a person is male or female. It is an association that was built up over time, altered over time, and is still altering.

So you're confused. So are most people. A limited number of boxes into which someone is supposed to fit - when they don't - would confuse anyone. Allowing people - despite the existence of a penis/vagina - to pursue their interests is rarely confusing. Except, perhaps, for people who are not comfortable without an arbitrary system telling people what to do. Remove the arbitrary systems and there are genuine reasons to do things. SO much more sensible.

For the last time I'm not associating gender with sex. Just as both sexes can be soldiers. Just as both sexes can be firefighters and paramedics. Just as both sexes can be doctors and surgeons. Both sexes can be either gender. Gender is a social role and more like a profession that people are trained for than a role people are born into. Nobody is born into being a man, you have to go through the psychological condition and that shapes your thinking and behavior until you become a man. The same with women. Some people are able to deal with the conditioning process and become good men or good women, and go on to save lives and help people. Some people cannot cope with the conditioning. Changing the labels will not change the roles or the methods of conditioning so I don't see a point.

[Storm]

What do you say about people who possess both masculine and feminine traits? How was this possible if the roles require extensive training?

I'm still waiting for you to explain why roles should be assigned on a sex basis if both men and women can fulfill both.

[timetraveler]

Wow, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

So, you're position, timetraveler, is that gender roles must be learned at an early age or people will be hopelessly confused and unable to function in society at all? In otherwords, that before a person can decide what they like to do, they must be "trained" to do it?


You think those men who run into burning buildings saving people aren't scared? You think the people who are being in these roles just are born that way? They were conditioned for these roles by their life experiences. A lot of cops, firemen, soldiers, martial artists, for example were trained from a very young age to be that way. They learned to shoot a gun as a child, perhaps the martial artist was bullied as a kid and learned self defense, maybe the fireman lost a loved one to a fire and now they run into buildings to save others. The point I'm making is that people are not born to be in these roles, their experiences shapes their thinking in a way which conditions them to be in these roles. They go on to get trained formally for these roles, but you cannot understand these individuals unless you understand their childhood.


Most people, when presented with options, can easily decide which they prefer. I don't have to trained as a cop in order to know I don't want to be one.

If you are a child and you've never gone camping, and you've never gone fishing, and you've never shot a gun, how are you going to know if you like it or not? If you've never been in a fight how would you know if you are a good fighter or not? If you've never done something you can't know if you'll ever be good at it. The reason people know at a young age what they are good at in todays world is mainly because boys are basically treated as men and they quickly learn whether or not they like it. In a world where we don't force masculinity on them it might take them a long time to learn that they are better at being masculine. It's not like I knew instantly what kinda person I'd be as an adult. I didn't know I'd be the way I became and I doubt most people know as children. I didn't know what I could do until I was actually in situations and saw how calm I was and how I handled it. It's only after the fact that you know.


Further, you have conceded that ability and interest in deciding which gender roles to take on do not necessarily line up with the sexes (Men chose female jobs, women chose male jobs).


Interest doesn't mean talent, skill, or temperament. You develop talent by practicing at a young age. A lot of the best boxers in history didn't like fighting as a kid, in fact they hated it, but their fathers forced them to do it and as adults they became great champions. A lot of the best bodybuilders in history were weak kids who were picked on. A lot of the men who worked on the atomic bomb were boys who got picked on growing up. A lot of the top men in the FBI and police force were boyscouts. A lot of the pop stars were forced to go on stage and perform as a child, they didn't know they could do what they did and thats how it usually is.

Alternatively you have individuals who try their entire life and never can shoot straight.


You then propose, for efficiency, that men be taught how to behave like men, and women be taught how to behave like women despite the fact that these roles do not necessarily fit the person.

It's complicated because often to be a great man you have to become a man at a young age and go through some horrible conditioning. This conditioning on a man who has the right temperament makes them tougher, more disciplined, more focused. What I advocate is to offer this conditioning to children who are tough enough to handle it, push them to their limits and try to get an assessment of how best to train them but ultimately I don't think you can look at boy and determine what their brain will be like when they are 21. A lot of weak feminine acting boys become some of the most masculine toughest men. So really gender is something which can only be determined in adulthood with any true accuracy and I worry if we get rid of the conditioning, we will simply have less great men and women because they won't be as conditioned as previous generations were. In essence the masculine individuals might not be as tough, and the feminine individuals might not be as good at communication because we'd have taken away 20 years or so of conditioning. They'd still both go to college and get trained, but I don't know if it would work well.

[Prunesquallor]

So you think gender should no longer be related to sex, but still named as if it were, and conditioned accordingly??
People can be taught skills. They can even be taught roles. There are more than two roles, and the relationship to gender is immaterial. We are not losing something in terms of skills if we simply avoid arbitrary categories.

Btw, when I say 'parents (et al) teach their kids what is relevant to know' I do not mean they refuse to teach them, but that they teach them what is relevant to know, which may include some things you arbitrarily associate with your personal definition of "manhood" and may not.

[timetraveler]

What do you say about people who possess both masculine and feminine traits? How was this possible if the roles require extensive training?

I'm still waiting for you to explain why roles should be assigned on a sex basis if both men and women can fulfill both.


Everybody possesses both masculine and feminine traits. But it's like with Introvert/Extrovert, you don't possess them in the same amounts and you generally feel more comfortable doing certain things and not others. But to merely possess toughness does not make you a man, and to merely possess an ability to nurture does not make you a woman. You have to learn how to properly channel your traits, you have to learn the appropriate skills. You learn how to aim and shoot a gun, or how to fish, or how to do rational thinking. Maybe you learn how to manipulate and socially engineer, or how to do conflict resolution, there are a whole range of skills which require the masculine traits or the feminine traits but these skills have to be practiced.

Just taking the toughest most masculine individual in the room and putting them in a ring doesn't make them a good fighter.

[Storm]

People have to be taught roles, and, yet, you say you naturally are calm in stressful environments? Contradiction.

True, sometimes we don't know what we'll be good at till we do it, but oftentimes, we know before we do it. Some children are naturally drawn towards blocks, others towards dollhouses. You simply have to place the two toys down and the child will choose.

I also disagree that people have to be "conditioned" (brainwashed?) into jobs starting at birth. And, if you pick the wrong field, oh no. Sure, there are people who were trained from birth to be great fighters and became great fighters. There are also, as you admit, people who never ever get it.

Since you also admit that gender roles are independent of person's sex - forcing a person into a box would not result in greater people, but a lot of people in positions they aren't good at and do not like.

[timetraveler]

So you think gender should no longer be related to sex, but still named as if it were, and conditioned accordingly??
People can be taught skills. They can even be taught roles. There are more than two roles, and the relationship to gender is immaterial. We are not losing something in terms of skills if we simply avoid arbitrary categories.

Btw, when I say 'parents (et al) teach their kids what is relevant to know' I do not mean they refuse to teach them, but that they teach them what is relevant to know, which may include some things you arbitrarily associate with your personal definition of "manhood" and may not.

Yes thats my opinion. Gender should be separated from sex because sex is mutable and gender is not.

I don't believe people are blank slates. I think gender is what determines which kinds of roles a person can have. If I say I see gender as protectors and nurturers rather than masculine and feminine, it still takes a lot of skill to be good at protecting the nurturers. You have a lot of boys who beat up women they are supposed to be protecting. They never learned how to be a man because while they have toughness they never learned how to channel it. Some of those men who beat up women are naturally violent, but thats not what manhood is and thats not the role of a man. The role of a man is to protect women, not beat women.

So yes these roles have to be taught. As a child I was conditioned to protect women. I was told that it was my job to protect them and it was drilled into my soul. It's this conditioning that prevents me from ever physically attacking a woman. When you get rid of concepts like manhood, and masculinity, you make it a lot harder for people to program masculine individuals to protect feminine individuals.

[Prunesquallor]

What if "feminine" individuals don't need to be protected?

Do you not see anything inconsistent in calling a woman who saves someone's life a man? You were the one who was complaining about confusion.

Also, although sex changes are available, gender changes rather more often...

[timetraveler]

People have to be taught roles, and, yet, you say you naturally are calm in stressful environments? Contradiction.


It's not a contradiction. I might naturally be calm, but to know what steps to take to save someones life required some level of being taught what to do. In my mind I'm just following whatever I was trained for or taught. I'm calm because I have some ability to shut a part of myself down in these situations and that is natural. But to know certain skills has a lot more to do with practice than temperament. Temperament just says I'd be calm enough to be able to learn to do certain things, it does not mean I'll ever be good at it if I don't practice every day.


True, sometimes we don't know what we'll be good at till we do it, but oftentimes, we know before we do it. Some children are naturally drawn towards blocks, others towards dollhouses. You simply have to place the two toys down and the child will choose.

When I was a child my parents bought me toy soldiers and dolls. I destroyed both the soldiers and the dolls which lead my parents to believe I was afraid of them. I wasn't consciously afraid of them but I had the urge to destroy them, or set them on fire and I never understood why I had those urges until I read books later on which showed that a majority of boys go through a phase where they set stuff on fire or break stuff. So yes some children have urges but following your urges is not what makes you a man or woman. You are a man or woman when you learn to understand and control your urges.

Despite the fact that I destroyed toys and dolls, I was never violent towards other people and had no concept of being violent towards others until someone decided to bully me. So violence is a result of conditioning for most individuals whether they are masculine or feminine. Only a select percentage of the population is naturally violent, or naturally likes to hurt others, so we learn to be violent as a way to protect ourselves from the select percentage of the population who likes hurting others. The learning to be violenr is what we refer to as the martial arts, or the military training or whatever you want to call it. It is only then when a kid will want to learn to shoot a gun, use a knife, or destroy the enemy. So this is why I say you cannot go to a child and ask a child if they likes gun and fighting before they've been in their first fight. And often they hate fighting even if you ask them, but later on they go on to become martial artists. So no I don't think you can ask a child to choose what gender they are, they wont know until their brain fully develops and they know what they are built for.


I also disagree that people have to be "conditioned" (brainwashed?) into jobs starting at birth. And, if you pick the wrong field, oh no. Sure, there are people who were trained from birth to be great fighters and became great fighters. There are also, as you admit, people who never ever get it.


Like I said before if a child has never been in a fight they might have no interest in violence or fighting. After the child has been bullied a few times now the child might be interested in martial arts. It's the experiences which conditions the child in such a way that triggers something genetically which alters the development of their brain. If a child goes through certain experiences they become more masculine or more feminine.


Since you also admit that gender roles are independent of person's sex - forcing a person into a box would not result in greater people, but a lot of people in positions they aren't good at and do not like.


Gender will change, the biological females who are martial arts experts or fighters who protect others will be in the male social roles. Their sex is female but their thinking, acting and feelings are masculine and thus from a psychological and sociological perspective they are as male as I am. If a psychiatrist were to interview them and examine them for PTSD, they'd probably have more in common with me than with the individual who has other traits. It's like with INTJs on this forum, on some level INTJ's have similar brain activity. It's that level which determines gender.




What if "feminine" individuals don't need to be protected?

Do you not see anything inconsistent in calling a woman who saves someone's life a man? You were the one who was complaining about confusion.

Also, although sex changes are available, gender changes rather more often...

1)I've never seen anyone change their gender. If you don't have it in you to think in a certain way, generally you only get more set in your style of thinking as you age. An individual who is a rational thinker typically becomes more rational over time. An individual who is tough and calm typically becomes more tough and calm over time. An individual who doesn't believe in violence typically becomes more non violent over time. I rarely see someone who doesn't believe in violence and self defense suddenly hit 40 and become a self defense expert. The brain chemistry generally doesn't change that much that quickly.

Feminine individuals refuse to protect themselves, or are biologically not capable of doing so.
If you see a person who has a nervous breakdown rather than defend themselves do you not think they should be defended? The whole basis from which men were taught not to hit women and taught to protect women is based around the fact that women wont protect themselves.

So once again the masculine individuals are taught to protect the feminine individuals because the feminine individuals are defenseless. If masculine individuals don't protect them they have nobody. Pacifists are a perfect example, if there aren't masculine people to protect them they will simply be hunted and preyed upon until they are wiped out. Somebody has to protect these people from predators because they don't believe in violence, in guns, in fighting or in self defense.

Nothing is wrong with redefining manhood to include those who traditionally identified with women. These individuals have brain activity, personality traits and emotions which are masculine, so to call them men isn't a problem unless they want to be identified as masculine women. It's their choice but they function as a man traditionally has.

Also the same can be said about feminine men who function in roles traditionally held by women. We can call them women, or we can call them feminine men. They are not traditional men by any means. If shit hits the fan they are pacifists and won't go to war for any reason. Some of these men are programmed to be this way by religion and religious beliefs, which gives them a pacifist identity.

[Prunesquallor]

Feminine individuals refuse to protect themselves, or are biologically not capable of doing so.
If you see a person who has a nervous breakdown rather than defend themselves do you not think they should be defended? The whole basis from which men were taught not to hit women and taught to protect women is based around the fact that women wont protect themselves.

So once again the masculine individuals are taught to protect the feminine individuals because the feminine individuals are defenseless. If masculine individuals don't protect them they have nobody. Pacifists are a perfect example, if there aren't masculine people to protect them they will simply be hunted and preyed upon until they are wiped out. Somebody has to protect these people from predators because they don't believe in violence, in guns, in fighting or in self defense.

Nothing is wrong with redefining manhood to include those who traditionally identified with women. These individuals have brain activity, personality traits and emotions which are masculine, so to call them men isn't a problem unless they want to be identified as masculine women. It's their choice but they function as a man traditionally has.

Also the same can be said about feminine men who function in roles traditionally held by women. We can call them women, or we can call them feminine men. They are not traditional men by any means. If shit hits the fan they are pacifists and won't go to war for any reason. Some of these men are programmed to be this way by religion and religious beliefs, which gives them a pacifist identity.

or....everyone should be taught how to defend themselves... And we could call men men, and women women, regardless of whether they hold themselves up to arbitrary social standards that even you admit have nothing to do with sex, despite the fact that you cannot seem to live up to that statement in any of your arguments.

And, sorry, "women won't protect themselves"?

Do you happen to know that many C.O.s (conscientious objectors) in WWII in Britain took on the role of bomb disposal, in many cases? - far more dangerous than going to war, a much higher death rate. Being a pacifist does not mean helpless or scared.

A lot of supposedly "feminine" traits are not good ones. We were generally ill-educated, so stupidity and shallowness and nagging were considered feminine, as was weakness (you try to beat someone up in a corset, with bound feet, high heels, a pencil skirt...). Now, poor education seems to be a male thing. None of these traits, however, are ones I would advocate teaching people, strangely enough. I'm kind of more for the idea of teaching everyone to be a competent human being.

[lincoln]

on't think it's right, which is why I say there has to be somebody who adopts the protector role. If you have ONLY women then there will be no one to protect the kids. And despite what you may have been lead to believe, love cannot protect you from predators. Sometimes only violence can protect you. If single women want to learn to shoot guns and do martial arts on top of their job and raising kids more power to them, but none of the women who raised me were doing that stuff.

You're talking to a person who grew up in a family where the father was the predator...so, you won't win me over(it's not that I'd agree with you if this weren't the case, but you can see how our experiences are directly related to our point of view.
Love does protect you..if you don't have someone who loves you, there are some pretty lousy things that can happen to you.
Where are these predators?
There are some people who need one, but that doesn't mean we should go back to living like the Cleavers....Boosting the economy may be more affective...


here is a link to a great video...It's about a boy who grew up in an environment wherein his parents were gay and bi...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[timetraveler]

or....everyone should be taught how to defend themselves... And we could call men men, and women women, regardless of whether they hold themselves up to arbitrary social standards that even you admit have nothing to do with sex, despite the fact that you cannot seem to live up to that statement in any of your arguments.


If theres no difference between them then what do you mean by call "men" men and "women" women? Social standards are what creates these categories in the first place and in my opinion thats how it should be. Not everyone with a penis is a man and not everyone with a vagina is a woman.


And, sorry, "women won't protect themselves"?


Plenty of women hate guns, don't believe in violence, don't believe in self defense and don't defend themselves. I've met them and I'm sure you have as well.


Do you happen to know that many C.O.s (conscientious objectors) in WWII in Britain took on the role of bomb disposal, in many cases? - far more dangerous than going to war, a much higher death rate. Being a pacifist does not mean helpless or scared.

I never said pacifists are scared. Many pacifists are religious and believe in heaven and hell. I said defenseless and thats still true.


A lot of supposedly "feminine" traits are not good ones. We were generally ill-educated, so stupidity and shallowness and nagging were considered feminine, as was weakness (you try to beat someone up in a corset, with bound feet, high heels, a pencil skirt...). Now, poor education seems to be a male thing. None of these traits, however, are ones I would advocate teaching people, strangely enough. I'm kind of more for the idea of teaching everyone to be a competent human being.


A lot of masculine traits aren't the good ones either. Violent predators, killers, the Hitlers and Stalins of the world all were men of the masculine variety. So what is your point?





timetraveler added to this post, 4 minutes and 59 seconds later...

You're talking to a person who grew up in a family where the father was the predator...so, you won't win me over(it's not that I'd agree with you if this weren't the case, but you can see how our experiences are directly related to our point of view.
Love does protect you..if you don't have someone who loves you, there are some pretty lousy things that can happen to you.


Even when you do, if you don't have weapons and resources their feelings alone cannot keep you safe. And if your father was the predator of his own family why are you convinced he was really a man? Men don't prey on the innocent.


Where are these predators?
There are some people who need one, but that doesn't mean we should go back to living like the Cleavers....Boosting the economy may be more affective...


The predators are everywhere. If you have to ask me where then you are making my case for me.


here is a link to a great video...It's about a boy who grew up in an environment wherein his parents were gay and bi...



What does sexual orientation have to do with gender identity? I will watch the video but I don't see what point you are trying to make.

[smabers]

I get it, feminists think that society conditions women to fulfill stupid roles that a monkey can do, such as raising little kids and cooking. While men get to do all the cool things like fighting and science. And that to correct this, we just have to force society to change how they raise kids. We need to let girls play with trucks and boys play with dolls. Right? Then everything will be totally fair and people will live in a utopia where people are measured by their abilities and not by their sex.

That's completely wrong. In almost every society on earth, there is total freedom to do what you want and live life how you want. Eventually the person grows up and thinks for themselves. At that point they are free to do whatever they want in life. A few women choose to be construction workers, computer programmers, form a band, become cops, lift 400lb weights at the olympics, whatever. And a few men choose to be house husbands and pre-school teachers.

But if you start forcing people into roles they don't want to be, then how is that better than what we have now? If you're a woman and you want to do manly things, then just start doing them. Who exactly is stopping you? Stop blaming your problems on society.

It's true that men hold more power in society, but they are also most often the complete failures in society. Prisons will always be full of men because women are just not as violent. Boardrooms will always be full of men because women don't take on as much financial risk as men.

Men and women evolved to be good at different things. Obviously some people are outliers and think like the opposite sex.

[firebee]

But if you start forcing people into roles they don't want to be, then how is that better than what we have now? If you're a woman and you want to do manly things, then just start doing them. Who exactly is stopping you? Stop blaming your problems on society.

We do. In droves. Then we get told that we are not in fact women, but rather short men with high voices, tits, and a uterus which issues blood on a 28-day cycle. And hence, there is absolutely no need to treat women in a way that will be respectful and nondamaging if they end up turning out like us, because we are not actually women and therefore cannot speak for them.

But I'm sure that this is just girly-man whining. There is, after all, no reason to believe that teaching people that the true purpose of a man is blowing shit up and never knowing one's children and the true purpose of a woman is doing laundry and having nervous breakdowns might produce a less than optimally functional society.

[timetraveler]

We do. In droves. Then we get told that we are not in fact women, but rather short men with high voices, tits, and a uterus which issues blood on a 28-day cycle. And hence, there is absolutely no need to treat women in a way that will be respectful and nondamaging if they end up turning out like us, because we are not actually women and therefore cannot speak for them.

But I'm sure that this is just girly-man whining. There is, after all, no reason to believe that teaching people that the true purpose of a man is blowing shit up and never knowing one's children and the true purpose of a woman is doing laundry and having nervous breakdowns might produce a less than optimally functional society.

You are completely misrepresenting what I said. If you are insulted at being labeled as a part of the male gender, then you arent a masculine man, you are a masculine woman. What is the problem with that? You are a tomboy.

Nobody said you shouldn't be respected. Nobody said it's bad or horrible that you are the way you are. I don't know why you see your masculinity as something negative.

As far as your comments about masculine men existing to blow shit up, thats not the purpose of masculinity. Masculinity exists to protect the feminine. The masculine man exists as a protector. The feminine woman exists as a nurturer. It cannot be made any more clear than that. If you are more nurturer than protector then you are feminine. If you are more protector than nurturer then you are masculine.

As far as having tits, anyone can have tits. Anyone can have a vagina. Anyone can have a baby. None of these traits are unique to either sex because sex is mutable. What is unique about a person is their mind and behavior. That mind and behavior is who they truly are.

[smabers]

We do. In droves. Then we get told that we are not in fact women, but rather short men with high voices, tits, and a uterus which issues blood on a 28-day cycle. And hence, there is absolutely no need to treat women in a way that will be respectful and nondamaging if they end up turning out like us, because we are not actually women and therefore cannot speak for them.

But I'm sure that this is just girly-man whining. There is, after all, no reason to believe that teaching people that the true purpose of a man is blowing shit up and never knowing one's children and the true purpose of a woman is doing laundry and having nervous breakdowns might produce a less than optimally functional society.

I don't know if the girly-man whining is real or sarcastic or if somebody actually insulted you like that, but I will tell you that in a mans world, there is no fairness and there is no respect unless you earn it. Whining about how it's not fair because you were born this or that way is not the way to get respect. In fact all that will happen is you will just be insulted. If you're sensitive to insults, then you have no business doing manly things with other men. You can insult back or threaten violence. Because that's how men traditionally solve problems, in case you haven't noticed. Just look inside a history book.

What you want to do is rig our entire society to be easier for you to be successful in. Why are you surprised when society pushes back and insults you?

[lincoln]

What you want to do is rig our entire society to be easier for you to be successful in. Why are you surprised when society pushes back and insults you?
As easy as it is for you to be successful in? Like Dan said in an episode of Roseanne "Hey, I might be a white male, but I've had to work damn hard for everything I have"... I agree with Dan, most things don't come easy.
Smabers what are you trying to say here? What would you do if you had to hire an employee who cross dresses? How do you think you would respond?

[smabers]

As easy as it is for you to be successful in? Like Dan said in an episode of Roseanne "Hey, I might be a white male, but I've had to work damn hard for everything I have"... I agree with Dan, most things don't come easy.
Smabers what are you trying to say here? What would you do if you had to hire an employee who cross dresses? How do you think you would respond?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say either. It's not easy for me, or anyone to be successful. We can't all be winners. And most people are losers.

I'm trying to say that there seems to be a lack of understanding here about how the world works and why it works the way it does. Specifically that gender is not mutable.

What do you mean if I had to hire a cross dresser? Is there some job that only a cross dresser can do? Personally I could give a shit if somebody cross dresses or is a scat porn star. If they can do the job then they should get hired. If people complain about them, then they need to start wearing the right clothes.

[lincoln]

Where are these predators?
There are some people who need one, but that doesn't mean we should go back to living like the Cleavers....Boosting the economy may be more affective...

The predators are everywhere. If you have to ask me where then you are making my case for me.

Okay, I don't know what to say. Are you talking about the police force?

So, I went to a drag show last night. It was a relieving experience. I so enjoyed watching men dance in women's clothing (both terms I use loosely). It just made me happy to see that. I think to experience people crossing the lines is so much more valuable than talking about it. I do appreciate the posts of course.

[timetraveler]

Okay, I don't know what to say. Are you talking about the police force?

So, I went to a drag show last night. It was a relieving experience. I so enjoyed watching men dance in women's clothing (both terms I use loosely). It just made me happy to see that. I think to experience people crossing the lines is so much more valuable than talking about it. I do appreciate the posts of course.


Your quixotic ideas on the malleability of gender are naive and you confirm this with your irrelevant story. If you want to go to a drag show it's a free country. I also sense a contempt for the distaff. Once again sex is irrelevant, the work must be done.

You want to know where the predators are? Anyone who seeks to have power over or control another is a potential predator. How many people in your life have attempted to control you? You might think the police force are the predators but there is nothing stopping you from becoming a police officer yourself. The predators are the ones who seek to enervate and victimize you. The fact that so many in this world are victims should be evidence that predators are everywhere. Just look at the licentious exploits of members of the wallstreet class and you will see many of the predators who are preying on you at this moment.

They are everywhere and they always were.

[firebee]

You want to know where the predators are? Anyone who seeks to have power over or control another is a potential predator. How many people in your life have attempted to control you?

It's interesting; a classic means of imposing control on people is in the name of "protection" -- for instance, by protecting women from having the means to make an independent living.

I do like the idea of "the work has got to get done", but from my perspective promoting a strict gender binary produces more concern with whether one is conforming to the appropriate set of norms (how is there a fundamental connection among wrestling, building improvised shelters in the wilderness, and fixing cars, anyway?) than whether one is doing what needs to be done.

[timetraveler]

It's interesting; a classic means of imposing control on people is in the name of "protection" -- for instance, by protecting women from having the means to make an independent living.


You are unscrupulously using calumny as opposed to offering a cogent argument. Your argument is that by removing the semantics of male and female we will have obviated the need for the distaff. This is why I sense a contempt for the distaff in your arguments.

1.) Do you recognize that the feminine roles are essential to the survival of the human family?
2.) Do you personally appreciate the distaff side of the human family?

Are you implying that the masculine individuals who dedicate themselves to protecting the distaff side of the human family are actually the predators of that which they are supposed to be protecting?

A) It's a myth that the distaff side of humanity has less control. The distaff side has just as much control, you just have to think outside of the box to see the levers of control.


B) The choice to not exercise that control or to decide to not be independent is also up to the individual to decide. I'm not personally out to control the individuals I care about, and because I know how I hate being controlled I would not wish to subject another to that control unless they request it.


I do like the idea of "the work has got to get done", but from my perspective promoting a strict gender binary produces more concern with whether one is conforming to the appropriate set of norms (how is there a fundamental connection among wrestling, building improvised shelters in the wilderness, and fixing cars, anyway?) than whether one is doing what needs to be done.

That is a valid argument. You are worried about the psychological harms of gender binary. My counter argument is that you should also consider the psychological benefits of gender binary. Gender binary is what produced chivalry. Gender binary is what has produced heroes throughout history for thousands of years across multiple cultures. We are in a dangerous time in human history and we need more heroes than ever and by removing gender binary you will be removing some of the most valuable methods of psychological programming ever invented by the human species and replacing it with what? How are you going to produce the next generation of heroes?

[Frag]

That is a valid argument. You are worried about the psychological harms of gender binary. My counter argument is that you should also consider the psychological benefits of gender binary. Gender binary is what produced chivalry. Gender binary is what has produced heroes throughout history for thousands of years across multiple cultures. We are in a dangerous time in human history and we need more heroes than ever and by removing gender binary you will be removing some of the most valuable methods of psychological programming ever invented by the human species and replacing it with what? How are you going to produce the next generation of heroes?
Huh? What heroes?
Should I be looking for superman again or try moving things with my mind?

[Nemesis]

I'm trying to say that there seems to be a lack of understanding here about how the world works and why it works the way it does. Specifically that gender is not mutable.


I think you need to be more specific about what world you are talking about. Your, and timetraveler's version of the world seems to be very much different than the world most of us live in.

You are completely neglecting the fact that many cultures recognize gender fluidity. Look at the hijra in India, the fa'afafine in Samoa, the Chola in South America, the Berdache in aboriginal North America, the Mundugmor, Tchambuli, and Arapesh in Papua New Guinea, and the large variations in gender based societal roles even within different regions of your own nation. Not only are these variations widespread, they also extend far back into history. Furthermore, many studies of cross-species social systems show a huge degree of flux in terms of expected "gender" based behavior.

Your view of "how the world works" is your subjective impression of the world and it certainly doesn't match what has been observed across the globe and across history.

[lincoln]

Your quixotic ideas on the malleability of gender are naive and you confirm this with your irrelevant story. If you want to go to a drag show it's a free country. I also sense a contempt for the distaff. Once again sex is irrelevant, the work must be done.

You want to know where the predators are? Anyone who seeks to have power over or control another is a potential predator. How many people in your life have attempted to control you? You might think the police force are the predators but there is nothing stopping you from becoming a police officer yourself. The predators are the ones who seek to enervate and victimize you. The fact that so many in this world are victims should be evidence that predators are everywhere. Just look at the licentious exploits of members of the wallstreet class and you will see many of the predators who are preying on you at this moment.

They are everywhere and they always were.


I'm very aware TIMETRAVELER =) okay, now the police are the protectors (that was what I meant). Okay...the police are the protectors.....ahhh this must sound like a lullaby to you the.... police are the protectors...you are protected timetraveler you are protected...there are only men...and they are great...and they protect you and everyone from the evil predators in NYC playing with numbers..you are protected.... drag shows have a lot to do with gender flexability....

[firebee]

Gender binary is what produced chivalry.

How does that constitute an endorsement?


Gender binary is what has produced heroes throughout history for thousands of years across multiple cultures. We are in a dangerous time in human history and we need more heroes than ever and by removing gender binary you will be removing some of the most valuable methods of psychological programming ever invented by the human species and replacing it with what? How are you going to produce the next generation of heroes?

I think I see what you mean as far as our present society lacking inspiring narratives for people to structure their lives around, but I think this is more of a spiritual problem than one necessarily attached to gender.

I'd also argue that the path of the warrior has quite a lot of mythic support -- for obvious reasons, it was a fairly immediate concern to ancient cultures, and the stories have a lot of appeal. Likewise, much is said about the concept of fertility (of varieties both male and female). What I don't see as much of, though, is a mythic path for those of us who are presently occupied with the maintenance of a modern society rather than with killing people or giving birth to them.

drag shows have a lot to do with gender flexability....

Far be it from me to say that gender-bending is not fun, but how does this tell us anything beyond the superficial?

[smabers]

I think you need to be more specific about what world you are talking about. Your, and timetraveler's version of the world seems to be very much different than the world most of us live in.

You are completely neglecting the fact that many cultures recognize gender fluidity. Look at the hijra in India, the fa'afafine in Samoa, the Chola in South America, the Berdache in aboriginal North America, the Mundugmor, Tchambuli, and Arapesh in Papua New Guinea, and the large variations in gender based societal roles even within different regions of your own nation. Not only are these variations widespread, they also extend far back into history. Furthermore, many studies of cross-species social systems show a huge degree of flux in terms of expected "gender" based behavior.

Your view of "how the world works" is your subjective impression of the world and it certainly doesn't match what has been observed across the globe and across history.

I didn't realize most of us lived in primitive tribes. I was talking about the other 99% of the world that doesn't "recognize gender fluidity."

Just because you can name a few tribes who do what you like doesn't mean I can't name a lot more who do the exact opposite. If anything, it's your view that is subjective.

[Nemesis]

I didn't realize most of us lived in primitive tribes. I was talking about the other 99% of the world that doesn't "recognize gender fluidity."

Just because you can name a few tribes who do what you like doesn't mean I can't name a lot more who do the exact opposite. If anything, it's your view that is subjective.

Well, go ahead and name them! Show us some research to back up anything you have claimed. Give us some tangible examples or stats instead of pretending that you can speak on behalf of the world based on how you see it.

By the way, many of these "primitive tribes" I mentioned do in fact live in contemporary societies. The Hijra are still a well recognized 3rd gender group in India... India being home to around 1.5 billion people. In fact, the only "tribes" I mentioned in my previous post were the mundugamor, arapesh, and tchambuli... the rest were names of third gender categories that are recognized and are functional in contemporary cultures across the globe, not isolated little "primitive tribes". I can give an extensive list of more examples if you would like. You would do well to actually look up on these things before writing them off as products of "primitive tribes".

[timetraveler]

I think you need to be more specific about what world you are talking about. Your, and timetraveler's version of the world seems to be very much different than the world most of us live in.

You are completely neglecting the fact that many cultures recognize gender fluidity. Look at the hijra in India, the fa'afafine in Samoa, the Chola in South America, the Berdache in aboriginal North America, the Mundugmor, Tchambuli, and Arapesh in Papua New Guinea, and the large variations in gender based societal roles even within different regions of your own nation. Not only are these variations widespread, they also extend far back into history. Furthermore, many studies of cross-species social systems show a huge degree of flux in terms of expected "gender" based behavior.

Thats not evidence of the malleability of gender. That's proof that gender is determined by social role. It doesn't change the fact that you are going to be one of the genders. Show me a person who has been all of the genders at the same time and then you can make an argument. I don't see any evidence of gender mutability from any of those examples.


Your view of "how the world works" is your subjective impression of the world and it certainly doesn't match what has been observed across the globe and across history.

He's explaining how the masculine world works. How men think and the rules of behavior among men. Masculine women have to follow the same rules as everyone else, we aren't going to give them a break or change the rules for them because they have breasts. If you want to act like a man you'll be treated as a man among men. You'll also be expected to follow all the rules that men follow.

The world you and others on this thread are talking about is a world which never existed and never could exist. You don't seem to understand why it doesn't and cannot exist so you will try to pretend like it does but thats just a delusion. You live in the naive world.

[daydreamer]

The world you and others on this thread are talking about is a world which never existed and never could exist. You don't seem to understand why it doesn't and cannot exist so you will try to pretend like it does but thats just a delusion. You live in the naive world.

both worlds exist; as do many others.

[timetraveler]

I'm very aware TIMETRAVELER =) okay, now the police are the protectors (that was what I meant). Okay...the police are the protectors.....ahhh this must sound like a lullaby to you the.... police are the protectors...you are protected timetraveler you are protected...there are only men...and they are great...and they protect you and everyone from the evil predators in NYC playing with numbers..you are protected.... drag shows have a lot to do with gender flexability....

Drag shows do not show gender malleability. Gender is not the same as fashion. Drag shows are fashion shows. A bunch of masculine men wearing dresses doesn't make them feminine because to be feminine is to think a certain way and act a certain way not a look. A lot of masculine women are feminine looking but they think and act masculine. You are how you think and act not how you look and your gender is determined by how you think, act, and experience emotions.

You are a naive idealist. You are choosing to ignore reality rather than confront it and change it. The police are predators, prey and protectors. The protector/hero is a specific breed of human and this breed exists no matter what you call them. Traditionally to be a masculine "man" is to be a protector and the concept of manhood and chivalry comes from gender. In order to produce protectors we need gender and until you and others offer an alternative method for producing heroes you will have to accept that your quixotic fashionable ideas aren't applicable to the real world that we live in.

Gender is necessary because heroes are produced by gender programming. Chivalry is also produced by gender programming and you'll simply have less heroes and less chivalry if you have any at all once gender is removed from the picture. It will be a lot harder to train men not to hit women, it will be a lot harder to train masculine individuals(men) to protect innocent feminine individuals (women and children), but you don't understand this because your view of the world is naive. You probably don't feel like you need to be protected from predators but you must realize that the main reason you feel safe right now is because people with guns are out there making the environment safe for you to live in so you can have these ideas you have about gender malleability.





timetraveler added to this post, 5 minutes and 58 seconds later...

both worlds exist; as do many others.

But the people who live in the naive world refuse to recognize that their world only exists because masculine individuals are out there willing to take or give a bullet to keep their world in existence. These masculine individuals aren't going to protect their world unless they are trained and programmed to do it, and the gender roles are one of the main mechanisms which our culture uses to train people to do that. They naively believe that they can make these changes and noting will go wrong, and everyone will keep protecting them just as much as they do now but it will change everything about how their world functions in ways which they aren't able to understand right now. It's very much like the people who say should get rid of nationalism and replace it with globalism, and it all sounds nice. But they never consider what the world will be like with Hitler or Stalin as President of the world. Any time you change the programming of something as vital as gender you risk plunging the world into complete chaos in the same way the world was in chaos during the dark ages. We could end up back in the dark ages because all the programming that brought us out of the dark ages will have been removed.

But of course capitalism, these laws, all these weapons aren't going to be removed. So the world wont get any better no matter how you think about gender.

[daydreamer]

But the people who live in the naive world refuse to recognize that their world only exists because masculine individuals are out there willing to take or give a bullet to keep their world in existence.


different worlds have co-existed for millenniums and the human race is still here to enjoy those different worlds even today.


These masculine individuals aren't going to protect their world unless they are trained and programmed to do it, and the gender roles are one of the main mechanisms which our culture uses to train people to do that. They naively believe that they can make these changes and noting will go wrong, and everyone will keep protecting them just as much as they do now but it will change everything about how their world functions in ways which they aren't able to understand right now. It's very much like the people who say should get rid of nationalism and replace it with globalism, and it all sounds nice.


you're speaking of preserving yet a different world, our national identity. maybe you naively believe that gender benders are otherwise pro-nationalists? or even that they are or should be concerned with those issues. it seems to be your specialty, doesn't have to be everyone else's.


But they never consider what the world will be like with Hitler or Stalin as President of the world. Any time you change the programming of something as vital as gender you risk plunging the world into complete chaos in the same way the world was in chaos during the dark ages. We could end up back in the dark ages because all the programming that brought us out of the dark ages will have been removed.

But of course capitalism, these laws, all these weapons aren't going to be removed. So the world wont get any better no matter how you think about gender.

i dunno that gender roles brought us out of the dark ages.

but regardless... are you suggesting that hitler and stalin came to power because of a confusion of gender roles in those countries? that's a pretty interesting claim. besides, i'm pretty sure hitler and stalin were nationalists...

[timetraveler]

How does that constitute an endorsement?


The concept of the gentleman is a result of chivalry and that is the result of men teaching boys proper manners. Men teaching men how to act and the rules of being a man. The concept of gender is essential to this teaching.


I think I see what you mean as far as our present society lacking inspiring narratives for people to structure their lives around, but I think this is more of a spiritual problem than one necessarily attached to gender.


For some of us gender is spiritual. That is the point I'm making. Gender is in the mind/brain and that is why it's not malleable. It's not in the body so you can' just get a new body and have a new gender identity. It's in the mind and heart and for most people their mind and heart is set by the time they reach age 25. So by 25 they will be either masculine or feminine and their identity will be firmly set.

I'd also argue that the path of the warrior has quite a lot of mythic support -- for obvious reasons, it was a fairly immediate concern to ancient cultures, and the stories have a lot of appeal. Likewise, much is said about the concept of fertility (of varieties both male and female). What I don't see as much of, though, is a mythic path for those of us who are presently occupied with the maintenance of a modern society rather than with killing people or giving birth to them.


Only not every masculine man is a warrior. You also have the gentleman and the family man. Warriors fight for God and Country. Gentleman fight for women and children. Familymen fight for their families. Masculine individuals are individuals who are willing to fight to protect whatever it is that they love, this could be a particular group or it could be their own body.

Feminine individuals are individuals who refuse to fight or who don't have the capability to defend themselves. So once again masculine individuals have to be trained to defend the defenseless and the reasons they want to do this has everything to do with the gender expectations they are taught growing up.

If you want to know who maintains society then read Plato's the Republic. The guardians are the masculine individuals who maintain society. Warriors are different because they fight for government/tribe, and not all warriors protect women and children.


Far be it from me to say that gender-bending is not fun, but how does this tell us anything beyond the superficial?

It honestly tells me nothing because there is no real gender bending. Crossdressers aren't gender benders. Transsexuals aren't gender bending either, they are either feminine or masculine in mind and they want their body to match their gender.

[daydreamer]

If you want to know who maintains society then read Plato's the Republic. The guardians are the masculine individuals who maintain society. Warriors are different because they fight for government/tribe, and not all warriors protect women and children.


i'm pretty sure that this was written before the dark ages.

[demaugustus]

Well, go ahead and name them! Show us some research to back up anything you have claimed. Give us some tangible examples or stats instead of pretending that you can speak on behalf of the world based on how you see it.

By the way, many of these "primitive tribes" I mentioned do in fact live in contemporary societies. The Hijra are still a well recognized 3rd gender group in India... India being home to around 1.5 billion people. In fact, the only "tribes" I mentioned in my previous post were the mundugamor, arapesh, and tchambuli... the rest were names of third gender categories that are recognized and are functional in contemporary cultures across the globe, not isolated little "primitive tribes". I can give an extensive list of more examples if you would like. You would do well to actually look up on these things before writing them off as products of "primitive tribes".

From researching the Hijra it appears that these are cultural modifications to either the male or the female sex. It isn't a "3rd gender" in a biological sense, with the exception of the statistical minority who genitalia does not match their biological and neurological sex, if that is what you mean when you say third sex.

Humans are a two sex only species because it takes a male and a female to produce another human. No third, fourth, or fifth sex is needed to make a baby. A "3rd sex" is simply a genetic mutation in humans.

A third sex does not exist.

[timetraveler]

different worlds have co-existed for millenniums and the human race is still here to enjoy those different worlds even today.


What did masculine Europeans do to the "New World" Native Americans when they came into contact with them? Because these masculine Europeans were not trained to protect these Native Americans who lived in a less masculine less violent world, these Europeans destroyed that world and wiped the natives out. These Europeans went and did the same thing to Africans who also lived in a world which had no concept of war and which had not gone through the dark ages so they had no concept of the worldview that Europeans had. Masculine Europeans were programmed by the church and other entities to see Africans as inferior cultures, as savages, as slaves to be controlled rather than as a culture and people to be protected. The same result that happened to the natives of America happened to the Africans.

Why were these cultures destroyed by masculine Europeans? The masculine Europeans had faulty programming. They were programmed to destroy defenseless cultures. They did not have respect for people who lived in a different world. They came from a world where it was a killing offense to not be the same kind of Christian. They lived in a world where torture, enslavement, and abuse of women and children was acceptable. It took hundreds of years to reprogram masculine Europeans to move beyond this simple way of seeing the world into a more complex accurate way of seeing the world, and now you want to risk it all by removing some of the best programming mechanisms ever invented?



you're speaking of preserving yet a different world, our national identity. maybe you naively believe that gender benders are otherwise pro-nationalists? or even that they are or should be concerned with those issues. it seems to be your specialty, doesn't have to be everyone else's.

I don't believe in the concept of a gender bender because my concept of gender is that gender is in peoples mind/brain and heart, not in their form. They can have breasts or testicles and it has no impact on their gender. An individual with breasts can be a man inside, and an individual with testicles can be a woman inside.


i dunno that gender roles brought us out of the dark ages.

Before masculine individuals could learn to stop abusing other cultures they had to first learn to stop abusing their feminine individuals and their children. The masculine individual of the household had to learn not to abuse their distaff side of the family and only once they learn this can they then progress to the next level of not abusing any feminine individuals in any family because they will begin to see their feminine individuals in other families. So for example at first a man will learn not to abuse his mother, his sister, his wife. Later generations of men learn not to abuse women of other cultures because maybe they date some women of other cultures and see these women are the same as the women in their family. Finally they learn not to abuse anyone in that position in life. That is the level we are at now where men wont for example go beat up transsexuals or go bully the defenseless person because they see that person as someone to be protected along with the others.

But it took a long time to get to this level of complexity and postgenderists risk setting it all back.


but regardless... are you suggesting that hitler and stalin came to power because of a confusion of gender roles in those countries? that's a pretty interesting claim. besides, i'm pretty sure hitler and stalin were nationalists...

I'm saying Hitler and Stalin were both masculine men who were subject to bad memes(programming), and they then spread those bad memes to the other masculine men. Like I said before when you have no set concepts of what manhood is or no set rules on how to act then you open the door for the Hitlers and Stalins of the world to come along and offer some of the worst ideas on how to act. A lot of men might think in order to be a man they must hate the jews, or they must be a socialist. This is what I mean by bad programming. They think it's manly to abuse or hate others, when thats not what being a man is about for most men in most cultures.

Once again someone has to teach masculine individuals how to act and the rules otherwise you will end up with Hitlers and Stalins.

[daydreamer]

What did masculine Europeans do to the "New World" Native Americans when they came into contact with them? Because these masculine Europeans were not trained to protect these Native Americans who lived in a less masculine less violent world, these Europeans destroyed that world and wiped the natives out. These Europeans went and did the same thing to Africans who also lived in a world which had no concept of war and which had not gone through the dark ages so they had no concept of the worldview that Europeans had. Masculine Europeans were programmed by the church and other entities to see Africans as inferior cultures, as savages, as slaves to be controlled rather than as a culture and people to be protected. The same result that happened to the natives of America happened to the Africans.

Why were these cultures destroyed by masculine Europeans? The masculine Europeans had faulty programming. They were programmed to destroy defenseless cultures. They did not have respect for people who lived in a different world. They came from a world where it was a killing offense to not be the same kind of Christian. They lived in a world where torture, enslavement, and abuse of women and children was acceptable.

It took hundreds of years to reprogram masculine Europeans to move beyond this simple way of seeing the world into a more complex accurate way of seeing the world, and now you want to risk it all by removing some of the best programming mechanisms ever invented?


i'm pretty sure that the decimation of native americans was in largest part due to the spread of disease. they had no immunity to the diseases that europeans brought with them. the notion that europeans were more masculine, albeit out of control, and that therefore they overcame the native americans, is part of the world i call imagination.


I don't believe in the concept of a gender bender because my concept of gender is that gender is in peoples mind/brain and heart, not in their form. They can have breasts or testicles and it has no impact on their gender. An individual with breasts can be a man inside, and an individual with testicles can be a woman inside.


i don't profess to know all about what gender bending is, and therefore i can't deny that some people experience it. i don't believe in the concept of god either, but i don't deny it's existence, and realness, in the lives of others, nor it's importance to them. i can rationalize away their experience but my rationalizations are not more valid than their honest experiences.


Before masculine individuals could learn to stop abusing other cultures they had to first learn to stop abusing their feminine individuals and their children. The masculine individual of the household had to learn not to abuse their family and only once they learn this can they then progress to the next level of not abusing any feminine individuals in any family because they will begin to see their feminine individuals in other families. So for example at first a man will learn not to abuse his mother, his sister, his wife. Later generations of men learn not to abuse women of other cultures because maybe they date some women of other cultures and see these women are the same as the women in their family. Finally they learn not to abuse anyone in that position in life. That is the level we are at now where men wont for example go beat up transsexuals or go bully the defenseless person because they see that person as soemone to be protected along with the others.


is this somehow supposed to be a description of the dark ages?


But it took a long time to get to this level of complexity and postgenderists risk setting it all back.


since "postgenderists" as you call them, didn't cause the problem as you see it in the first place - the problem that masculine individuals were abusing their cultures (wtf?) - in what way do postgenderists pose a threat? by your own admission, it was masculinity out of control that was the cause. - you are getting backed into corners by your own imagination. you sound paranoid. and somewhat overcompensating.



I'm saying Hitler and Stalin were both masculine men who were subject to bad memes(programming), and they then spread those bad memes to the other masculine men. Like I said before when you have no set concepts of what manhood is or no set rules on how to act then you open the door for the Hitlers and Stalins of the world to come along and offer some of the worst ideas on how to act. A lot of men might think in order to be a man they must hate the jews, or they must be a socialist. This is what I mean by bad programming. They think it's manly to abuse or hate others, when thats not what being a man is about for most men in most cultures.

Once again someone has to teach masculine individuals how to act and the rules otherwise you will end up with Hitlers and Stalins.

i thought we solved the issue of bad masculine memes at the end of the dark ages? or was it after the europeans decimated the native americans? what status quo are you talking about preserving exactly? cause i am not seeing one in your historical interpretation. maybe the postgenderists from 2009 went back in time secretly like a special ops force and caused these "coup de memes" since there seems to be no other possible rational explanation. maybe they're visiting us from the future now, in this very thread... if we could get ahold of their time machine we could go back and fix things, perfecting the timeline and perserving proper masculine and feminine memes for all time ! yeah... that should make the world a better place by now. and once and for all.

[timetraveler]

i'm pretty sure that the decimation of native americans was in largest part due to the spread of disease. they had no immunity to the diseases that europeans brought with them. the notion that europeans were more masculine, albeit out of control, and that therefore they overcame the native americans, is part of the world i call imagination.


It was not just the spread of disease. Yes germ warfare was a part of it but thats not the main reason. Smallpox killed many Native Americans but so did bullets. This cannot be disputed because the cowboys and indians programming is still in American culture today. It was these memes which programmed masculine Europeans to see Native Americans as savages.


i don't profess to know all about what gender bending is, and therefore i can't deny that some people experience it. i don't believe in the concept of god either, but i don't deny it's existence, and realness, in the lives of others, nor it's importance to them. i can rationalize away their experience but my rationalizations are not more valid than their honest experiences.


Genderbending is not a spiritual concept. At least I haven't met any crossdressers who wear womens clothing for some spiritual reason. Its just a fashion in my opinion.


is this somehow supposed to be a description of the dark ages?

It's a memetic description of the psychological history of the dark ages.


since "postgenderists" as you call them, didn't cause the problem as you see it in the first place - the problem that masculine individuals were abusing their cultures (wtf?) - in what way do postgenderists pose a threat? by your own admission, it was masculinity out of control that was the cause. - you are getting backed into corners by your own imagination. you sound paranoid. and somewhat overcompensating.


Masculinity is controlled by gender memes. Postgenderists want to remove an entire category of memes and replace it with nothing. This is a threat to the security of feminine individuals around the world because post genderists will be leaving a huge hole open for the next Hitler or for the church, or whomever to fill. The postgenderists aren't doing enough to fill the gaps, if they were then I and others wouldn't be complaining about their theories.



i thought we solved the issue of bad masculine memes at the end of the dark ages? or was it after the europeans decimated the native americans? what status quo are you talking about preserving exactly? cause i am not seeing one in your historical interpretation. maybe the postgenderists from 2009 went back in time secretly like a special ops force and caused these "coup de memes" since there seems to be no other possible rational explanation. maybe they're visiting us from the future now, in this very thread... if we could get ahold of their time machine we could go back and fix things, perfecting the timeline and perserving proper masculine and feminine memes for all time ! yeah... that should make the world a better place by now. and once and for all.

The only solution to bad masculine memes is good masculine memes. What good masculine memes are post genderists offering? The status quo is the binary gender paradigm. It's not that I seek to preserve that, I seek to preserve the positive social effects of the gender paradigm. I seek to preserve the memes which I believe are what preserves our society.

[daydreamer]

It was not just the spread of disease. Yes germ warfare was a part of it but thats not the main reason. Smallpox killed many Native Americans but so did bullets. This cannot be disputed because the cowboys and indians programming is still in American culture today. It was these memes which programmed masculine Europeans to see Native Americans as savages.


so - you're not talking about what actually happened? just, according to you, some interpretation of the psychological history of what happened?


Genderbending is not a spiritual concept. At least I haven't met any crossdressers who wear womens clothing for some spiritual reason. Its just a fashion in my opinion.


spiritual no. but it can be just as personal and just as important. out of curiosity, do you have any friends who are crossdressers? or gender benders in any other sort of way?


It's a memetic description of the psychological history of the dark ages.


wow, ok. that blows me away. historians cannot even agree on what the dark ages were and yet you understand everything about it and have distilled the salient psychological issues behind what happened. since you are the only one who has done this i suppose you have no reference to other historians... and since you're calling it a psychological history i suppose you can claim that there are not necessarily any artifacts from the dark ages that clearly indicate what was going on - it could have been all in their heads, after all.


Masculinity is controlled by gender memes. Postgenderists want to remove an entire category of memes and replace it with nothing. This is a threat to the security of feminine individuals around the world because post genderists will be leaving a huge hole open for the next Hitler or for the church, or whomever to fill. The postgenderists aren't doing enough to fill the gaps, if they were then I and others wouldn't be complaining about their theories.


i do not think postgenderist means what you think it means. it is many things of greater or lesser controversy interpreted differently by many people, but the aim of most theories is one of bettering the world, at least as much as the aim of a preservation of a masculine meme is.

i have not seen anything regarding this by someone other than you.


The only solution to bad masculine memes is good masculine memes. What good masculine memes are post genderists offering? The status quo is the binary gender paradigm. It's not that I seek to preserve that, I seek to preserve the positive social effects of the gender paradigm. I seek to preserve the memes which I believe are what preserves our society.

you admit that there are problems with the status quo and then reassert that it is important to protect it because of the good ideas associated with it. it is interesting that you chose to talk of postgenderists specifically, as postgenderism more than any other gender mutable philosophy seeks to preserve what is the best of the feminine and the masculine "memes" as you say... in an effort to do what is best for society. you have much in common with them. both thinking that somehow the good can be separated from the bad, and the masculine from the feminine... ideas that i think are merely a matter of perspective, and therefore, completely mutable.

[timetraveler]

so - you're not talking about what actually happened? just, according to you, some interpretation of the psychological history of what happened?


I understand why certain things happened. To understand why you need an understanding of psychology and memetics. You also need to understand the context. The religious wars of the dark ages were a result of memetic programming.


spiritual no. but it can be just as personal and just as important. out of curiosity, do you have any friends who are crossdressers? or gender benders in any other sort of way?

I don't know if they are crossdressers or not. I'm not a crossdresser so I never cared to ask about that. In my opinion it's their business.


wow, ok. that blows me away. historians cannot even agree on what the dark ages were and yet you understand everything about it and have distilled the salient psychological issues behind what happened. since you are the only one who has done this i suppose you have no reference to other historians... and since you're calling it a psychological history i suppose you can claim that there are not necessarily any artifacts from the dark ages that clearly indicate what was going on - it could have been all in their heads, after all.


Thats not true at all. Look up memetics and you'll find plenty of people who know what the dark ages were. Knowing why it happened requires you to understand the psychology and the popular memes of that time. It's the memes which shaped the behavior of the masculine individuals of that time period. Many of those memes are written in books which you can read today, and many of those memes are still influencing people today. Fortunately there are not as many people influenced by these memes because superior memes have replaced a majority of them.


i do not think postgenderist means what you think it means. it is many things of greater or lesser controversy interpreted differently by many people, but the aim of most theories is one of bettering the world, at least as much as the aim of a preservation of a masculine meme is.


If that is the goal of postgenderists then before they can declare the death of gender they have to offer memes which are better. You have to update the memes first and then you can say we no longer need gender categories once you find something better. Post genderists have the same problem that radical atheists have. They want to get rid of some vitally important concept like God or gender, but they never offer anything better to replace these concepts assuming that humans can function just fine without them because they can. In reality humans need God and gender to survive and it's better to update the memes associated with God and gender than to try to erase God and gender. It's better to have a more rational scientific God, and it's better to have a rational righteous concept of masculinity than to get rid of all this stuff and leave a huge opening for people to fill it with junk and bullsh*t.

If we get rid of the word God, and the words male and female, it's not going to remove the psychological need that humans have for these concepts. That need will remain and new words and concepts will be invented to fill the need. This is why I say postgenderists are naive.


you admit that there are problems with the status quo and then reassert that it is important to protect it because of the good ideas associated with it. it is interesting that you chose to talk of postgenderists specifically, as postgenderism more than any other gender mutable philosophy seeks to preserve what is the best of the feminine and the masculine "memes" as you say... in an effort to do what is best for society. you have much in common with them. both thinking that somehow the good can be separated from the bad, and the masculine from the feminine... ideas that i think are merely a matter of perspective, and therefore, completely mutable.

I never said protect the status quo. I said protect the memes which preserve society. Postgenderists are attacking manhood and all the masculine memes associated with it when they advocate a world without gender. They don't offer any better memes they just attack the memes which are already out there. That in my opinion is not a very scientific way of improving memetic quality. If they have a problem with the memes they should update them, but to try and erase them is to try and erase hundreds of years of programming and it's as pointless as trying to erase religion and talking about postreligionism, or postnationalism, it's not going to happen.

If you think the genders need to be modified then we can agree. I'll agree that masculine individuals can be redefined as protectors and feminine individuals redefined as nurturers as a way to separate sex from gender. I'll agree to any updates to masculinity which produces better protectors. I'll agree to any updates to femininity which produces better nurturers.

Postgenderism isn't producing better protectors or nurturers because their ideas are too new and not well thought out. They simply don't have the memes to program masculine individuals to protect feminine individuals and if they did have the memes then I wouldn't have anything to complain about. So create the memes so we can program outselves or postgenderism is a waste.

[daydreamer]

timetraveler, well i'm done with the line item rebuttal. but i maintain the correctness of what i posted before. nothing you've said here shows a flaw in my understanding.

history of memes. a theory. not fact. no proof. i'm a pretty rational person and i can make up memes to rationalize just about anything... doesnt make them true or right.

ah memetics... a better meme must exist to replace the existing meme. i will never understand how the persistence of bad memes somehow is seen as an argument that memes are sacred, necessary, and must be preserved until better ones can replace them. memes, as you understand them, are not in my world. how awful for you, stifled by your own memes. no wonder you are paranoid.

therefore further discussion of your points line by line is not going to mean a thing to you, i'll save the effort. but i want you to know i think it's all nonesense.

[timetraveler]

timetraveler, well i'm done with the line item rebuttal. but i maintain the correctness of what i posted before. nothing you've said here shows a flaw in my understanding.

history of memes. a theory. not fact. no proof. i'm a pretty rational person and i can make up memes to rationalize just about anything... doesnt make them true or right.

ah memetics... a better meme must exist to replace the existing meme. i will never understand how the persistence of bad memes somehow is seen as an argument that memes are sacred, necessary, and must be preserved until better ones can replace them. memes, as you understand them, are not in my world. how awful for you, stifled by your own memes. no wonder you are paranoid.

therefore further discussion of your points line by line is not going to mean a thing to you, i'll save the effort. but i want you to know i think it's all nonesense.

Daydreamer it's those memes which lead to genocide. It's those memes which lead to the holocaust. A meme is just a mind virus, and culture is shaped and evolves through memes. Male and female<gender> are a category of memes.

These memes can be used to promote a better world or can be used to destroy the world. It both rational and efficient to take something which works and embrace and extend it rather than to reinvent the wheel. It's very much like how its efficient to use open source software and protocols to build the world wide web, and web browser. What postgenderists want to do is remove <gender>. By removing this tag it influences everything that was built using <gender>.

I advocate gender 2.0 and I think we should update <gender>. This way everything which was built with <gender> will still work and we wont have to reinvent the wheel to rebuild all which was built with <gender>. Also we wont have to teach people how to apply <postgender> or whatever new categories get created. Basically you want to invent a whole new set of tags and categories, you are asking the people who apply and use <gender> to change everything they've been working on or have built so that it's compatible with your <postgender> but you haven't done anything to make <postgender> backwards compatible with <gender>, so these people are just going to see you are opposition to whatever they are working on.

I hope this makes everything more clear as to how memetics work and what this is all about. It's fine if you disagree, I just want you to fully understand my perspective and stop thinking it's just an imaginary nooisphere world.

[daydreamer]

the use of memes in memetics as you describe supposes a telos to human history that i fundamentally disagree with. i think it is the belief in such telos - manifest destinies - that cause things like the crusades, inquisition, the holocaust... the idea that one idea is perfect or universally good while something else is universally bad... the implied willful and moral right of the "good" to oppress the "bad," or in some way get rid of it. yeah i find the absolutism of that idea scary, dangerous, and bad.

calling an idea a meme doesn't give it any more rational power or legitimacy either...

memetics as you describe is a belief system. not one i subscribe to. but i give it its respect as anything else i don't believe in. and as a model i don't find it useful or creative, particularly in a vacuum, ie., in absence of other legitimate models.

[smabers]

Well, go ahead and name them! Show us some research to back up anything you have claimed. Give us some tangible examples or stats instead of pretending that you can speak on behalf of the world based on how you see it.

By the way, many of these "primitive tribes" I mentioned do in fact live in contemporary societies. The Hijra are still a well recognized 3rd gender group in India... India being home to around 1.5 billion people. In fact, the only "tribes" I mentioned in my previous post were the mundugamor, arapesh, and tchambuli... the rest were names of third gender categories that are recognized and are functional in contemporary cultures across the globe, not isolated little "primitive tribes". I can give an extensive list of more examples if you would like. You would do well to actually look up on these things before writing them off as products of "primitive tribes".

You're kind of bending the truth in everything you said. India is about 1.2 billion people. But, I would tell you about another 1.5 billion people, of which a lot of them don't let women out of the house unless they completely cover their face or wear something on their head, and routinely get beaten or executed for being a victim of rape, etc. But I'm sure you already know who they are.

I admit, I was interested in what you said about the Hijra, because I didn't realize there was a 3rd gender. How could I have not known about this before? So I looked them up. They're not a 3rd gender, they're basically like trannies in the western world. And yeah, they're well recognized. Well recognized to be inferior. From wikipedia,

"Most hijras live at the margins of society with very low status; the very word "hijra" is sometimes used in a derogatory manner. Few employment opportunities are available to hijras. Many get their income from performing at ceremonies, begging, or prostitution — an occupation of eunuchs also recorded in premodern times. Violence against hijras, especially hijra sex workers, is often brutal, and occurs in public spaces, police stations, prisons, and their homes."

I don't even know what to say. If this is your idea of somebody being recognized and functional members of society, then it's going to be impossible to have discourse with you.

[Prunesquallor]

If theres no difference between them then what do you mean by call "men" men and "women" women? Social standards are what creates these categories in the first place and in my opinion thats how it should be. Not everyone with a penis is a man and not everyone with a vagina is a woman.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the normal definition.
There is a difference. The physical difference. If we're talking about temperament, maybe we could call them, oh I dunno, something genuinely related to the actual qualities that define these temperament groups instead of something unrelated? We could call weak people "weak people" and strong people "strong people" and idiots "idiots" and people unable to get their head out of their ass "people unable to get their head out of their ass" and educated people "educated people." Then we could have genuinely descriptive terms that don't promote an outdated foolish innacurate view of men and women, plus these descriptions would not be limited to two arbitrary personae created by this outdated demeaning pathetic innacurate view of men and women.

Plenty of women hate guns, don't believe in violence, don't believe in self defense and don't defend themselves. I've met them and I'm sure you have as well.

Yeah, and I've met men like that. And I've met women who aren't like that. "women don't defend themselves" is a completely bogus statement.

I never said pacifists are scared. Many pacifists are religious and believe in heaven and hell. I said defenseless and thats still true.

Not really, no. Violence isn't the only possible defense.

A lot of masculine traits aren't the good ones either. Violent predators, killers, the Hitlers and Stalins of the world all were men of the masculine variety. So what is your point?

So do you advocate teaching these negative traits to men to make them manly? And teaching weakness to women to make them more womenly? So no one would be confused about their social roles?


:idea: OR maybe just teaching everyone good traits is a better idea. It could also have referense to reality, which your characterisation does not permit.

As far as having tits, anyone can have tits. Anyone can have a vagina. Anyone can have a baby. None of these traits are unique to either sex because sex is mutable. What is unique about a person is their mind and behavior. That mind and behavior is who they truly are.

O rly?

[firebee]

They're not a 3rd gender, they're basically like trannies in the western world.

And transgender women are part of the group of gender-variant people that the term "third gender" refers to.

"Tranny", by the way, is rude. Depending on the particular situation you are referring to, "intersex" for people who have conditions that lead to ambiguous physical gender characteristics, "transgender" for someone whose mental gender is different from their physical one, and "cross-dresser" for a person who identifies as one gender while dressing in a manner typical of the other one are more polite and more descriptive terms.


I don't even know what to say. If this is your idea of somebody being recognized and functional members of society, then it's going to be impossible to have discourse with you.

The fact that a given group is poorly treated does not mean that it is not a part of the society in question with a defined spiritual role (mention of which you nicely skipped over). Or are Dalits, also, not part of Indian culture?

[timetraveler]

the use of memes in memetics as you describe supposes a telos to human history that i fundamentally disagree with. i think it is the belief in such telos - manifest destinies - that cause things like the crusades, inquisition, the holocaust... the idea that one idea is perfect or universally good while something else is universally bad... the implied willful and moral right of the "good" to oppress the "bad," or in some way get rid of it. yeah i find the absolutism of that idea scary, dangerous, and bad.


Manifest destiny is itself a meme. What you are against is social darwinism not manifest destiny. Social darwinism is a state of chaos as a result of bad memes or inaccurate memes. Newer memes are generated through the evolutionary process and chaos is replaced with order.

calling an idea a meme doesn't give it any more rational power or legitimacy either... Culture is determined by an evolutionary process. One meme ultimately is replaced by another and through this process human culture evolves.

not one i subscribe to. but i give it its respect as anything else i don't believe in. and as a model i don't find it useful or creative, particularly in a vacuum, ie., in absence of other legitimate models.

The point of humanity is to survive and evolve. The memes which promote this tend to outlast the memes which promote self destruction. I don't know what postgenderism promotes because it's never been tested in the real world. And for the record I'm a rule utilitarian/consequentialist and the ends do justify the means when survival is the end. So yes I do believe some ideas are fundamentally better for humanity than others, but I don't believe any idea of the "ultimate" idea because culture is always supposed to evolve. There is no best idea or best meme, these memes and concepts must always be updated and this is how I'm different from Christians who follow an ideology. I just follow what works best for the situation at any given period of time.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the normal definition.
There is a difference. The physical difference.


Sex is not gender. Sex = male and female. Gender = masculine and feminine. An individual can be any sex they want because sex is malleable. Gender is not.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If we're talking about temperament, maybe we could call them, oh I dunno, something genuinely related to the actual qualities that define these temperament groups instead of something unrelated?

Masculine and feminine works just fine. No need to invent new words just for your sake.


We could call weak people "weak people" and strong people "strong people" and idiots "idiots" and people unable to get their head out of their ass "people unable to get their head out of their ass" and educated people "educated people."


And we can call masculine people masculine and feminine people feminine.


Then we could have genuinely descriptive terms that don't promote an outdated foolish innacurate view of men and women, plus these descriptions would not be limited to two arbitrary personae created by this outdated demeaning pathetic innacurate view of men and women.


Learn to separate sex from gender or you will be confused for the rest of your life.


Yeah, and I've met men like that. And I've met women who aren't like that. "women don't defend themselves" is a completely bogus statement.


Feminine individuals don't defend themselves. Sometimes they are men. What you don't get is that sex doesn't matter in this debate the debate is about gender(masculine and feminine).


Not really, no. Violence isn't the only possible defense.


If you aren't capable of violence and you don't have people capable of violence defending you the only way to be safe is to stay far away from other humans and even then you'll be preyed upon by the other animals.


So do you advocate teaching these negative traits to men to make them manly? And teaching weakness to women to make them more womenly? So no one would be confused about their social roles?


Just because you despise the distaff does not mean I do. I do not consider the distaff to be weak like you do. The fact that you call femininity weak proves my point that you despise the distaff and if this is the basis behind all of your arguments I'd rather not waste my time debating this with you.


:idea: OR maybe just teaching everyone good traits is a better idea. It could also have referense to reality, which your characterisation does not permit.


You make the assumption that I wish to teach masculine individuals to be predators when my agenda is the exact opposite. My agenda is to take masculine individuals who have predatory instincts and give them a culture which can condition them to control and properly channel these instincts. What must be done is masculine individuals must be conditioned and trained to protect feminine individuals. Feminine individuals aren't "weak" like you want to believe. Different talents, different specializations, just as important if not more important than masculine individuals.

[smabers]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the normal definition.
There is a difference. The physical difference. If we're talking about temperament, maybe we could call them, oh I dunno, something genuinely related to the actual qualities that define these temperament groups instead of something unrelated? We could call weak people "weak people" and strong people "strong people" and idiots "idiots" and people unable to get their head out of their ass "people unable to get their head out of their ass" and educated people "educated people." Then we could have genuinely descriptive terms that don't promote an outdated foolish innacurate view of men and women, plus these descriptions would not be limited to two arbitrary personae created by this outdated demeaning pathetic innacurate view of men and women.


We already have all those terms, you just listed them. Are they not descriptive enough? Nobody goes around calling weak people strong and idiots educated. You want to invent words, be my guest, just don't expect everyone else to start using them.


"Tranny", by the way, is rude.


Tranny is just slang, it's not rude. We don't talk about how a lot of transgender people go to that bar. A lot of trannies go to that bar. It's not offensive.


The fact that a given group is poorly treated does not mean that it is not a part of the society in question with a defined spiritual role (mention of which you nicely skipped over). Or are Dalits, also, not part of Indian culture?

This is getting a little insane. No. They're not. They're subhumans. Are you saying that it's ok to treated like an animal as long as you have some kind of defined role in society as well? Even if that role is to clean toilets? Then I guess slaves were a part of society too. They had a defined role and lived side by side with their masters.

You changed the subject, and I admit that it was pretty clever of you, because you avoided everything I said to you earlier. I know it was a hard pill to swallow.

[Prunesquallor]

Sex is not gender. Sex = male and female. Gender = masculine and feminine. An individual can be any sex they want because sex is malleable. Gender is not.

The definitions of "masculine" and feminine" change over time, depending upon the social roles of the sexes, which characteristics people arbitrarily associate with the sexes, and which mindless stereotypes they believe in. These definitions change much more often than people have surgery. Your personal interpretation of the words is not remotely universal.

Masculine and feminine works just fine. No need to invent new words just for your sake.
...blah...blah...blah...

Who the hell is talking about new words? These are words that already exist and genuinely describe temperaments, unlike your extremely limited, narrow, and somewhat atypical definitions of masculine and feminine which describe nothing but old-fashioned and useless stereotypes, not real people.

Feminine individuals don't defend themselves. Sometimes they are men. What you don't get is that sex doesn't matter in this debate the debate is about gender(masculine and feminine).

This is utter foolishness. I don't even know where to begin.

If you aren't capable of violence and you don't have people capable of violence defending you the only way to be safe is to stay far away from other humans and even then you'll be preyed upon by the other animals.

Self defense does not necessarily equate to violence.

Just because you despise the distaff does not mean I do. I do not consider the distaff to be weak like you do. The fact that you call femininity weak proves my point that you despise the distaff and if this is the basis behind all of your arguments I'd rather not waste my time debating this with you.

I didn't call it weak. I said that's an association common to the "definition" and one which you yourself include. All your silliness about their inability to defend themselves sounds pretty damn like weakness to me. The fact that you think this inability to defend themselves is part of a necessary social role, and that others should get to feel all "manly" because they are "protecting" these people is patronising, insulting, and not remotely related to respect. You are saying they are incapable of something basic and should be treated like children. Not respect. And these roles are not necessary.

You make the assumption that I wish to teach masculine individuals to be predators when my agenda is the exact opposite. My agenda is to take masculine individuals who have predatory instincts and give them a culture which can condition them to control and properly channel these instincts. What must be done is masculine individuals must be conditioned and trained to protect feminine individuals. Feminine individuals aren't "weak" like you want to believe. Different talents, different specializations, just as important if not more important than masculine individuals.

Asking a question does not equate to an assumption.

An inibility to defend oneself is a strength? A need (which you have yet to prove is a necessary part of femininity) to be defended is strong? Anyway, you have yet to prove that any of this has anything to do with being male or female, masculine or feminine.

We already have all those terms, you just listed them. Are they not descriptive enough? Nobody goes around calling weak people strong and idiots educated. You want to invent words, be my guest, just don't expect everyone else to start using them.

They are descriptive enough. That is the goddamn point. Hence no need for using personae based on old-fashioned innacurate bullshit gender roles to describe people when one already has, hey, adjectives...





Prunesquallor added to this post, 6 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Masculine
# associated with men and not with women
# a gender that refers chiefly (but not exclusively) to males or to objects classified as male
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# masculinity - maleness: the properties characteristic of the male sex
# masculinity - the trait of behaving in ways considered typical for men
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Feminine
# associated with women and not with men
# womanly: befitting or characteristic of a woman especially a mature woman; "womanly virtues of gentleness and compassion"
# a gender that refers chiefly (but not exclusively) to females or to objects classified as female
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# femininity - the trait of behaving in ways considered typical for women
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# feminineness - femaleness: the properties characteristic of the female sex
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

read the definitions: related to sex, related to culture.

[firebee]

We already have all those terms, you just listed them. Are they not descriptive enough? Nobody goes around calling weak people strong and idiots educated. You want to invent words, be my guest, just don't expect everyone else to start using them.


You have failed to get the point. The point is that we use these words to describe the presence of the characteristics described by those traits, as opposed to dividing the traits up into two sets and assigning them to the "male" and "female" genders.


Tranny is just slang, it's not rude. We don't talk about how a lot of transgender people go to that bar. A lot of trannies go to that bar. It's not offensive.

Believe what you will, just don't come crying to me when the transwoman you're flirting with at the bar kicks you in the balls.


This is getting a little insane. No. They're not. They're subhumans. Are you saying that it's ok to treated like an animal as long as you have some kind of defined role in society as well? Even if that role is to clean toilets? Then I guess slaves were a part of society too. They had a defined role and lived side by side with their masters.

No, I am not saying that it is OK to mistreat other people based on their sexual orientation, gender presentation, or class origins. I am saying that this group of people exists. They have been recognized as being members of a distinct group, they have religious rites related to their status as gender-variant people, and they have a role in the traditional rites of the community.

Are you attempting to advance the position that deciding to treat a person as subhuman in fact removes their value as a human being?

[Nemesis]

You're kind of bending the truth in everything you said. India is about 1.2 billion people. But, I would tell you about another 1.5 billion people, of which a lot of them don't let women out of the house unless they completely cover their face or wear something on their head, and routinely get beaten or executed for being a victim of rape, etc. But I'm sure you already know who they are.

Admittedly, I was inaccurate about the population of India, but 1.2 billion people is still not an insignificant chunk of world's population by any means. My point still stands.

You are also confusing India with a fundamentalist middle eastern nation in regards to their treatment of women. Of course, India does not have a great track record in terms of it's treatment of women, but to describe it as analogous to middle eastern fundie states is erroneous. Not sure if you realize this, but a woman named Indira Gandhi held prominent leadership positions in India for large portion of the 60's to 80's (serving as prime minister twice). However, I'm not here to debate the status of women in India.



I admit, I was interested in what you said about the Hijra, because I didn't realize there was a 3rd gender. How could I have not known about this before? So I looked them up. They're not a 3rd gender, they're basically like trannies in the western world. And yeah, they're well recognized. Well recognized to be inferior. From wikipedia,

You have completely missed the point of bringing up examples of 3rd genders. Biological sex and gender identity are two very different things. Sex =/= gender. When I speak of gender fluidity, I am not referring to one's biological sex, I am referring to one's gendered social role. Sex and gender are obviously related, but they are separate. Do try and brush up on what these terms actually mean.



I don't even know what to say. If this is your idea of somebody being recognized and functional members of society, then it's going to be impossible to have discourse with you.

Again, you are completely missing the point. Regardless of how a society treats a 3rd gender, they are still recognized as a 3rd gender category and serve a function within society ... Man, Woman, and Hijra. Yes, the Hijra have it rough, I never said they didn't. Plus, the Hijra are only one such example... you may want to look into more examples.

If you want to halt this discourse, that's fine with me. I would much rather debate this topic with people who are familiar with the basic terminology being used.

[timetraveler]

The definitions of "masculine" and feminine" change over time, depending upon the social roles of the sexes, which characteristics people arbitrarily associate with the sexes, and which mindless stereotypes they believe in. These definitions change much more often than people have surgery. Your personal interpretation of the words is not remotely universal.


Protectors and Nurturers. Masculine and Feminine. Sex has nothing to do with it at all because you or anyone can become any sex you want, but you wont be able to change your temperament.



Self defense does not necessarily equate to violence.


Self defense by any means necessary requires violence. Feminine individuals fear violence. I'm not saying self defense always requires violence, but you aren't going to stop a hungry bear from ripping you apart or a hungry lion, without the threat of violence. Self defense requires the practical application of violence as a tactic to prevent violence to oneself.


I didn't call it weak. I said that's an association common to the "definition" and one which you yourself include.

Feminine individuals aren't weak, written languages came from feminine individuals. This means all the math, all the words, all the best memes and probably most of the religions came from feminine individuals. Jesus himself was a feminine individual who believed in non violence according to the popular story of the life of Jesus anyway.

Mohammed on the other hand was a masculine individual who believed in similar things and had similar goals, but Mohammed was willing to use the sword when necessary as a tactic. It's important that feminine individuals as well as masculine individuals have role models and positive memes. You can be a strong or weak masculine or feminine individual. Strength and weakness is about self control not whether one is masculine or feminine.


All your silliness about their inability to defend themselves sounds pretty damn like weakness to me. The fact that you think this inability to defend themselves is part of a necessary social role, and that others should get to feel all "manly" because they are "protecting" these people is patronising, insulting, and not remotely related to respect. You are saying they are incapable of something basic and should be treated like children. Not respect. And these roles are not necessary.


Jesus didn't defend himself and he wasn't weak. Martin Luther King wasn't weak. Those who take this path have strengths of their own. But we can't all take that path because we don't all have their temperament. Thus we have the masculine and feminine. Individuals who are feminine must be protected.


An inibility to defend oneself is a strength? A need (which you have yet to prove is a necessary part of femininity) to be defended is strong? Anyway, you have yet to prove that any of this has anything to do with being male or female, masculine or feminine.


So is the ability to communicate and non-violently accomplish your goals. It's not like war is something we desire. So we don't define strength based on who is best with a weapon, we have people who are good with weapons to protect individuals who aren't good with weapons.


They are descriptive enough. That is the goddamn point. Hence no need for using personae based on old-fashioned innacurate bullshit gender roles to describe people when one already has, hey, adjectives...

Once again whether it's the police, or whomever, we all recognize that some members of society are defenseless. These individuals are feminine based on their social roles. They aren't all weak because they have influence, they just aren't specialized in martial arts or self defense all the time. Basically people who specialize in self defense tend to get called paranoid by individuals who don't specialize in self defense. Those who don't specialize in self defense don't see predators everywhere and the fact that their guard isn't up all the time is why they have some very specialized abilities. These people who didn't have to defend themselves are allowed to become more advanced in other areas because they don't spend their lives trying to protect themselves and survive. They can make very important contributions and often these sorts of people live a lot longer as well, so to call these individuals weak is inaccurate.





timetraveler added to this post, 6 minutes and 47 seconds later...


You have completely missed the point of bringing up examples of 3rd genders. Biological sex and gender identity are two very different things. Sex =/= gender. When I speak of gender fluidity, I am not referring to one's biological sex, I am referring to one's gendered social role. Sex and gender are obviously related, but they are separate. Do try and brush up on what these terms actually mean.


And this is why we disagree. Yes Sex =/= gender. But because Sex=/=gender, gender =/= malleable. You cannot change your temperament, if you aren't designed or built for it you wont ever be able to do it no matter how much training you receive.

[daydreamer]

Protectors and Nurturers. Masculine and Feminine. Sex has nothing to do with it at all because you or anyone can become any sex you want, but you wont be able to change your temperament.


so which is it? temperament or meme? if a temperament is unchangeable, why are you so worried about new ideas - excuse me, new memes - changing masculine and feminine?

[timetraveler]

so which is it? temperament or meme? if a temperament is unchangeable, why are you so worried about new ideas - excuse me, new memes - changing masculine and feminine?

Temperament is unchangeable but the way people are programmed and trained is changeable and that training is what makes the difference between fascism, communism, nazism, christianity, etc. Masculine and feminine individuals will always exist in any society just as INTJ's will always exist in any society. These individuals are identified by their "gender" tag. The society concludes that the individual is <male> and begins to indoctrinate and edify them in chivalry, manhood, manners, ethics. You must understand that masculine ethics are very different from feminine ethics. Masculine ethics are consequentialist and the ends justify the means. Feminine ethics aren't.

You have some people who believe the ends never justify the means. If they believe that then you can't really program them to do certain assignments. In general everyone has limits to what assignments they can be programmed to carry out, but there are very clear differences between masculine and feminine ethics. A feminine individual will say they could never kill another person for any reason, not even in self defense. They will say the ends never justify the means. They will rather die for something they love than kill for it. This is how the feminine mind tends to work.

The masculine individual will say they could kill to protect themselves and persons/things they love. A masculine individual will usually believe the ends justify the means and can only be judged by whether or not their ends are just. You cannot judge a masculine individual by their acts alone unless you know what they are fighting for, who they are at war with etc.

The new memes are vitally important because they can change the ends. The ends are extremely important because if the ends aren't righteous everything gets messed up.

[daydreamer]

Temperament is unchangeable but the way people are programmed and trained is changeable and that training is what makes the difference between fascism, communism, nazism, christianity, etc. Masculine and feminine individuals will always exist in any society just as INTJ's will always exist in any society. These individuals are identified by their "gender" tag. The society concludes that the individual is <male> and begins to indoctrinate and edify them in chivalry, manhood, manners, ethics. You must understand that masculine ethics are very different from feminine ethics. Masculine ethics are consequentialist and the ends justify the means. Feminine ethics aren't.

You have some people who believe the ends never justify the means. If they believe that then you can't really program them to do certain assignments. In general everyone has limits to what assignments they can be programmed to carry out, but there are very clear differences between masculine and feminine ethics. A feminine individual will say they could never kill another person for any reason, not even in self defense. They will say the ends never justify the means. They will rather die for something they love than kill for it. This is how the feminine mind tends to work.

The masculine individual will say they could kill to protect themselves and persons/things they love. A masculine individual will usually believe the ends justify the means and can only be judged by whether or not their ends are just. You cannot judge a masculine individual by their acts alone unless you know what they are fighting for, who they are at war with etc.

The new memes are vitally important because they can change the ends. The ends are extremely important because if the ends aren't righteous everything gets messed up.


so, ethics come from the masculine and feminine temperaments. or memes. or both. maybe whichever is convenient at the time?

[timetraveler]

so, ethics come from the masculine and feminine temperaments. or memes. or both. maybe whichever is convenient at the time?

Memes and culture influences morality and ethics yes. Where do you think nazism came from? Nazism came from social darwinism. Social darwinism came from Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase survival of the fittest. So darwinism was corrupted by Herbert Spencer and this produced a new series of memes resulting in nazism. Do you see the problem?

Ethics don't come from memes but morality certainly does. Once again most people are not utilitarian and do not believe the ends justify the means which means the majority of people are not masculine. This is not necessarily because their temperament is not masculine but because Christianity programs individuals ethics to be feminine. Turn the other cheek, the ends do not justify the means, all have a basis in Christianity.

[smabers]

# masculinity - the trait of behaving in ways considered typical for men

# femininity - the trait of behaving in ways considered typical for women

read the definitions: related to sex, related to culture.

I think we are in agreement. Men typically behave in a masculine way and women typically behave in a feminine way.

You have failed to get the point. The point is that we use these words to describe the presence of the characteristics described by those traits, as opposed to dividing the traits up into two sets and assigning them to the "male" and "female" genders.


That is the point that I understood.


No, I am not saying that it is OK to mistreat other people based on their sexual orientation, gender presentation, or class origins. I am saying that this group of people exists. They have been recognized as being members of a distinct group, they have religious rites related to their status as gender-variant people, and they have a role in the traditional rites of the community.

Are you attempting to advance the position that deciding to treat a person as subhuman in fact removes their value as a human being?

Yes.

[Prunesquallor]

I think we are in agreement. Men typically behave in a masculine way and women typically behave in a feminine way.

The definitions come from the behaviour and the link to sex; certain people do not change their definitions as quickly as the behaviour changes, or falsely believe that there is some inherant, necessary aspect to the link between sex and behaviour.

Protectors and Nurturers. Masculine and Feminine. Sex has nothing to do with it at all because you or anyone can become any sex you want, but you wont be able to change your temperament.

Repeating yourself isn't proof.
I agree that people change little of their temperament; it is your characterisation of temperament as necessarily being either outdated masculine/feminine stereotype that I am arguing.

Self defense by any means necessary requires violence. Feminine individuals fear violence. I'm not saying self defense always requires violence, but you aren't going to stop a hungry bear from ripping you apart or a hungry lion, without the threat of violence. Self defense requires the practical application of violence as a tactic to prevent violence to oneself.

No. It can involve communication, cunning, avoidance, threats, big walls...

Feminine individuals aren't weak, written languages came from feminine individuals. This means all the math, all the words, all the best memes and probably most of the religions came from feminine individuals. Jesus himself was a feminine individual who believed in non violence according to the popular story of the life of Jesus anyway.

Mohammed on the other hand was a masculine individual who believed in similar things and had similar goals, but Mohammed was willing to use the sword when necessary as a tactic. It's important that feminine individuals as well as masculine individuals have role models and positive memes. You can be a strong or weak masculine or feminine individual. Strength and weakness is about self control not whether one is masculine or feminine.

Jesus didn't defend himself and he wasn't weak. Martin Luther King wasn't weak. Those who take this path have strengths of their own. But we can't all take that path because we don't all have their temperament. Thus we have the masculine and feminine. Individuals who are feminine must be protected.

Again, repeating yourself proves nothing. Why are you so convinced that there are only two temperaments, and that they are exactly the same as 1950s gender stereotypes? You're on an mbti board, after all; you ought to have some idea that people are more complex than that. And if you expect anyone else to believe you, you also require evidence.

So is the ability to communicate and non-violently accomplish your goals. It's not like war is something we desire. So we don't define strength based on who is best with a weapon, we have people who are good with weapons to protect individuals who aren't good with weapons.

Once again whether it's the police, or whomever, we all recognize that some members of society are defenseless. These individuals are feminine based on their social roles. They aren't all weak because they have influence, they just aren't specialized in martial arts or self defense all the time. Basically people who specialize in self defense tend to get called paranoid by individuals who don't specialize in self defense. Those who don't specialize in self defense don't see predators everywhere and the fact that their guard isn't up all the time is why they have some very specialized abilities. These people who didn't have to defend themselves are allowed to become more advanced in other areas because they don't spend their lives trying to protect themselves and survive. They can make very important contributions and often these sorts of people live a lot longer as well, so to call these individuals weak is inaccurate.

There is also the fact that certain people live where they need not be protected, because there is less danger. They are not therefore female. Your characterisation requires ever-present danger, which is not the case everywhere, and needn't be the case. It also denies the right of self-defense to half the population. Besides which, why are they feminine, instead of, say, childlike? Why bring gender into it at all, particularly when the characterisations you are using are based on ignorant stereotypes? Yes, you have these beliefs, but you have yet to give a valid reason for them. You have said nothing to prove that the social roles you personally believe necessarily exist, or describe a large enough part of humanity to even be considered relevant. Until you can justify your characterisation of humanity, it's just a joke.

Also, reread the definitions of masculine and feminine.

[smabers]

Again, repeating yourself proves nothing. Why are you so convinced that there are only two temperaments, and that they are exactly the same as 1950s gender stereotypes? You're on an mbti board, after all; you ought to have some idea that people are more complex than that. And if you expect anyone else to believe you, you also require evidence.


Are you saying there are more types of people than just masculine and feminine? Can you give some examples of such people, who don't fit into those descriptions?

[timetraveler]

The definitions come from the behaviour and the link to sex; certain people do not change their definitions as quickly as the behaviour changes, or falsely believe that there is some inherant, necessary aspect to the link between sex and behaviour.


I'm not one of those people. I only see people are minds and behaviors. So if you are a masculine type or a feminine type to me it's because I see all humans as a collection of thoughts and behaviors. Your body is important in the bedroom setting, and for business but I don't have any personal attachment to bodies.


I agree that people change little of their temperament; it is your characterisation of temperament as necessarily being either outdated masculine/feminine stereotype that I am arguing.


Outdated compared to what?


Why are you so convinced that there are only two temperaments, and that they are exactly the same as 1950s gender stereotypes?[/B] You're on an mbti board, after all; you ought to have some idea that people are more complex than that. And if you expect anyone else to believe you, you also require evidence.


Babies have to be both protected and nurtured. What other temperaments do we need to guarantee the survival of the human species? If a baby is physically safe, and emotionally feels safe, that is a good environment for raising the child right? Temperaments are about creating the best possible environment and if you think there should be more then first you have to set the goal and determine how you want to alter the environment and then you can find the temperaments to do it.



There is also the fact that certain people live where they need not be protected, because there is less danger. They are not therefore female. Your characterisation requires ever-present danger, which is not the case everywhere, and needn't be the case. It also denies the right of self-defense to half the population. Besides which, why are they feminine, instead of, say, childlike? Why bring gender into it at all, particularly when the characterisations you are using are based on ignorant stereotypes? Yes, you have these beliefs, but you have yet to give a valid reason for them. You have said nothing to prove that the social roles you personally believe necessarily exist, or describe a large enough part of humanity to even be considered relevant. Until you can justify your characterisation of humanity, it's just a joke.


There is no society on earth without danger. If I knew of such a society I would abandon this one and move to their society. Who doesn't want to live in utopia? But for Americans and the majority of the 6 billion people on earth they will never be free from danger. So the burden of proof is on you to show me there is a society or are societies without any predators and thus not a need for protectors. I've never in my life seen any society or environment like that so I have no concept of it. Why are they feminine instead of just childlike?

Some feminine individuals are childlike. Michael Jackson was a childlike individual for example. But not every feminine individual is child like. To be child like you have to not know what the world is really like, you have to be hopelessly naive. Most feminine individuals know what the world is like and make a choice to be against guns, or against violent video games, or to be for non violence, or to not kill for religious reasons. They aren't immature, they aren't naive, they aren't childlike, they just aren't built for war.

I never denied the right to self defense to half the population. When did I ever say half the population or give any number as if we know these things? I can say the individuals who would never kill for any reason are denying their own right of self defense. The individuals who believe in gun control are denying their own right of self defense.

They are choosing to outsourcing the responsibility of self defense to others. They want others to use guns and kill for them rather than to do it themselves and they want this often for religious reasons, cultural reasons, etc. Nobody is forcing anyone to be or do anything, they chose it and I respect it.

[Prunesquallor]

I'm not one of those people. I only see people are minds and behaviors. So if you are a masculine type or a feminine type to me it's because I see all humans as a collection of thoughts and behaviors. Your body is important in the bedroom setting, and for business but I don't have any personal attachment to bodies.

Outdated compared to what?

Babies have to be both protected and nurtured. What other temperaments do we need to guarantee the survival of the human species? If a baby is physically safe, and emotionally feels safe, that is a good environment for raising the child right? Temperaments are about creating the best possible environment and if you think there should be more then first you have to set the goal and determine how you want to alter the environment and then you can find the temperaments to do it.

1950s is the past... :suspicious: I'd call that outdated.
Outdated compared to people living today in more modern societies that don't believe in this sort of foolishness, for example. Not that there still aren't foolish people.

You still haven't answered my question or proven that your interpretation of "masculinity" and "femininity" are actually useful and accurate descriptions of all, or at least most, of humanity. Temperament is not equivalent to the particular divisions you believe in.

There is no society on earth without danger. If I knew of such a society I would abandon this one and move to their society. Who doesn't want to live in utopia? But for Americans and the majority of the 6 billion people on earth they will never be free from danger. So the burden of proof is on you to show me there is a society or are societies without any predators and thus not a need for protectors. I've never in my life seen any society or environment like that so I have no concept of it. Why are they feminine instead of just childlike?

Some feminine individuals are childlike. Michael Jackson was a childlike individual for example. But not every feminine individual is child like. To be child like you have to not know what the world is really like, you have to be hopelessly naive. Most feminine individuals know what the world is like and make a choice to be against guns, or against violent video games, or to be for non violence, or to not kill for religious reasons. They aren't immature, they aren't naive, they aren't childlike, they just aren't build for war.

I never denied the right to self defense to half the population. When did I ever say half the population or give any number as if we know these things? I can say the individuals who would never kill for any reason are denying their own right of self defense. The individuals who believe in gun control are denying their own right of self defense.

They are choosing to outsourcing the responsibility of self defense to others. They want others to use guns and kill for them rather than to do it themselves and they want this often for religious reasons, cultural reasons, etc. Nobody is forcing anyone to be or do anything, they chose it and I respect it.

There are societies, however, where people are not daily threatened, where self-defense and survival are not such a constant, direct concern that defense from these infrequent threats is so significant it defines social roles. Moreover, a willingness to use weapons does nothing when the main dangers are, for example pollutants.

The individuals who believe in gun control may have better ways of defending themselves (cayenne pepper works well, actually), and believe less guns mean they will need to defend themselves less. They are not therefore denying their own right. That is an ignorant oversimplification.

You are saying half the people are incapable of self-defense. Outsourcing is, by definition, not self- defense. Thus, you say half the people cannot particiate in self-defense. You are also saying that the need for self-defense, in the guns ablazing way, is so significant a factor that all of society is divided around it. This is pure silliness. And, again, unjustified. You are also connecting these temperaments to gender which is, again, by definition linked to sex, and the expectations people have about the behaviour of the sexes.

[timetraveler]

1950s is the past... :suspicious: I'd call that outdated.
Outdated compared to people living today in more modern societies that don't believe in this sort of foolishness, for example. Not that there still aren't foolish people.

That is your opinion. We disagree.

You still haven't answered my question or proven that your interpretation of "masculinity" and "femininity" are actually useful and accurate descriptions of all, or at least most, of humanity. Temperament is not equivalent to the particular divisions you believe in.

Once again this is your opinion and we still disagree.

There are societies, however, where people are not daily threatened, where self-defense and survival are not such a constant, direct concern that defense from these infrequent threats is so significant it defines social roles. Moreover, a willingness to use weapons does nothing when the main dangers are, for example pollutants.

That would mean the industrial polluters are the predators. It does not change the fact that these individuals must by stopped.

The individuals who believe in gun control may have better ways of defending themselves (cayenne pepper works well, actually), and believe less guns mean they will need to defend themselves less. They are not therefore denying their own right. That is an ignorant oversimplification.
That is fine but I'm from a state which has gun control and which has also banned mace, tasers, bullet proof vests and every other kind of self defense weapon in favor of giving the police the monopoly on that. This is fine if the police aren't corrupt but if the police are corrupt then it's everyone for themselves like in Mexico.

You are saying half the people are incapable of self-defense. Outsourcing is, by definition, not self- defense. Thus, you say half the people cannot particiate in self-defense. You are also saying that the need for self-defense, in the guns ablazing way, is so significant a factor that all of society is divided around it. This is pure silliness. And, again, unjustified. You are also connecting these temperaments to gender which is, again, by definition linked to sex, and the expectations people have about the behaviour of the sexes.

Most Americans do not believe in self defense. This is why most Americans are defenseless.This is why America is one of the most unsafe countries on earth. Also when we talk about self defense it's not just about guns. The dollar itself can be a weapon. Memes can be weapons in information warfare. War takes place on so many levels that most people are completely unaware that it's going on. You can be a masculine individual who does not fight with guns, but you have to fight using what you do have as a resource. A lot of individuals are so anti war and so pacifist that they don't fight at all in fear that they might harm the enemy.

Temperament to gender is as wet is to water. When I say all of society is divided round self defense it is. Capitalism proves that society is divided because those who don't have any money typically don't have a safe environment to grow up in. Masculine individuals believe in changing their environment to make it safe for their children, feminine individuals focus on teaching and nurturing their children so their children feel loved and maintain that which we consider a fundamental part of humanity. It's vital that a child has both a safe environment and a loving environment and this environment never exists unless somebody steps up to create that environment by any means necessary. This would require that masculine individuals exist.

And I don't know any environments where it's safe right now. Maybe if you are rich but if you are rich and inherit a safe environment thats only because masculine individuals in your family made enough money getting rich or the feminine individuals in your family created something everyone in society loved. Either way most kids don't grow up in that environment and so their temperament is triggered and their gender identity shaped by their environment. Kids who don't feel safe and who get tired of feeling unsafe have the option to become more masculine and take control of their environment.

[daydreamer]

Memes and culture influences morality and ethics yes. Where do you think nazism came from? Nazism came from social darwinism. Social darwinism came from Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase survival of the fittest. So darwinism was corrupted by Herbert Spencer and this produced a new series of memes resulting in nazism. Do you see the problem?


yes, i do. the problem seems to be memes !

[Nemesis]

Are you saying there are more types of people than just masculine and feminine? Can you give some examples of such people, who don't fit into those descriptions?

I've given you several.

[timetraveler]

yes, i do. the problem seems to be memes !

The problem is bad memes. Viruses are the cause of evolution and are a good thing. Some viruses give us vital immunities which evolve us, and some viruses kill us. We need memes which give us immunity because that is what strengthens our culture and our society. This is one of the main reasons I'm for free speech.

[Tyrant Soup]

Technology has largely eliminated the competitive advantage of having men serve as the protectors and women as the nurturers.

Why is it even contentious? Why not just assign roles based on ability rather than gender?

[Prunesquallor]

That is your opinion. We disagree.

Once again this is your opinion and we still disagree.

The difference is that all you have is opinion. There are fifty million articles in psychology and sociology relevant to temperament, about all sorts of various ways of describing personality, temperament, etc. (mbti, for example, which is gender-neutral) The respected ones have more than two divisions. There are also plenty showing how social expectations push people into roles that are not natural to them. There are thousands of articles that actually describe human beings, thousands that describe all sorts of different ways or organising society, none I know of that say your particular system is actually real, let alone relevant.

I'd be very interested to see even a single article that supports your conclusions about humanity. Because right now, all you have is handwaving.

That would mean the industrial polluters are the predators. It does not change the fact that these individuals must by stopped.

That is fine but I'm from a state which has gun control and which has also banned mace, tasers, bullet proof vests and every other kind of self defense weapon in favor of giving the police the monopoly on that. This is fine if the police aren't corrupt but if the police are corrupt then it's everyone for themselves like in Mexico.

and....stopped by beating them up? Tactics differ for different predators. Moreover, if the situation changes what sort of actions are necessary, than clearly your roles are not inherant, are they? If protecting is done by, say, community organising, protesting, then surely the so-called "feminine" individuals with their "better communication skills" would be better suited?

Most Americans do not believe in self defense. This is why most Americans are defenseless.This is why America is one of the most unsafe countries on earth. Also when we talk about self defense it's not just about guns. The dollar itself can be a weapon. Memes can be weapons in information warfare. War takes place on so many levels that most people are completely unaware that it's going on. You can be a masculine individual who does not fight with guns, but you have to fight using what you do have as a resource. A lot of individuals are so anti war and so pacifist that they don't fight at all in fear that they might harm the enemy.

Temperament to gender is as wet is to water. When I say all of society is divided round self defense it is. Capitalism proves that society is divided because those who don't have any money typically don't have a safe environment to grow up in. Masculine individuals believe in changing their environment to make it safe for their children, feminine individuals focus on teaching and nurturing their children so their children feel loved and maintain that which we consider a fundamental part of humanity. It's vital that a child has both a safe environment and a loving environment and this environment never exists unless somebody steps up to create that environment by any means necessary. This would require that masculine individuals exist.

And I don't know any environments where it's safe right now. Maybe if you are rich but if you are rich and inherit a safe environment thats only because masculine individuals in your family made enough money getting rich or the feminine individuals in your family created something everyone in society loved. Either way most kids don't grow up in that environment and so their temperament is triggered and their gender identity shaped by their environment. Kids who don't feel safe and who get tired of feeling unsafe have the option to become more masculine and take control of their environment.

Last time I checked, Americans were pretty damn obsessive about self-defense actually.

Also, just because you say all of society is divided around self defense, doesn't make it true. Prove it. Prove something. Prove anything.

Also, you've clearly never been outdoors. Everyone with any experience with animals knows that it's the mothers that will kill you. Fuck nurturing. The males mostly beat up each other to try to impress females. Your definition of "feminine" isn't even based around a realistic portrait of gender - which again, by definition, is based on the expected behaviours of the sexes.

I'm not rich. Not poor, but not rich. And I still manage to live in a city where self-defense is not a major concern. The need is not gone, but it is not such a massive, constant concern that it warps all society around it.

Look, you keep describing your ideal world, but you have yet to prove that it has anything to do with reality. You have no evidence. You have nothing but a soapbox.

[timetraveler]

Technology has largely eliminated the competitive advantage of having men serve as the protectors and women as the nurturers.

Why is it even contentious? Why not just assign roles based on ability rather than gender?

Because your gender is based on ability. If you don't have the ability then you aren't the gender. Btw what technology are you talking about in specific?

The difference is that all you have is opinion. There are fifty million articles in psychology and sociology relevant to temperament, about all sorts of various ways of describing personality, temperament, etc. (mbti, for example, which is gender-neutral)


Is it really gender neutral? I don't think so. I think most INTJ's are masculine.


The respected ones have more than two divisions. There are also plenty showing how social expectations push people into roles that are not natural to them.

If you aren't able to do the role then you don't have the ability and should not be assigned that gender. How complicated is it?


There are thousands of articles that actually describe human beings, thousands that describe all sorts of different ways or organising society, none I know of that say your particular system is actually real, let alone relevant.

None of them are taking human nature into account. Protector and nurturer are human nature and it's not going to change no matter what you call these categories. The nature of humanity does not change. You think all these masculine and feminine people will cease to exist just because you get rid of the words masculine and feminine? Of course they will still exist and they'll still have the same exact behavior patterns too. So what are you changing except for the words to describe their behavior?


I'd be very interested to see even a single article that supports your conclusions about humanity. Because right now, all you have is handwaving.


There are plenty of books which describe human nature. I suggest you do some research on human aggression and killer ape theory. This would give you at least an understanding of human nature from which to base your postgender theories. Once you understand that man is violent by nature, aggressive by nature, a killer by nature and a predator by nature, then you will understand why we need protectors and nurturers.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

According to Killer Ape theory, which explains how war may have begun, and why man is violent, we have excerpts from Robert Ardrey, the founder of Killer Ape theory.
# Man is a predator whose natural instinct is to kill with a weapon. (316)


1. On Aggression
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2. African Genesis(Killer Ape Theory)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

3. Killer Ape Theory
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

4. Might is Right Ragnar Redbeard
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(You can read Might is Right here -> To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

5. The Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't have to accept any of these worldviews. You just have to be aware that the killer instinct and predatory instinct are a part of human nature. If you are aware these instincts are a part of human nature then you will be aware that there will always be a need to protect yourself from human nature. There will always be somebody somewhere who wants to victimize you or someone you care about.


and....stopped by beating them up? Tactics differ for different predators. Moreover, if the situation changes what sort of actions are necessary, than clearly your roles are not inherant, are they? If protecting is done by, say, community organising, protesting, then surely the so-called "feminine" individuals with their "better communication skills" would be better suited?


Community organizing and protesting never protected anyone as far as I'm concerned. What protects you are men with guns willing to shoot to kill if necessary to protect you. What protects you are the laws and law enforcement. What protects you is the money you have to move out of the dangerous environments. If you think communication can protect you this is a perfect example of the feminine mentality. Predators cannot be reasoned with, they don't have remorse or sympathy and will take whatever they want from whomever without any regard for how the victim feels. Yes I believe feminine individuals are better communicators and if the situation enters a stage where negotiation and communication is allowed then these individuals would be useful. I also think feminine individuals make good protesters and activists, but when it gets bloody and people start dying, then different types of skills are required and as the situation becomes more dangerous the level of masculinity must increase. This means you'll need first aid people to save lives, doctors, you'll need both masculine individuals who can rescue people, and remove bullets, and masculine individuals who can shoot bullets back.

And lets say there is a scale of masculine to feminine, what happens is the individuals who are one one side of the extreme are the individuals who excel at tasks which require the traits they happen to have. So if the situation becomes a warzone where people being bombed and killed like in Iraq or Vietnam then the people at the far end of the masculine extreme will do well in this environment. The feminine individuals wont be able to do well in this environment and will not function well. The opposite extreme is when you put the masculine war heroes into the environment which doesn't require any of their traits. Now they don't do so well in this environment, and those who have the feminine minds do better.



Last time I checked, Americans were pretty damn obsessive about self-defense actually.


Americans are obsessive about guns. Having guns doesn't make you safe. Guns provide the illusion of safety for psychological benefit only. America is not a safe place because the economy is unstable and in America for the right price or incentives anybody can be killed. As a result nobody is safe.


Also, just because you say all of society is divided around self defense, doesn't make it true. Prove it. Prove something. Prove anything.


Read the books I have read. Do the research and then come back here and comment. Read Might is Right, and download it into your Kindle along with Killer Ape theory. If this is not enough I have more books for you and can send you a list of them in private.


Also, you've clearly never been outdoors. Everyone with any experience with animals knows that it's the mothers that will kill you. Fuck nurturing. The males mostly beat up each other to try to impress females. Your definition of "feminine" isn't even based around a realistic portrait of gender - which again, by definition, is based on the expected behaviours of the sexes.


I never said mothers aren't killers. I never said sex had anything to do with who is what. I said there are predators and protectors. There are nurturers who think a lot like you do and who think communication and protest can protect them from crimes and from being attacked. Communication only works on people who aren't heartless.


I'm not rich. Not poor, but not rich. And I still manage to live in a city where self-defense is not a major concern. The need is not gone, but it is not such a massive, constant concern that it warps all society around it.


You believe it's not a major concern because you believe the law enforcement officers with guns are there to protect you. You don't believe the cops could be paid off to rob or victimize you. You believe that the world is just, that no one wants to hurt you. Honestly I don't think you know how the world really is but this is what you probably believe and so you think it's safe. And when you do see danger you think it's from the bad side of town right? Its everywhere, your neighbor could be plotting to kill you and you'd have no way of knowing.

I offered evidence that I've done my research before making posts on this subject. I've read more than half a dozen books on this subject, four of which I've posted. Not every book I've read is gloomy as some of the books I've read look at the constructive side of human nature. I believe as a philosophy to get the true picture you have to look at all sides of human nature to properly form any diagnosis .

What I see far too often is that feminine individuals, individuals who I classify as feminine based on how their mind works, perceive of the world in which they are safe. They don't see predators everywhere. They don't see that the guy trying to sell them something is a dishonest con artist. They don't realize they are by their very thinking and behavior setting themselves up to be the next victim. Some feminine minded individuals believe that all humans are good by nature and that we can all coexist in peace if we just talk it out or change our attitudes.

The truth is that some people just don't care. They don't care about you, me, or themselves. They will rape, murder, rob and enslave as many people as they can until someone stops them. No you can't talk them out of it, and no you cannot make them stop hating you. The only thing you can do is either see the world for how it is and humanity for what we are, or let someone else deal with it.

[daydreamer]

Is it really gender neutral? I don't think so. I think most INTJ's are masculine.


LOL ok i'm dying to know in what ways do you think i'm masculine. go on...

[timetraveler]

LOL ok i'm dying to know in what ways do you think i'm masculine. go on...

If you believe the ends justify the means, if you believe reason should conquer emotion, that is masculine thinking. Feminine thinking does not require reason to conquer emotions, as a feminine minded individual will do what they feel.

To be masculine is to have a life dedicated to self control, stoicism is masculine. A life dedicated to passion is feminine.

[daydreamer]

If you believe the ends justify the means, if you believe reason should conquer emotion, that is masculine thinking. Feminine thinking does not require reason to conquer emotions, as a feminine minded individual will do what they feel.

so you're saying you can't really tell if i'm masculine or feminine? even though i'm intj?

[timetraveler]

so you're saying you can't really tell if i'm masculine or feminine? even though i'm intj?

If you are an INTJ, then you probably put reason before emotions. I'm not going to say INTJ to masculine correlation is always going to be positive. I'm saying it's there is definitely a correlation and it's not just to INTJ but more the NT part of the INTJ.

If I had to make a gamble on you daydreamer, I bet you are masculine. But I wouldn't want to put all my faith into NT alone. I'd talk to you and see how your mind works and how you act to decide. If you act reasonable and you aren't letting your emotions control your behavior then I'd say you are masculine.

I don't know a lot about you but I do know from our conversations you appear to be exceptionally reasonable. You at least know about Ayn Rands Objectivism, and you understand libertarianism. So you aren't naive from what I know. You also seem to parse your words carefully when you post your responses which leads me to believe you are following reason rather than emotion.

[daydreamer]

If you are an INTJ, then you probably put reason before emotions. I'm not going to say INTJ to masculine correlation is always going to be positive. I'm saying it's there is definitely a correlation and it's not just to INTJ but more the NT part of the INTJ.

so, you're saying you definitely believe there is a correlation, even though you can only thinly describe your belief; you cannot demonstrate it's truth. this is why it is a belief, not an observation.

so, if it is masculine to follow reason/rationality and feminine to follow emotions... which is it to follow belief? instinct? intuition? sensory input?

which is it to process information internally or externally?

if masculine temperament favors that the ends justify the means then how could a masculine temperament be a P? since those types are less interested in results...

[timetraveler]

so, you're saying you definitely believe there is a correlation, even though you can only thinly describe your belief; you cannot demonstrate it's truth. this is why it is a belief, not an observation.


I have not actually measured whether there is, but if I wanted to make that measurement I could start a thread called "Do the ends justify the means" and in that thread let random individuals from this site vote on questions like "does reason conquer all" and "Does might make right", and I could quickly find out whether or not (NT) correlates with masculinity. In my opinion it does because I associate masculinity with that which the personality test identifies as (NT). But I will accept that I'm basing this on subjective opinion and that it's not an objective fact until we take measurements.


so, if it is masculine to follow reason/rationality and feminine to follow emotions... which is it to follow belief? instinct? intuition? sensory input?

That would be feminine thinking. To follow anything other than reason/rationality is feminine.


which is it to process information internally or externally? if masculine temperament favors that the ends justify the means then how could a masculine temperament be a P? since those types are less interested in results...

Masculine thinking doesn't necessary correlate with masculine acting. This means a person can be a math genius who is reasonable and has an IQ of 160, but you put them in actual situations and they cannot apply any of their thinking to action. So if someone is a P as you say (I'm not an INTP), it means they like to think about these things but maybe they'd never actually act it out or they don't care about the results as you say. That perspective is different for me because I'm not an INTP. I will have to admit that this style of INTP thinking confuses me.

[daydreamer]

I have not actually measured whether there is, but if I wanted to make that measurement I could start a thread called "Do the ends justify the means" and in that thread let random individuals from this site vote on questions like "does reason conquer all" and "Does might make right", and I could quickly find out whether or not (NT) correlates with masculinity. In my opinion it does because I associate masculinity with that which the personality test identifies as (NT). But I will accept that I'm basing this on subjective opinion and that it's not an objective fact until we take measurements.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
i don't believe that a thread is an accurate measurement, but it offers anecdotal food for thought anyway.


That would be feminine thinking. To follow anything other than reason/rationality is feminine.

so you admit that your belief in masculine/feminine roles is feminine thinking.

i can't help thinking that you're also claiming that what most would consider a masculine sex drive (based on instinct) is feminine thinking. what about men - excuse me, the masculine types - as protectors? isn't that based on instinct? so they act masculinely on that point, but for feminine reasons? when a man is attracted to a woman that's feminine? and when he wants to protect her and their shared offspring above all others, that's feminine? but as long as whatever actions he takes is justified by that end - protection - then he, she, or it, is masculine?



Masculine thinking doesn't necessary correlate with masculine acting. This means a person can be a math genius who is reasonable and has an IQ of 160, but you put them in actual situations and they cannot apply any of their thinking to action. So if someone is a P as you say (I'm not an INTP), it means they like to think about these things but maybe they'd never actually act it out or they don't care about the results as you say. That perspective is different for me because I'm not an INTP. I will have to admit that this style of INTP thinking confuses me.

yeah, i'll say.

so you really can't claim that jesus was feminine after all. there's a good argument that his thinking was, in your terms, quite masculine. maybe he was just a P and simply did not act on his thinking when it came to what you claim to be the most masculine issues of all - violence and physical self-defense.

[admittedheretic]

There are very real differences to an extreme male mind and an extreme female mind.

An extreme male mind could be modeled as autism while the extreme female mind could be modeled as schizophrenia or bipolar.

[timetraveler]

so you admit that your belief in masculine/feminine roles is feminine thinking.

Nobody is 100% masculine or 100% feminine. Some of my ideas are just subjective opinions.
Some of my theories are objective based on measurements I've taken. In this example I have not taken the measurements and crunched the numbers so it's subjective opinion. It is also subjective opinion to think postgenderism can work. So this entire debate is based around subjective opinion. If we want we can turn this debate into a debate based on objective measurements but if we are going to do that wont we be doing serious research at that point?

If I'm going to do that I'd want to get paid for it or receive a grant/stipend to subsidize my living expenses while I dedicate myself to answering the question of whether gender is mutable. If you are asking whether I base my subjective opinion on objective facts determined by others, I do base my opinions on objective facts. If you present facts or evidence to back up your positions then I'll accept the accuracy of those facts. The thread you posted has actual data which can be used to produce a fact about whether or not (NT) is associated with masculine thinking, I'm just not interested in taking the time to crunch the numbers so if anyone wants to crunch the numbers and present the facts I'll accept the conclusion.


i can't help thinking that you're also claiming that what most would consider a masculine sex drive (based on instinct) is feminine thinking. what about men - excuse me, the masculine types - as protectors? isn't that based on instinct?

It's based on evolution. If there are no protectors then babies wont live long enough to survive. It's based on instinct but it's also reasonable. Sometimes instincts align with reason and in those moments it's masculine because the instinct is aligned with a reason or self preservation. It's masculine to make weapons for a living because you want to protect yourself and your family, so to be a blacksmith is masculine whether you are violent or not.


so they act masculinely on that point, but for feminine reasons? when a man is attracted to a woman that's feminine? and when he wants to protect her and their shared offspring above all others, that's feminine? but as long as whatever actions he takes is justified by that end - protection - then he, she, or it, is masculine?


A man who thinks with his d*ck is being feminine. Let me be honest and say that I'm attracted to women and prone to this. A human is not 100% masculine/feminine all the time, else they'd be a robot. It's about how they are most of the time which allows you to determine their temperament.



yeah, i'll say.
so you really can't claim that jesus was feminine after all. there's a good argument that his thinking was, in your terms, quite masculine. maybe he was just a P and simply did not act on his thinking when it came to what you claim to be the most masculine issues of all - violence and physical self-defense.

Anything involving Jesus or the Bible is debatable. That is a debate I'd rather not have. I'll say that the pacifist turn the other cheek representation of Jesus is not a very masculine representation at all. It's also not masculine to rush to war or behead a person for giving a dirty look. It's masculine to defend and protect based upon actual threats and actual dangers, not to act violently based on emotions and feelings.


There are very real differences to an extreme male mind and an extreme female mind.

An extreme male mind could be modeled as autism while the extreme female mind could be modeled as schizophrenia or bipolar.


Nice job making us feel mentally ill. And I don't even consider myself an extreme masculine.

[daydreamer]

Nobody is 100% masculine or 100% feminine. Some of my ideas are just subjective opinions.
Some of my theories are objective based on measurements I've taken. In this example I have not taken the measurements and crunched the numbers so it's subjective opinion. It is also subjective opinion to think postgenderism can work. So this entire debate is based around subjective opinion. If we want we can turn this debate into a debate based on objective measurements but if we are going to do that wont we be doing serious research at that point?


i have no argument as to the efficacy of postgenderism. i simply recognize that it exists, and is valid. memetics exists and is valid too. i do see adherence to a belief system or rationality that is exclusive of others as less reasonable, less rational, though, and your presentation of memetics seems in this vein. there is no rationality or reasonableness in trying to impose a system on non-believers, be they militantly opposed or agnostic and all wheres in between.


If I'm going to do that I'd want to get paid for it or receive a grant/stipend to subsidize my living expenses while I dedicate myself to answering the question of whether gender is mutable. If you are asking whether I base my subjective opinion on objective facts determined by others, I do base my opinions on objective facts. If you present facts or evidence to back up your positions then I'll accept the accuracy of those facts. The thread you posted has actual data which can be used to produce a fact about whether or not (NT) is associated with masculine thinking, I'm just not interested in taking the time to crunch the numbers so if anyone wants to crunch the numbers and present the facts I'll accept the conclusion.


i have no facts as i have no argument, other than that yours is incomplete, irrational, and inconsistent. i'm ok with beliefs being this way; it is in asserting that those beliefs are the only right ones, or better than other beliefs, or when they are used to belittle/invalidate the experience of others, that i have an issue... no one belief system can be faultless. therefore none is justified to be the epitome of all belief, anyway. i don't think it's just cocky, it's dangerous - like the "bad memes" you keep bringing up.


It's based on evolution. If there are no protectors then babies wont live long enough to survive. It's based on instinct but it's also reasonable. Sometimes instincts align with reason and in those moments it's masculine because the instinct is aligned with a reason or self preservation. It's masculine to make weapons for a living because you want to protect yourself and your family, so to be a blacksmith is masculine whether you are violent or not.


so women's desire to have children/make babies is masculine? protecting the children is masculine? fright and flight are masculine? in other words, if a woman (or man) runs away from danger in an effort to protect herself/himself, that's masculine? it's based on evolution... some people cannot protect themselves, especially if they are holding a baby. screaming to get the attention of a possible protector in effort to protect oneself is masculine?

or is it only masculine if the woman chooses to use a gun to protect herself...

so you take a reasonable, rational woman and you take an emotional whacked out woman, each of them choose male mates to protect them, which one is more masculine? or are neither, since they need protecting. didn't both of them choose to implement a plan of protection? isn't that reasonable?


A man who thinks with his d*ck is being feminine. Let me be honest and say that I'm attracted to women and prone to this.


but, but, but, isn't thinking with his dick reasonable based on evolution? i mean, men evolved with dicks for a reason, right? and using said dick promotes the survival of the species. have to make babies and families before you can protect them. that seems at least as rational as protecting the species..


A human is not 100% masculine/feminine all the time, else they'd be a robot. It's about how they are most of the time which allows you to determine their temperament.


well, despite the fact i think you have warped views on what masculine and feminine mean, given the first sentence, i feel there is at least a little hope for you.

but that second sentence is quite the stick in the mud, isn't it. lol

[timetraveler]

i have no argument as to the efficacy of postgenderism. i simply recognize that it exists, and is valid. memetics exists and is valid too. i do see adherence to a belief system or rationality that is exclusive of others as less reasonable, less rational, though, and your presentation of memetics seems in this vein. there is no rationality or reasonableness in trying to impose a system on non-believers, be they militantly opposed or agnostic and all wheres in between.


I never said memetics is the only right system or the only right mechanism. I said it's the most advanced system we have right now, meaning it's more right than some of those others and more right than any other system I've come across. The only way to determine which ideas are the most right is through competition. It's just like with the theory of evolution, not everyone believes in that but the only way to prove how right or wrong anything is requires we put it to the test. This could be E=MC2, this could be memetics, this could be postgenderism.


i have no facts as i have no argument, other than that yours is incomplete, irrational, and inconsistent. i'm ok with beliefs being this way; it is in asserting that those beliefs are the only right ones, or better than other beliefs, or when they are used to belittle/invalidate the experience of others, that i have an issue... no one belief system can be faultless. therefore none is justified to be the epitome of all belief, anyway. i don't think it's just cocky, it's dangerous - like the "bad memes" you keep bringing up.

If you are sure that my arguments are incomplete and irrational, put them to the test and find out. Take some measurements, compare my ideas to the other ideas and we can find out which ideas are closer to the truth. I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth, I claim that through memetics just as with evolution we have a mechanism from which to let ideas evolve closer and closer to the truth. It's very much like the scientific method which has the goal of finding the truth, which in this context would be which idea is most correct/practical. You assume that because I'm confident in my presentation of my ideas that I'm calling my ideas facts or claiming my ideas are a formal hypothesis. If I were presenting my ideas as a formal theory of hypothesis I would have come with the statistics to back up what I'm saying, but since the individuals who advocate postgenderism don't have any statistics to back up what they are saying, the mutability of gender on this forum is a rhetorical argument rather than a scientific debate.


so women's desire to have children/make babies is masculine? protecting the children is masculine? fright and flight are masculine? in other words, if a woman (or man) runs away from danger in an effort to protect herself/himself, that's masculine?


Correct. Running away can be masculine depending on whats at stake. It's not about whether you ran away or not, it's also about why you ran away and so the context of the situation has to be considered. If the individual is going to suffer certain death for themselves and those they care about if they stay and fight, they should definitely run away and live to fight another day. You can be masculine but it doesn't mean you have to be stupid.


it's based on evolution... some people cannot protect themselves, especially if they are holding a baby. screaming to get the attention of a possible protector in effort to protect oneself is masculine? Any reasonable act of self preservation is masculine but a lot of this is based on context. If a woman screams and that tactic actually works as a form of self defense, it's something. I'm not going to say it's as masculine as pulling out a gun but it's a form of self defense.


or is it only masculine if the woman chooses to use a gun to protect herself...


You have to ask yourself whether or not it gets the job done, you have to ask yourself whether it required someone to save her or if her own actions protected her. If her own actions protected her then she did the masculine act in that instance. Screaming is probably a bad example because that requires others to rescue her so thats not masculine unless the screaming damages the ears of the attacker or causes the attacker to run away.


so you take a reasonable, rational woman and you take an emotional whacked out woman, each of them choose male mates to protect them, which one is more masculine? or are neither, since they need protecting. didn't both of them choose to implement a plan of protection? isn't that reasonable?


If the reasonable woman chooses a male mate who is emotionally "whacked out", then she will be protecting him.


but, but, but, isn't thinking with his dick reasonable based on evolution? i mean, men evolved with dicks for a reason, right? and using said dick promotes the survival of the species. have to make babies and families before you can protect them. that seems at least as rational as protecting the species..


Men evolved brains and language because we learned not to think with our d*cks. In my opinion language and communication, as well as most higher level thinking evolved because of feminine thinkers. I think originally masculine individuals were the norm and were not capable of written language, and had very limited verbal communication. This is why violence was normal and disputes were settled physically. Feminine minds developed all of these different kinds of communication, all these words, maths, body languages, signs and signals. We have to give feminine individuals the credit for saving the human race from sure self destruction.

I also think the internet, libraries and all sorts of communications technologies which we rely on will give more influence and power to feminine individuals and that the masculine individuals are actually becoming less valuable and useful over time, but it doesn't change the fact that as it is right now masculine individuals make the big(security) decisions.



well, despite the fact i think you have warped views on what masculine and feminine mean, given the first sentence, i feel there is at least a little hope for you. but that second sentence is quite the stick in the mud, isn't it. lol

Masculine and feminine are temperaments, not sex. It has nothing to do with sex. Just as we recognize that INTJ is a temperament, we have to recognize that all temperament can be measured on a scale from masculine to feminine. You might not agree with that but ultimately that is my view of what gender is, it's a sliding scale of temperament.

[daydreamer]

I never said memetics is the only right system or the only right mechanism. I said it's the most advanced system we have right now, meaning it's more right than some of those others and more right than any other system I've come across.


yep. cocky and dangerous.

the evidence of memetics is opinion, not fact. the evidence of evolution is fact. both memetics and evolution rely on interpretation of the premises, whether opinion or fact in each case. this does not mean memetics is a legitimate science, or that it follows the scientific method.


If you are sure that my arguments are incomplete and irrational, put them to the test and find out. Take some measurements, compare my ideas to the other ideas and we can find out which ideas are closer to the truth.


measurements of what, exactly?

for instance, the thread i linked you to... how would i measure it and what would i be measuring it for? masculine and feminine alignment? in order to justify masculine and feminine alignment? that's kinda circular... what hypothesis would i be investigating? how would i have arrived at that hypothesis in the first place?


You assume that because I'm confident in my presentation of my ideas that I'm calling my ideas facts or claiming my ideas are a formal hypothesis.


i don't assume that. i assume quite the opposite. you seem confident in your presentation regardless of having facts or proven hypotheses. i think it's kinda silly to come on so strong without much of anything in the way of backing up what you're saying.


If I were presenting my ideas as a formal theory of hypothesis I would have come with the statistics to back up what I'm saying, but since the individuals who advocate postgenderism don't have any statistics to back up what they are saying, the mutability of gender on this forum is a rhetorical argument rather than a scientific debate.


it's not that i have an issue with the presentation of memetics as a model. that's your opinion, your belief. but just because your belief makes sense to you, doesn't make it more right to anyone else. i never brought up postgenderism, you did, but the postgenderist argument, which i have not seen anyone here make, is just as valid a belief as memetics. so are beliefs of others about the mutability or gender, or not, based on their own experiences.


Any reasonable act of self preservation is masculine but a lot of this is based on context. If a woman screams and that tactic actually works as a form of self defense, it's something. I'm not going to say it's as masculine as pulling out a gun but it's a form of self defense.


oh ok so screaming as self-defense can be masculine as long as it works. so i guess using a gun or even using superior strength and fighting skills, weaponry, are masculine only if they work.


You have to ask yourself whether or not it gets the job done, you have to ask yourself whether it required someone to save her or if her own actions protected her. If her own actions protected her then she did the masculine act in that instance. Screaming is probably a bad example because that requires others to rescue her so thats not masculine unless the screaming damages the ears of the attacker or causes the attacker to run away.


btw screaming draws the attention of others and in some cases inhibits criminal acts on the basis that there might be witnesses. that's my 'masculine' reasoned opinion, and it is based on measurements - actual experience. but again you're saying it's only masculine if it works. this is not in keeping with your statement that why someone does something is important as to whether or not it is masculine or feminine.

according to what you've said so far, someone can do something for masculine reasons of evolution, whether or not they are aware. and they can deliberately think in masculine terms, whether or not they act it out. and they can choose to act in masculine ways - which you have left open ended to interpretation even though i have tried to pin you down on this one. and those last two matter somehow regarding someone's temperament, but it is all for naught if it doesn't work, because if it doesn't work then it is not masculine after all.


If the reasonable woman chooses a male mate who is emotionally "whacked out", then she will be protecting him.


you didn't answer my question at all. it's not possible to answer and be consistent with what you've said so far, is it?


... as it is right now masculine individuals make the big decisions.


big like what? intersexual selection?

[lucyinthefknsky]

This being posted in an INTJ forum, I must state that as an INTJ, I enjoy categories and labels. We categorize ourselves to help define that indefinable thing that is our identity. If no categories existed for gender I think that many individuals would struggle to find how they fit in. We are imitative creatures, and without guidelines as to how we are supposed to act, many would flounder.

This being said, I realize that some find that their gender works against what they feel defines them, whether biologically or socially. In these instances, I believe that the strong social ideals of gender are detrimental and should possibly be somewhat looser.

I do not consider myself to be overly feminine, lacking many of the qualities of the stereotypical female. I think much of this is attributed to my personality, which can be argued both ways as being taught or predetermined.

I believe in an equality between genders to a point. The biological differences between men and women allow for weaknesses and strengths. When it comes down to it, men and women are different and to put them into the same category would be adding disadvantages. If men and women were given equal rights totally nondiscriminatory, certain jobs would still be given to men and certain jobs would still be given to women.
For example: A manual labor construction job would be overwhelmingly likely to be given to a man for the simple fact that men are more muscular and of larger stature.

A simpler example would be a basket of lemons and oranges. If lemonade is needed, the lemon will be picked even if it is in the same basket as oranges, and vise versa.

Gender, while having a significant number of cross-overs, still represents and biological and chemical difference, while other categories, like race, are less biological and more aesthetically defined.

[lincoln]

The most definable form that this discussion has taken is as an argument against men and women; it's more about who does what in society and why we should (mostly should) continue on as we are. I do not have time to read over every post...
So, if this argument is to be one based on logicand not feeling, then why are the posts so laden with biased scientific information and much comentary on boy/girl gender roles which insists that this scientific information being offered is proof enough for the reasons why we have these current gender roles?
I am sorry, but there is no way that science could truly answer a question like this. These are not 'yes, no' questions we must ask ourselves; not even close. In my opinion, one should be understanding these roles in a variety of lights; philosophize, hypothesize, thousands of years of history must be digested... I mean, to truly answer these questions properly we'd have to be here for a very long time. Is there an anthropologist/sociologist/ historian/ neurobiologist/ biopsychologist/ in the house? And even if there were we wouldn't listen to them...
I'm not putting down people who throw their ideas out there. I am not an overly sensitive schmuck who is too foolish to see the value in a good argument.

I do think that the most abundant source of argument are the men who think that women and men have natural differences that are being served justly in the present nature of our roles....

The modern world is the closest thing to a matriarchal society we've had in perhaps a very long time.. In any case here is something to consider

This is an excerpt from an essay called The Gender Fallacy by William C. Dowling:

The answer to this sort of argument by feminist theorists has been that it, too, is a mode of male domination. Thus, for instance, Teresa de Lauretis: "This kind of deconstruction of the subject is effectively a way to recontain women in femininity and to reposition female subjectivity in the male subject, however that will be defined" (24). Even to talk about a logic of textuality in relation to feminist criticism is, in short, to lapse into precisely the sort of abstract "male" rationality against which feminist criticism is engaged in perpetual struggle.

And who says it's all about women wanting to be more like men. I don't care if you can lift heavier objects (which is crap, really). There is much evidence that women are just as physically efficient as man (a touch of biased science for ya=)... It is only that we have been 'domesticated' for so long which has mad us the weaker sex..Truly, there is a study that speaks to this..

We ladies/minorities of all sorts (even the construction worker) probably don't want to me more 'manly'. Simply, more ourselves; free to define ourselves without the shadow of 'man' looming over us....To not be like you or not like you....Don't you get it? That you men have a monopoly on the independent personality?

[LionsPride]

I believe in an equality between genders to a point. The biological differences between men and women allow for weaknesses and strengths. When it comes down to it, men and women are different and to put them into the same category would be adding disadvantages. If men and women were given equal rights totally nondiscriminatory, certain jobs would still be given to men and certain jobs would still be given to women.
For example: A manual labor construction job would be overwhelmingly likely to be given to a man for the simple fact that men are more muscular and of larger stature.

See, having the person that is more muscular and larger in stature get the manual labour job isn't something that people want changed. The equality that is being fought for is the assumption that because you are male you ARE more muscular and of larger stature than ALL females. The fact you are actually a 5'4" and 100lbs doesn't matter, you are MALE and therefore superior at manual labour than the woman that is 6 inches taller and can bench press you. Are women like that the majority? No, but if they show up for the job one would hope they would get it over the man half their size.

Masculine and feminine are temperaments, not sex. It has nothing to do with sex. Just as we recognize that INTJ is a temperament, we have to recognize that all temperament can be measured on a scale from masculine to feminine. You might not agree with that but ultimately that is my view of what gender is, it's a sliding scale of temperament.

I wasn't going to bother, but since I was responding to lucy I might as well...

I find it exceptionally odd that you wouldn't notice how bizarre it is to use terms whose historic AND current meanings are rooted in sex-based origins in ways to describe temperament where perfectly gender neutral temperament terms like "protector" exist. Further, to claim that these sex based terms have nothing to do with sex (even though every person in the western hemisphere uses them this way) and then assign behaviours to them that don't have any worth because "screaming is masculine, but only if it works" and other exceptions upon exceptions makes no sense. You're like a person that could be using paper/rock/scissors but has decided that rock is actually water, but only on Tuesdays and paper and scissors have nothing to do with office supplies regardless of the obvious similarities in both name and hand signal.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the inherent problems with the idea of using terms that are easily confused to be sex based to describe traits that society values (brave, reacts on thought, pulls a gun rather than becomes hysterical) as masculine and the traits that are relegated to the weak and useless being called feminine? Hey, sounds like a plan to me. While we are at it, can I use the word "juvenile" to describe people who are energetic, vibrant, go getters and "elderly" to describe people who are sluggish, confused and a drain on society? As long as I re-iterate that the terms have nothing to do with age in my opinion and anyone that thinks that it might make people think that older people are "sluggish, confused and a drain on society" is just a meme that we need to overcome, right? Any takers?... I think not.

[timetraveler]

yep. cocky and dangerous.

the evidence of memetics is opinion, not fact. the evidence of evolution is fact. both memetics and evolution rely on interpretation of the premises, whether opinion or fact in each case. this does not mean memetics is a legitimate science, or that it follows the scientific method.


The basis from which evolution is considered fact is the same basis from which memetics is considered fact. Explain the difference?


measurements of what, exactly?


Statistics on temperament can be measured and analyzed and from this process facts can be produced.


for instance, the thread i linked you to... how would i measure it and what would i be measuring it for? masculine and feminine alignment? in order to justify masculine and feminine alignment? that's kinda circular... what hypothesis would i be investigating? how would i have arrived at that hypothesis in the first place?

First you use the thread to get a pool of samples. You take that pool of samples and you apply statistics to determine whether or not NT is correlated with masculinity as I have defined it. If they correlate then you have a fact from which to make the case that gender is temperament. It's very much like how we run peer reviewed tests to understand psychology, you can conduct peer reviewed tests using this forum to gather the samples. The individuals on this forum can vote and because this forum is filled with INTJ's it would be the ideal place to conduct these statistical measurements.


i don't assume that. i assume quite the opposite. you seem confident in your presentation regardless of having facts or proven hypotheses. i think it's kinda silly to come on so strong without much of anything in the way of backing up what you're saying.
I haven't come on any stronger than anyone else who debates the question. Now if I would have come with statistics proving INTJ's are correlated with the traits I've defined as masculine then you could say I'm coming with a hypothesis. If I came and said X percentage of INTJ's believe the ends justify the means, and therefore we have evidence of the masculinity of INTJ's, that would be coming on strong because I'd be transforming the debate from a rhetorical argument into an actual scientific debate. The burden would then be on everyone else to come with their own facts. I haven't done that in this instance but if the topic were important enough to me then I might.


it's not that i have an issue with the presentation of memetics as a model. that's your opinion, your belief. but just because your belief makes sense to you, doesn't make it more right to anyone else. i never brought up postgenderism, you did, but the postgenderist argument, which i have not seen anyone here make, is just as valid a belief as memetics. so are beliefs of others about the mutability or gender, or not, based on their own experiences.


That is flawed thinking. Both beliefs are invalid until they are backed by facts. Then when both are backed by facts we can measure which is closer to the truth. It's the same as evolution vs intelligent design (intelligent design is not creationism). Intelligent design and evolution are both theories with scientists on both sides producing facts to argue their side of the theory. According to intelligent design the universe is intelligent and not accidental. This is not the same as creationism which believes God made the universe in 7 days, and had to rest on sunday. Intelligent design is an actual theory of how order is created from intelligence, while evolution is also a theory about how order is created from natural selection. Both intelligent design and evolution can be correct, but if evolution is correct creationism is incorrect. Creationism is a belief while intelligent design and evolution are theories backed up by facts and which side you take often is determined by how you interpret the facts.


oh ok so screaming as self-defense can be masculine as long as it works. so i guess using a gun or even using superior strength and fighting skills, weaponry, are masculine only if they work. Correct. If you do something and it doesn't work then you don't have any practical strength even if you have strength in theory. I said before that if an individual is defenseless they must be protected by others, and so their social role becomes feminine.


btw screaming draws the attention of others and in some cases inhibits criminal acts on the basis that there might be witnesses. that's my 'masculine' reasoned opinion, and it is based on measurements - actual experience. but again you're saying it's only masculine if it works. this is not in keeping with your statement that why someone does something is important as to whether or not it is masculine or feminine.


They could have a masculine mind and produce a feminine act. This is where you are confused. An individual with a masculine mind has the instincts and temperament to fight, but this does not mean they'll be a good fighter. They could wind up getting beat down but it doesn't change the fact that their temperament is to defend themselves. The temperament is set by nature, the acts and success rate of the acts are set by situation. Nobody is 100% masculine or 100% feminine, but if I see you thinking masculine and acting masculine a majority of the time then the conclusion is that is what you are. It doesnt change the fact that you aren't masculine every second of every day, it's just you are more masculine than feminine so you are masculine.


according to what you've said so far, someone can do something for masculine reasons of evolution, whether or not they are aware. and they can deliberately think in masculine terms, whether or not they act it out. and they can choose to act in masculine ways - which you have left open ended to interpretation even though i have tried to pin you down on this one. and those last two matter somehow regarding someone's temperament, but it is all for naught if it doesn't work, because if it doesn't work then it is not masculine after all.


My method of judging the act is on the basis of whether or not it works. I cannot say this basis is essential to judging whether an act is masculine or not. The person is their collection of acts, behaviors and thinking style/personality. It is a fact that there are masculine and feminine personalities, that is not a theory. It's a theory that gender is not mutable. I personally don't think gender is mutable but I cannot prove that, just as you and others cannot prove it is. But I know from life experience that some individuals are more masculine than others and if we don't want to call them masculine we have to label their personality an behavior as something. All I know is people aren't all the same and I think you know that too.





timetraveler added to this post, 2 minutes and 52 seconds later...

This being posted in an INTJ forum, I must state that as an INTJ, I enjoy categories and labels. We categorize ourselves to help define that indefinable thing that is our identity. If no categories existed for gender I think that many individuals would struggle to find how they fit in. We are imitative creatures, and without guidelines as to how we are supposed to act, many would flounder.

This being said, I realize that some find that their gender works against what they feel defines them, whether biologically or socially. In these instances, I believe that the strong social ideals of gender are detrimental and should possibly be somewhat looser.

I do not consider myself to be overly feminine, lacking many of the qualities of the stereotypical female. I think much of this is attributed to my personality, which can be argued both ways as being taught or predetermined.

I believe in an equality between genders to a point. The biological differences between men and women allow for weaknesses and strengths. When it comes down to it, men and women are different and to put them into the same category would be adding disadvantages. If men and women were given equal rights totally nondiscriminatory, certain jobs would still be given to men and certain jobs would still be given to women.
For example: A manual labor construction job would be overwhelmingly likely to be given to a man for the simple fact that men are more muscular and of larger stature.

A simpler example would be a basket of lemons and oranges. If lemonade is needed, the lemon will be picked even if it is in the same basket as oranges, and vise versa.

Gender, while having a significant number of cross-overs, still represents and biological and chemical difference, while other categories, like race, are less biological and more aesthetically defined.

Normally I would agree with you but with steroids and genetic enhancements I can see how sex and gender can be separate. You can boost a womans muscles with steroids and give the job to her. I think temperament is something which cannot be changed with any drugs we know of.

[daydreamer]

I find it exceptionally odd that you wouldn't notice how bizarre it is to use terms whose historic AND current meanings are rooted in sex-based origins in ways to describe temperament where perfectly gender neutral temperament terms like "protector" exist. Further, to claim that these sex based terms have nothing to do with sex (even though every person in the western hemisphere uses them this way) and then assign behaviours to them that don't have any worth because "screaming is masculine, but only if it works" and other exceptions upon exceptions makes no sense. You're like a person that could be using paper/rock/scissors but has decided that rock is actually water, but only on Tuesdays and paper and scissors have nothing to do with office supplies regardless of the obvious similarities in both name and hand signal.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the inherent problems with the idea of using terms that are easily confused to be sex based to describe traits that society values (brave, reacts on thought, pulls a gun rather than becomes hysterical) as masculine and the traits that are relegated to the weak and useless being called feminine? Hey, sounds like a plan to me. While we are at it, can I use the word "juvenile" to describe people who are energetic, vibrant, go getters and "elderly" to describe people who are sluggish, confused and a drain on society? As long as I re-iterate that the terms have nothing to do with age in my opinion and anyone that thinks that it might make people think that older people are "sluggish, confused and a drain on society" is just a meme that we need to overcome, right? Any takers?... I think not.

ha ha ! bravo LP. incidentally, this is why i kept using the word "cocky," but he didn't take the bait. i guess that continues to speak to his view.

timetraveler, i notice you still didn't answer my question about the two women choosing protectors. it doesn't require stats, just rhetoric.

[timetraveler]

I find it exceptionally odd that you wouldn't notice how bizarre it is to use terms whose historic AND current meanings are rooted in sex-based origins in ways to describe temperament where perfectly gender neutral temperament terms like "protector" exist. Further, to claim that these sex based terms have nothing to do with sex (even though every person in the western hemisphere uses them this way) and then assign behaviours to them that don't have any worth because "screaming is masculine, but only if it works" and other exceptions upon exceptions makes no sense. You're like a person that could be using paper/rock/scissors but has decided that rock is actually water, but only on Tuesdays and paper and scissors have nothing to do with office supplies regardless of the obvious similarities in both name and hand signal.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the inherent problems with the idea of using terms that are easily confused to be sex based to describe traits that society values (brave, reacts on thought, pulls a gun rather than becomes hysterical) as masculine and the traits that are relegated to the weak and useless being called feminine? Hey, sounds like a plan to me. While we are at it, can I use the word "juvenile" to describe people who are energetic, vibrant, go getters and "elderly" to describe people who are sluggish, confused and a drain on society? As long as I re-iterate that the terms have nothing to do with age in my opinion and anyone that thinks that it might make people think that older people are "sluggish, confused and a drain on society" is just a meme that we need to overcome, right? Any takers?... I think not.

That is because people can have sex changes. The era of sex not being malleable has ended. Sex is now malleable and so it has to be completely redefined. Gender on the other hand is not yet malleable and should not be redefined. Now that we have transsexuals, unless we are going to get rid of the concept of male and female completely, we have to redefine it and separate it from sex.

As far as exceptions my ideas have been consistent. To use reasonable self defense is masculine. If screaming could be a reasonable self defense and considered a martial arts technique then to use it would be to commit a masculine act.

And while you ask if I see anything wrong with re-using old terms and reusing old concepts, it's best not to reinvent the wheel. Yes I could call them protectors but then I'll have to explain exactly what a protector is. If I say the person is masculine everyone knows what that is and I don't have to go through the process of giving a lecture on what a protector is, should be, and all of that. You all know what a masculine man is.

Also you are wrong if you think feminine traits are weak and useless. A world with all masculine men would be a world where nobody talks, nobody gets along, everyone is out for self. If I want something I kill you and take what I want. Then someone else kills me and takes what I have because they want it. We can't write so theres no laws to govern who owns what. I own only what I can physically protect. My ability to kill decides what I can have in life, if I want something I have to be willing to kill for it. In this world nobody would live to be 40, and probably wouldn't even live to be 20. We'd kill each other and reproduce and each generation would be as dumb, as ignorant, as short sighted as the last.

Feminine individuals aren't weak at all. It's the feminine individuals that created all the higher level thinking based technologies. If you really think that physical strength is more important than language then you really don't understand that if everyone were masculine like that we'd never have made it out of the tribal stage of human history. We would essentially be cave people.

so you take a reasonable, rational woman and you take an emotional whacked out woman, each of them choose male mates to protect them, which one is more masculine? or are neither, since they need protecting. didn't both of them choose to implement a plan of protection? isn't that reasonable?


If the reasonable rational woman is so masculine, why would she need someone to protect her? The masculine woman would be protecting her male mate and her male mate would be nurturing the child. As long as the child is nurtured and protected it doesn't matter who is doing what.

[daydreamer]

The basis from which evolution is considered fact is the same basis from which memetics is considered fact. Explain the difference?


i did. you missed it.


Statistics on temperament can be measured and analyzed and from this process facts can be produced.


scientific method, as you were fond of saying memetics is based on, requires a hypothesis to be tested.


First you use the thread to get a pool of samples. You take that pool of samples and you apply statistics to determine whether or not NT is correlated with masculinity as I have defined it. If they correlate then you have a fact from which to make the case that gender is temperament.


this is not the scientific method. it is a method for arriving at a hypothesis, and then you must conduct a test/experiment if you choose to test that hypothesis. gathering an idea from a pool of samples is observation. interpreting observations is not the same as discovering/observing a fact.


I haven't come on any stronger than anyone else who debates the question.


by asserting that you are more right, you have.


Now if I would have come with statistics proving INTJ's are correlated with the traits I've defined as masculine then you could say I'm coming with a hypothesis. If I came and said X percentage of INTJ's believe the ends justify the means, and therefore we have evidence of the masculinity of INTJ's, that would be coming on strong because I'd be transforming the debate from a rhetorical argument into an actual scientific debate.


presentation of facts does not a debate make. although it is very useful, and sometimes persuasive in its own right.


That is flawed thinking. Both beliefs are invalid until they are backed by facts.


beliefs cannot be objectively validated. what i'm saying is they are valid because they are beliefs. in this way, they cannot be invalidated, and it is valid for someone, anyone, to hold them.


Correct. If you do something and it doesn't work then you don't have any practical strength even if you have strength in theory. I said before that if an individual is defenseless they must be protected by others, and so their social role becomes feminine.


ok so, out of curiosity, is arguing for the sake of arguing, masculine or feminine? is communicating feminine? or is it only feminine if i succeed at communicating with you? or does it depend on if i am defending myself in some way... defending my beliefs is that masculine or feminine? what if i am merely poking holes in your beliefs, is that masculine aggression, maybe even a bad masculine meme, or is it just feminine hysteria looking for an outlet? oh wait, i guess it doesn't matter unless i'm successful...


They could have a masculine mind and produce a feminine act. This is where you are confused.


i'm not confused. i clearly see that you are not making sense. and i clearly see you side-stepping answering difficult questions/inconsistencies i have raised.


My method of judging the act is on the basis of whether or not it works. I cannot say this basis is essential to judging whether an act is masculine or not.


oh but you already did.


The person is their collection of acts, behaviors and thinking style/personality. It is a fact that there are masculine and feminine personalities, that is not a theory.


facts are concrete and observable. you can't even figure out if anyone is masculine or feminine when pressed to. so please explain how this is a fact? the fact that you have a lot of rationalization behind what you're saying does not a fact make it. rationalization does not prove truth, correctness, or factual-ness.


But I know from life experience that some individuals are more masculine than others


your assessment of masculinity is subjective, as is anyone's.


All I know is people aren't all the same and I think you know that too.


agreed. reducing them to masculine and feminine as if that is the most important difference and as if that has huge implications regarding the totality of their other behaviors is absurd.


I think temperament is something which cannot be changed with any drugs we know of.

you underestimate the power of drugs, chemicals, and hormones.





daydreamer added to this post, 3 minutes and 56 seconds later...


If the reasonable rational woman is so masculine, why would she need someone to protect her?

i never said the rational woman was masculine, that is your claim, based on the fact that she is rational.

but so rational equates with physical strength? and/or owning a gun for personal protection? or what?

edit: btw, still did not answer the question i posed.

[Prunesquallor]

Because your gender is based on ability. If you don't have the ability then you aren't the gender. Btw what technology are you talking about in specific?

Is it really gender neutral? I don't think so. I think most INTJ's are masculine.

If you aren't able to do the role then you don't have the ability and should not be assigned that gender. How complicated is it?

None of them are taking human nature into account. Protector and nurturer are human nature and it's not going to change no matter what you call these categories. The nature of humanity does not change. You think all these masculine and feminine people will cease to exist just because you get rid of the words masculine and feminine? Of course they will still exist and they'll still have the same exact behavior patterns too. So what are you changing except for the words to describe their behavior?

Prove that the words describe that behaviour to anyone but you, prove that these behaviours in these two roles are the only ways of seeing humanity, prove, in fact, that your theory actually reflects human nature in any way shape or form, prove any of your statements and then you have something.

There are plenty of books which describe human nature. I suggest you do some research on human aggression and killer ape theory. This would give you at least an understanding of human nature from which to base your postgender theories. Once you understand that man is violent by nature, aggressive by nature, a killer by nature and a predator by nature, then you will understand why we need protectors and nurturers.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

According to Killer Ape theory, which explains how war may have begun, and why man is violent, we have excerpts from Robert Ardrey, the founder of Killer Ape theory.
# Man is a predator whose natural instinct is to kill with a weapon. (316)


1. On Aggression
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2. African Genesis(Killer Ape Theory)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

3. Killer Ape Theory
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

4. Might is Right Ragnar Redbeard
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(You can read Might is Right here -> To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

5. The Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't have to accept any of these worldviews. You just have to be aware that the killer instinct and predatory instinct are a part of human nature. If you are aware these instincts are a part of human nature then you will be aware that there will always be a need to protect yourself from human nature. There will always be somebody somewhere who wants to victimize you or someone you care about.

Yes, there are jerks and criminals...none of this negates the possibility for self-sufficiency. The only people who perhaps genuinely cannot are children, invalids, people with serious physical disabilities - women and people who are "feminine" are perfectly capable of defending themselves or attacing other people. Even some children, invalids, etc...the existence of a threat does not prove that your particular way of reacting to it and organising society in response to it are valid or necessary. You have still proven nothing whatsoever of what you claim.

So there's some danger - nothing anybody denied. You have to prove that there is sufficient danger to warp society around it, that it does so, and that it warps society in the particular patterns you believe in.

Community organizing and protesting never protected anyone as far as I'm concerned. What protects you are men with guns willing to shoot to kill if necessary to protect you. What protects you are the laws and law enforcement. What protects you is the money you have to move out of the dangerous environments. If you think communication can protect you this is a perfect example of the feminine mentality. Predators cannot be reasoned with, they don't have remorse or sympathy and will take whatever they want from whomever without any regard for how the victim feels. Yes I believe feminine individuals are better communicators and if the situation enters a stage where negotiation and communication is allowed then these individuals would be useful. I also think feminine individuals make good protesters and activists, but when it gets bloody and people start dying, then different types of skills are required and as the situation becomes more dangerous the level of masculinity must increase. This means you'll need first aid people to save lives, doctors, you'll need both masculine individuals who can rescue people, and remove bullets, and masculine individuals who can shoot bullets back.

And lets say there is a scale of masculine to feminine, what happens is the individuals who are one one side of the extreme are the individuals who excel at tasks which require the traits they happen to have. So if the situation becomes a warzone where people being bombed and killed like in Iraq or Vietnam then the people at the far end of the masculine extreme will do well in this environment. The feminine individuals wont be able to do well in this environment and will not function well. The opposite extreme is when you put the masculine war heroes into the environment which doesn't require any of their traits. Now they don't do so well in this environment, and those who have the feminine minds do better.

"As far as I'm concerned" isn't proof. You've aready shown how biased you are and how unwilling to give genuine evidence. Your personal opinions are worth nothing until you can back them up.

Also, you are wrong.

There are great negotiators who seriously reduce the dead and dying; on occasions, they prevent it. Not all of them are backed up by nuclear weapons and guns guns guns. You need to get out more. And is first aid not "nurturing" in your warped system? Consistency seems to be a problem here. A minor one, among much larger ones, but still...

Americans are obsessive about guns. Having guns doesn't make you safe. Guns provide the illusion of safety for psychological benefit only. America is not a safe place because the economy is unstable and in America for the right price or incentives anybody can be killed. As a result nobody is safe.

I agree, with some reservations. And? Proves nothing of your points.

Read the books I have read. Do the research and then come back here and comment. Read Might is Right, and download it into your Kindle along with Killer Ape theory. If this is not enough I have more books for you and can send you a list of them in private.

Screw that. I'll read science, not demagoguery. You know, stuff with evidence. You are the one who needs to do research.

Someone agreeing with you isn't proof. It isn't evidence. You need rather more than that.

(also Kindle=ew)

I never said mothers aren't killers. I never said sex had anything to do with who is what. I said there are predators and protectors. There are nurturers who think a lot like you do and who think communication and protest can protect them from crimes and from being attacked. Communication only works on people who aren't heartless.

a) Threats work on heartless people. b) I am not remotely a nurterer. c) The terms "masculine" and "feminine" are inherantly related to sex, or cannot you read? I posted the definitions some time ago.

You believe it's not a major concern because you believe the law enforcement officers with guns are there to protect you. You don't believe the cops could be paid off to rob or victimize you. You believe that the world is just, that no one wants to hurt you. Honestly I don't think you know how the world really is but this is what you probably believe and so you think it's safe. And when you do see danger you think it's from the bad side of town right? Its everywhere, your neighbor could be plotting to kill you and you'd have no way of knowing.

No, that's not even close to my reasons. Stop mindlessly stereotyping. I know it because I live here, because I know the statistics. I know the real risk, not the Fox News version. And I have a pretty clear idea of the bigger concerns and issues in society that have a stronger effect on culture. Fear isn't everything.

I offered evidence that I've done my research before making posts on this subject. I've read more than half a dozen books on this subject, four of which I've posted. Not every book I've read is gloomy as some of the books I've read look at the constructive side of human nature. I believe as a philosophy to get the true picture you have to look at all sides of human nature to properly form any diagnosis .

What I see far too often is that feminine individuals, individuals who I classify as feminine based on how their mind works, perceive of the world in which they are safe. They don't see predators everywhere. They don't see that the guy trying to sell them something is a dishonest con artist. They don't realize they are by their very thinking and behavior setting themselves up to be the next victim. Some feminine minded individuals believe that all humans are good by nature and that we can all coexist in peace if we just talk it out or change our attitudes.

The truth is that some people just don't care. They don't care about you, me, or themselves. They will rape, murder, rob and enslave as many people as they can until someone stops them. No you can't talk them out of it, and no you cannot make them stop hating you. The only thing you can do is either see the world for how it is and humanity for what we are, or let someone else deal with it.

Six books? I can't say I'm surprised it's so little. Was at least one of them science? Like, with experiments and things? Citations? Evidence?

Again, the fact that people who are assholes exist does not necessarily divide the world into "protector" and "protected" along traditional gender role lines, which is the point you need to prove - you cannot, since it's untrue, but you could at least try. Bring some bloody evidence or stop talking.

Dude, you are welcome to interpret society in your own little way free of that inconvenient evidence stuff - just don't expect to convince anyone.

[Tyrant Soup]

Timetraveler, if you want to use feminine and masculine instead of nurturer and protector, then go ahead. But your nomenclature is less accurate since it makes outdated associations.

[timetraveler]

The case of David Reimer
David Reimer (August 22, 1965 as Bruce Reimer – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man who was born as a healthy boy, but was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was accidentally destroyed during circumcision. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful, and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer never identified as female, and that he began living as male at age 14. Reimer later went public with his story to discourage similar medical practices. He committed suicide at the age of 38. Taken from Wikipedia
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The David Reimer case is proof that gender is not malleable. If Gender were malleable it would not have led to the results which are presented by this case. This case is an example of how John Money (one of the men behind postgenderism) is wrong. It's proof that the theory of postgenderism is fundamentally flawed.

Further evidence can be seen by actually examining the brains of male and female humans using FMRI. According to these tests the male and female brains are wired differently. Women have on average a larger limbic system and this is the system which is the home of emotions. This means the average woman feels emotions entirely differently from how men feel emotions.
Furthermore a womans brain has a larger corpus callosum, this connects the right and left hemisphere.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And theres proof that gender and sex are separate. Gay males according to recent brainscan measurements are shown to think like women. Science Daily shows that gay males use the same mechanism for navigation that women use. This is a fundamental difference in spatial learning. Dr Rahman used virtual reality stimulations of two common tests of spatial learning and memory, designed by researchers at Yale University. In the Morris Water Maze test (MWM), participants found themselves in a virtual pool and had to escape as quickly as possible using spatial clues in the virtual room to find a hidden platform. In the Radial Arm Maze test (RAM), participants had to traverse eight ‘arms’ from a circular junction to find hidden rewards. Four of the arms contained a reward, four did not.

Dr Rahman and his research assistant, Johanna Koerting, found that during the MWM test gay men and straight women took longer to find the hidden platform than did straight men. However, both gay and straight men spent more of their “dwelling time” in the area where the hidden platform actually was, compared to straight and lesbian women.
Dr Rahman explains: “Not only did straight men get started on the MWM test more quickly than gay men and the two female groups, they also maintained that advantage throughout the test. This might mean that sexual orientation affects the speed at which you acquire spatial information, but not necessarily your eventual memory for that spatial information.
Taken from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



The most scientifically accurate way to determine gender(masculinity/femininity) would be by brainscan. And we can answer the question of whether or not gender is mutable by conducting a brainscan every year to see if there are any changes. If there are changes to the functioning of the brain as measured by various tests, and as measured by viewing their response to certain emotionally charged images, we can accurately determine how their brain functions.


Timetraveler, if you want to use feminine and masculine instead of nurturer and protector, then go ahead. But your nomenclature is less accurate since it makes outdated associations.

My associations are more accurate than to have no associations at all. If you have no associations thats less accurate because there are actual differences between brains. These differences make up the genders. It has to do with how their brains process information, as all behavior is a result of activity in the brain. A masculine individuals brain would display less activity in certain situations and more activity in others. This is because a masculine individual processes emotions entirely differently and this has been shown through FMRI which reveals the difference is size and in wiring of the emotion section of the masculine brain.

Six books? I can't say I'm surprised it's so little. Was at least one of them science? Like, with experiments and things? Citations? Evidence?

I said at least six, not approximately six. It's a fact that there are differences in the structure of the human brain associated with sex. These differences in structure are not entirely defined by sex so I wont say they are sexual differences, but there are differences. These differences in the brain determine how the individual will respond to stress and to situations, a perfect example would be to look at the brain of an individual who has panic attacks. This individuals brain if you scan it will function completely different from the brain of an individual who never has panic attacks. The same differences can be found in all sorts of other areas and these differences in brain function will ultimately determine gender.

You cannot teach a person to stop having panic attacks, you can only teach them how to cope and control the attacks when they have them. It's like how you cannot teach a person to feel a new emotion they've never felt. A human is born with a certain set of emotional capabilities hardwired in at birth and as they get older their emotions either become more intense or they numb out. Once again all of this would be visible on an FMRI because the brain areas associated with certain emotions will light up if they feel it.

So if men and women really do feel emotions differently it's going to be clear for the world to see through FMRI. So why even try believing that we will be beyond gender? Yes you can label everything as mental disorders but why should we make it more complicated? It's not like that makes it any better. Yes you can say masculine and feminine are a collection of mental disorders and this too would be scientifically accurate, but it would be replacing one kind of descriptor which is neutral with another kind of descriptor which is negative. Any "disorder" is going to be viewed as negative.

We could create a spectrum of masculinity to femininity, that is my idea. We would measure the brain activity of adults as part of a routine brain checkup by their doctor. Their doctor will determine the health and gender of their brain. The doctor will then show the patient images of their brain, maybe recommend some books for individuals who have the same brain type they have... but I favor keeping the masculine-->feminine scale because it's simple enough for everyone to understand. If we make brain science too complicated then the only people who will understand it will be the scientists and thats not good for society as a whole.

[firebee]

timetraveler, you have said with regard to these varying traits that you discuss:

These traits lack a definitive connection to the physical gender characteristics of the individual.
Any given person can have a mixture of traits from either of these lists.
People should act according to the traits that they have rather than those assigned to them as a consequence of their genitals or chromosomes.


Given this, I don't see the difference between you and a Dread Postgenderist aside from your desire to paint everything pink and blue. Where is the advantage in calling a Sensor "male" and an iNtuitive "female", for instance, when we already have perfectly cromulent names for those concepts that don't introduce confusion as to whether we're referencing "person with a beard" or "person who values concrete data over abstract thought"?

[timetraveler]

timetraveler, you have said with regard to these varying traits that you discuss:

These traits lack a definitive connection to the physical gender characteristics of the individual.
Any given person can have a mixture of traits from either of these lists.
People should act according to the traits that they have rather than those assigned to them as a consequence of their genitals or chromosomes.


Given this, I don't see the difference between you and a Dread Postgenderist aside from your desire to paint everything pink and blue. Where is the advantage in calling a Sensor "male" and an iNtuitive "female", for instance, when we already have perfectly cromulent names for those concepts that don't introduce confusion as to whether we're referencing "person with a beard" or "person who values concrete data over abstract thought"?

The difference between my views and that of the postgenderist is that the postgenderist does not believe in gender categories/gender roles. I believe in gender categories and gender roles. I do not think society can function without these categories and labels. I do agree with post genderists that "sex"and "gender" are separate but I disagree with postgenderists on the malleability of gender. I believe gender ultimately is determined by the brain and if the brain truly were so malleable we'd have not only be able to determine gender using drugs but we'd also be able to cure all forms of mental illness using those same drugs. The fact that we cannot cure mental illness is proof that we cannot create or transmute a male into a female, or a female into a male. An individual is whatever their brain says they are and they cannot change that.

On the difference between sensors and intuitive, that is merely the difference in how the information is gathered and processed. In a lot of situations it's going to be less masculine to be a sensor, or more masculine. So I wouldn't say it's entirely based upon whether or not one is a sensor. As for my personal belief you have it backwards, I believe the sensor is female and the intuitive is male. But this is up for debate because I haven't conducted any tests to back it up.

As for using terms like INTJ, it's not like everyone knows what that means so how am I supposed to communicate with everyone if I'm using terms nobody knows? Since more people know masculine and feminine than these other terms it's a lot easier to expand upon or redefine the already known terms. It would take generations to teach all the new science and new terms t people. You think most people even know about FMRI or what FMRI means?

"person who values concrete data over abstract thought"?

Once again you have my position backwards. A person who values concrete data over abstract thought will not be applying reason. Reason is based on abstract thought, understanding patterns etc. If an individual only has value for concrete data they wont be an efficient protector. To be a protector you have to see threats which aren't always obvious and a perfect example could be to live in the jungle, like the show survivor.

If we are all in the jungle and you have one tribe which is lead by people who only see the concrete data, you know they see the bright colored frog and they don't touch it because of some primordial fear of bright colored frogs. Or they see a snake and they wont touch it because of some primordial fear of snakes. Yes this individual is functioning in the here and now but they aren't relying on previous experiences to determine what the future might be like. What I said is that women created languages and symbols to allow individuals to communicate and that this communication trait is feminine. I also said that the traditional role of the male is that of protector. The trait which allows man to conquer the environment comes from intuition and reason not sensory. To tame and control the environment is to apply the NT function and this is what I association with manhood. The man is the one who controls the situations, the environment, and keeps it safe.

Now I could be wrong and we can debate this but thats my current view.

[firebee]

The difference between my views and that of the postgenderist is that the postgenderist does not believe in gender categories/gender roles. I believe in gender categories and gender roles.

Again, you seem to be insisting that these categories be tied to gender. How does this not introduce a connection to one's genital, genetic, or social gender that you yourself claim is not valid? Why is it so ever-loving important, for instance, to refer to the archetype of "Warrior" -- a concept which is commonly used in our culture and readily grasped by most people -- as "male person"?

I am somewhat gender-fluid, but I identify as female. Everyone who knows me well and a reasonable proportion of people who look at me say that I am a female person. My driver's license says that I am a female person. If you hold up a definition of the "male role" and the "female role", most people are going to say "Well, firebee is female, and hence would be best suited for the female role." If this is not the position that you are trying to convey, how is your use of the terms "male" and "female" not incredibly confusing to the naive listener?

As for my personal belief you have it backwards, I believe the sensor is female and the intuitive is male. But this is up for debate because I haven't conducted any tests to back it up.


Since more people know masculine and feminine than these other terms it's a lot easier to expand upon or redefine the already known terms.

They have heard the word-sounds before, but as indicated immediately above, that does not necessarily mean that they have the correct idea associated with the noise in question. If anything, using an unfamiliar and incredibly obscure word like "protector" to refer to a "person who protects" might prompt a person to ask for clarification or look up a definition rather than apply their incorrect understanding of the term.

[Prunesquallor]

The case of David Reimer

The David Reimer case is proof that gender is not malleable. If Gender were malleable it would not have led to the results which are presented by this case. This case is an example of how John Money (one of the men behind postgenderism) is wrong. It's proof that the theory of postgenderism is fundamentally flawed.

Further evidence can be seen by actually examining the brains of male and female humans using FMRI. According to these tests the male and female brains are wired differently. Women have on average a larger limbic system and this is the system which is the home of emotions. This means the average woman feels emotions entirely differently from how men feel emotions.
Furthermore a womans brain has a larger corpus callosum, this connects the right and left hemisphere.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And theres proof that gender and sex are separate. Gay males according to recent brainscan measurements are shown to think like women. Science Daily shows that gay males use the same mechanism for navigation that women use. This is a fundamental difference in spatial learning.

The most scientifically accurate way to determine gender(masculinity/femininity) would be by brainscan. And we can answer the question of whether or not gender is mutable by conducting a brainscan every year to see if there are any changes. If there are changes to the functioning of the brain as measured by various tests, and as measured by viewing their response to certain emotionally charged images, we can accurately determine how their brain functions.

First you say there are differences between male and female brains, then you say you have "proven" that sex does not matter re gender. You honestly don't se the inconsistency here? Plus, link any sex differences in brains to the actual traits you are talking about.

I said at least six, not approximately six. It's a fact that there are differences in the structure of the human brain associated with sex. These differences in structure are not entirely defined by sex so I wont say they are sexual differences, but there are differences. These differences in the brain determine how the individual will respond to stress and to situations, a perfect example would be to look at the brain of an individual who has panic attacks. This individuals brain if you scan it will function completely different from the brain of an individual who never has panic attacks. The same differences can be found in all sorts of other areas and these differences in brain function will ultimately determine gender.

You cannot teach a person to stop having panic attacks, you can only teach them how to cope and control the attacks when they have them. It's like how you cannot teach a person to feel a new emotion they've never felt. A human is born with a certain set of emotional capabilities hardwired in at birth and as they get older their emotions either become more intense or they numb out. Once again all of this would be visible on an FMRI because the brain areas associated with certain emotions will light up if they feel it.

So if men and women really do feel emotions differently it's going to be clear for the world to see through FMRI. So why even try believing that we will be beyond gender? Yes you can label everything as mental disorders but why should we make it more complicated? It's not like that makes it any better. Yes you can say masculine and feminine are a collection of mental disorders and this too would be scientifically accurate, but it would be replacing one kind of descriptor which is neutral with another kind of descriptor which is negative. Any "disorder" is going to be viewed as negative.

We could create a spectrum of masculinity to femininity, that is my idea. We would measure the brain activity of adults as part of a routine brain checkup by their doctor. Their doctor will determine the health and gender of their brain. The doctor will then show the patient images of their brain, maybe recommend some books for individuals who have the same brain type they have... but I favor keeping the masculine-->feminine scale because it's simple enough for everyone to understand. If we make brain science too complicated then the only people who will understand it will be the scientists and thats not good for society as a whole.

Try thirty. Six is for amateurs. Close to six is for amateurs. Especially given the calibre of what you're reading.

Again, first you deny the connection of sex to your personal view of gender, then you cite sex differences in brains to "prove" your "point."

You see your problem?

[timetraveler]

Again, you seem to be insisting that these categories be tied to gender. How does this not introduce a connection to one's genital, genetic, or social gender that you yourself claim is not valid? Why is it so ever-loving important, for instance, to refer to the archetype of "Warrior" -- a concept which is commonly used in our culture and readily grasped by most people -- as "male person"?


Not all masculine individuals are "warriors." A warrior is not a profession it's a calling, and a warrior doesn't necessarily have to save lives. A "doctor" is masculine, and they serve as a protector also. So no I don't advocate labeling all males as warriors. I also don't think an individual has to be masculine to be a warrior. A suicide bomber can be feminine, blow themselves up and still be a holy warrior.



I am somewhat gender-fluid, but I identify as female. Everyone who knows me well and a reasonable proportion of people who look at me say that I am a female person. My driver's license says that I am a female person.

You aren't gender fluid. You are a masculine female pure and simple.


If you hold up a definition of the "male role" and the "female role", most people are going to say "Well, firebee is female, and hence would be best suited for the female role." If this is not the position that you are trying to convey, how is your use of the terms "male" and "female" not incredibly confusing to the naive listener?


Most people don't accept transsexuals. Most people don't accept gay marriage. If we are going to let most people define who is male and who is female we will remain exactly as we are with the status quo forever. Is this what you want? If you don't want this then it's up to you to redefine the genders to something more progressive and accurate according to neuroscience.


They have heard the word-sounds before, but as indicated immediately above, that does not necessarily mean that they have the correct idea associated with the noise in question. If anything, using an unfamiliar and incredibly obscure word like "protector" to refer to a "person who protects" might prompt a person to ask for clarification or look up a definition rather than apply their incorrect understanding of the term.


You over estimate the intelligence of the masses. If the masses were so smart we wouldn't have to put so much effort into teaching manhood and womanhood. If you continue to physically define man and woman then anybody no matter who they are would be considered a real man/woman. This would include men who beat up women and or abuse children. I don't consider them to be masculine men. But if we follow your definition, if they have a penis they are a man and I'm supposed to accept them as part of my gender?

Gender status has to be earned.


First you say there are differences between male and female brains, then you say you have "proven" that sex does not matter re gender. You honestly don't se the inconsistency here? Plus, link any sex differences in brains to the actual traits you are talking about.


Sex does not determine gender. Correlation is not causation. As far as the link between traits and the brain differences, the processing of emotions is one of the key differences which would influence traits. The differences in the communications portion of the brain would also provide evidence for my theory that the communications and language traits are feminine traits.


Try thirty. Six is for amateurs. Close to six is for amateurs. Especially given the calibre of what you're reading.

Again, first you deny the connection of sex to your personal view of gender, then you cite sex differences in brains to "prove" your "point."

You see your problem?

I've read lots of books but as for how many books an individual would need to read to debate this topic I'd say at least six. I did not say approximately six or at most six. It also depends on which books they read which is more important than how many. You've read books but you probably haven't read any of the six books I've presented, which is why I presented those books with the purpose of edifying you on human nature. Finally sex is correlated with gender, it does not cause gender.

[firebee]

You aren't gender fluid. You are a masculine female pure and simple.


It is fortunate that I have you to tell me what I am and am not. I don't know where I would be otherwise.

Do you have any intention of addressing the issue I raised, namely that labeling a behavior as "male" or "female" is bound to clash with the way that everyone but you uses those words?

[Prunesquallor]

Sex does not determine gender. Correlation is not causation. As far as the link between traits and the brain differences, the processing of emotions is one of the key differences which would influence traits. The differences in the communications portion of the brain would also provide evidence for my theory that the communications and language traits are feminine traits.

If sex does not determine gender, indeed if they are completely unrelated as you have claimed, then sex differences in brain chemistry bear no relevance to your claims about gender.

Logic 101.

I've read lots of books but as for how many books an individual would need to read to debate this topic I'd say at least six. I did not say approximately six or at most six. It also depends on which books they read which is more important than how many. You've read books but you probably haven't read any of the six books I've presented, which is why I presented those books with the purpose of edifying you on human nature.

Edifying???? *laughs*
See, I read science, not trash. And if these books are what have given you your joke of a theory, I'm not missing out.
And six books like the ones you're pushing amounts to less than nothing. Six is a pipsqueak number anyway.

[daydreamer]

The difference between my views and that of the postgenderist is that the postgenderist does not believe in gender categories/gender roles.

false. postgenderists believe in gender roles. they are a loosely defined bunch and they do not all agree on every aspect, but they do agree that gender roles exist. the aim of most postgenderists is to preserve and advance the best of each gender role, regardless of sex. you yourself said each person can be either gender regardless of sex... and that each person is a combination. postgenderists believe the same.

[timetraveler]

If sex does not determine gender, indeed if they are completely unrelated as you have claimed, then sex differences in brain chemistry bear no relevance to your claims about gender.

Logic 101.


Sex and gender are correlated. Sex does not cause gender. Correlation is hard scientific evidence of a link between sex and gender, but it does not explain what the cause of gender is. In order to know whether or not gender is malleable we must understand the cause of it and the cause appears to be wiring in the brain.


Edifying???? *laughs*
See, I read science, not trash. And if these books are what have given you your joke of a theory, I'm not missing out.
And six books like the one's you're pushing amounts to less than nothing. Six is a pipsqueak number anyway.

We are discussing science right now when we discuss the correlation between sex and gender. You have confused correlation with causation which is a common error. Just because sex is correlated with gender it does not mean sex causes gender. I stand by my statement that gender is independent from sex.





timetraveler added to this post, 5 minutes and 36 seconds later...

false. postgenderists believe in gender roles. they are a loosely defined bunch and they do not all agree on every aspect, but they do agree that gender roles exist. the aim of most postgenderists is to preserve and advance the best of each gender role, regardless of sex. you yourself said each person can be either gender regardless of sex... and that each person is a combination. postgenderists believe the same.


Straight from WIKIPEDIA
Postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies.[1]

Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and cogno-physical disparities and differences are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either become obsolete, or that all post-gendered humans will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and father a child, which, postgenderists believe, would have the effect of eliminating the need for definite genders in such a society.[1]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Straight from WIKIPEDIA
A gender role is defined as a set of perceived behavioral norms associated particularly with males or females, in a given social group or system. It can be a form of division of labour by gender. It is a focus of analysis in the social sciences and humanities. Gender is one component of the gender/sex system, which refers to "The set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed needs are satisfied" (Reiter 1975: 159). Almost all societies, to a certain effect, have a gender/sex system, although the components and workings of this system vary markedly from society to society.

Gender refers to an individual's "psychological type". It is acquired through experience. An individual can be viewed as either masculine or feminine. Gender role refers to the attitudes and behaviors that class a person's stereotypical identity, e.g. To associate oneself as either masculine or feminine is identifying with gender.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Yet you are still convinced that nobody sees gender the way I'm describing even when Wikipedia is saying the same thing.

[daydreamer]

also straight from wiki:

"Postgenderists are not exclusively advocates of androgyny, although most believe that a “mixing” of both masculine and feminine traits is desirable – essentially the creation of androgynous individuals who exhibit the best of what males and females have to offer in terms of physical and psychological abilities and proclivities. Just what these traits are exactly is a matter of great debate and conjecture."

the term postgenderism is broad. really broad. you're trying to make it sound like a united front. it isn't.

[Prunesquallor]

Sex and gender are correlated. Sex does not cause gender. Correlation is hard scientific evidence of a link between sex and gender, but it does not explain what the cause of gender is. In order to know whether or not gender is malleable we must understand the cause of it and the cause appears to be wiring in the brain.

So you retract your statement, then, that sex has nothing to do with gender. Good, because that was foolishness. Thanks. Moving on...
Now we can discuss, say, how within-group variation is greater than between-group variation, how gay or lesbian people do not have homogenous personalities, so if it's down to hormones as you have argued, the fact that not all gay men are "feminine" in behaviour trashes some of your arguments, how these studies rarely if ever eliminate all sociocultural factors, how many of these studies are tiny sample sizes, how there are people who fit into neither gender, in physical structure or in behaviour, how none of the studies are linked to gun usage or an inability to defend oneself or most of the ways you claim gender manifests itself....

We are discussing science right now when we discuss the correlation between sex and gender. You have confused correlation with causation which is a common error. Just because sex is correlated with gender it does not mean sex causes gender. I stand by my statement that gender is independent from sex.

We are discussing science that was already brought up by competent people, none of which supports your points. I actually know what correlation and causation is, I just remember the stuff that you wrote before that you are now contradicting.
There are differences between the sexes. The hormones are after all different. Many or most differences are overstated or misinterpreted to be absolute or near-absolute rules. I don't know of any that are linked to specific behaviours - maybe Nemesis does, he seems to know what he's talking about. The term gender, however, is derived from the behaviour of the different sexes. It is based on social observation and expectations, not science, and as such, most of the activities people associate with the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are based on behaviour determined by social expectations and thus are not inbuilt. In many cases, there is nothing in the brain's structure that would necessitate this behaviour, it is not reducible this way; instead this behaviour and the associated skills are rewarded socially when they fit the desired role and not otherwise. This will affect the growth of a person, their brain development, etc. but cannot override temperament and personality factors such as extraversion, neuroticism - all of the personality factors that have some genuine science behind them. But since most, indeed all of these personality factors are seen in both men and women, it looks pretty clear that they are independent of the sex - possibly affected slightly by hormones like estrogen and testosterone, though I'd like to see proof, but the fundamentals of personality are gender-neutral. And then, once a person is born, they are programmed by a (maybe)well-meaning, but narrow-inded society that prefers nice clear boundaries to letting people act as is most natural to them.

[timetraveler]

So you retract your statement, then, that sex has nothing to do with gender. Good, because that was foolishness. Thanks. Moving on...
Now we can discuss, say, how within-group variation is greater than between-group variation, how gay or lesbian people do not have homogenous personalities, so if it's down to hormones as you have argued, the fact that not all gay men are "feminine" in behaviour trashes some of your arguments, how these studies rarely if ever eliminate all sociocultural factors, how many of these studies are tiny sample sizes, how there are people who fit into neither gender, in physical structure or in behaviour, how none of the studies are linked to gun usage or an inability to defend oneself or most of the ways you claim gender manifests itself....



We are discussing science that was already brought up by competent people, none of which supports your points. I actually know what correlation and causation is, I just remember the stuff that you wrote before that you are now contradicting.
There are differences between the sexes. The hormones are after all different. Many or most differences are overstated or misinterpreted to be absolute or near-absolute rules. I don't know of any that are linked to specific behaviours - maybe Nemesis does, he seems to know what he's talking about. The term gender, however, is derived from the behaviour of the different sexes. It is based on social observation and expectations, not science, and as such, most of the activities people associate with the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are based on behaviour determined by social expectations and thus are not inbuilt. In many cases, there is nothing in the brain's structure that would necessitate this behaviour, it is not reducible this way; instead this behaviour and the associated skills are rewarded socially when they fit the desired role and not otherwise. This will affect the growth of a person, their brain development, etc. but cannot override temperament and personality factors such as extraversion, neuroticism - all of the personality factors that have some genuine science behind them. But since most, indeed all of these personality factors are seen in both men and women, it looks pretty clear that they are independent of the sex - possibly affected slightly by hormones like estrogen and testosterone, though I'd like to see proof, but the fundamentals of personality are gender-neutral. And then, once a person is born, they are programmed by a (maybe)well-meaning, but narrow-inded society that prefers nice clear boundaries to letting people act as is most natural to them.



What you exclude from your argument is the fact that sex can be changed. That means while gender is a constant, sex is a variable which is malleable. This changes the meaning and interpretation of the correlation between sex and gender. If there is any link between sex and gender then gender would cause sex and not the other way around. Gay and Straight aren't genders but are sexual orientations. Sexual orientation was included as a variable because if gender is not determined by sex it also isn't going to be determined by sexual orientation.

By showing that there is a correlation we have just enough information to help determine the cause of gender. We can see that the cause of gender is associated with physical differences in the brain. This has nothing to do with hormones, where did you get hormones from? This has nothing to do with "chemicals" because there is no hard evidence that there are chemical differences between brains. What we see is there are physical differences and differences in how brains are wired.

My studies don't link to gun usage but there may be studies which reveal how brains respond to stress and this would be key to determining how an individual might react when in stressful situations. The individual who has a certain genetic profile will adapt to stress different from the person who has panic attacks. There are studies that prove that there is a warrior gene called monoamine oxidase A.A version of the primate monoamine oxidase-A gene has been referred to as the warrior gene. Several different versions of the gene are found in different individuals, although a functional gene is present in most humans (with the exception of a few individuals with Brunner syndrome).[16] The genotype associated with behavioural traits is shorter (30 bases) and may produce less MAO-A enzyme.[17] This gene variation is in a regulatory promoter region about 1000 bases from the start of the region that encodes the MAO-A enzyme. However, behaviour is dependent on both genes and the environment.[14] Taken From To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

MORE

Boys who have a so-called "warrior gene" are more likely to join gangs and also more likely to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, a new study finds.

"While gangs typically have been regarded as a sociological phenomenon, our investigation shows that variants of a specific MAOA gene, known as a 'low-activity 3-repeat allele,' play a significant role," said biosocial criminologist Kevin M. Beaver of Florida State University.

In 2006, the controversial warrior gene was implicated in the violence of the indigenous Maori people in New Zealand, a claim that Maori leaders dismissed.

But it's no surprise that genes would be involved in aggression. Aggression is a primal emotion like many others, experts say, and like cooperation, it is part of human nature, something that's passed down genetically. And almost all mammals are aggressive in some way or another, said Craig Kennedy, professor of special education and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, whose research last year suggested that humans crave violence just like they do sex, food or drugs. Taken from Live Science To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



So we do know there are clear genetic differences which influence temperament and brain development. The warrior gene does not necessarily mean an individual is going to be a warrior and the title of the gene is just being used for marketing purposes. What that gene shows is that certain individuals are more likely to use violence or join gangs when in a dangerous environment. This is a gene which promotes a certain response to a certain environment or specific situation. If this gene exists there probably is also a gene which promotes panic attack behavior and other responses. The environment does play a role, genes do play a role, temperament is influenced by both genes and the environment. If you don't have the right genes you won't become masculine in behavior.

I don't think it's any specific gene that makes a person masculine or feminine but it's a collection of genes which you are activated both when you are a baby and by the environment. The environment can act as a trigger to bring out your masculine or feminine side so if you grow up in an unsafe environment or get bullied as a child you might have genes activated in response to provocation which turns you much more masculine than you ever would have been prior to provocation. On the other hand if you grow up in a safe environment while you might have the genes to be violent, because you were never really provoked these genes never fully express and activate themselves. So environment does play a role but for the most part it's genes.

[Prunesquallor]

What you exclude from your argument is the fact that sex can be changed. That means while gender is a constant, sex is a variable which is malleable. This changes the meaning and interpretation of the correlation between sex and gender. If there is any link between sex and gender then gender would cause sex and not the other way around. Gay and Straight aren't genders but are sexual orientations. Sexual orientation was included as a variable because if gender is not determined by sex it also isn't going to be determined by sexual orientation.

By showing that there is a correlation we have just enough information to help determine the cause of gender. We can see that the cause of gender is associated with physical differences in the brain. This has nothing to do with hormones, where did you get hormones from? This has nothing to do with "chemicals" because there is no hard evidence that there are chemical differences between brains. What we see is there are physical differences and differences in how brains are wired.

My studies don't link to gun usage but there may be studies which reveal how brains respond to stress and this would be key to determining how an individual might react when in stressful situations. The individual who has a certain genetic profile will adapt to stress different from the person who has panic attacks. There are studies that prove that there is a warrior gene called monoamine oxidase A.

The fact that sex can (very occasionally) be changed does not affect the definitions of the words "masculine" and "feminine."

Gender does not cause sex. :suspicious: That is clearly lunacy.

Hormones change the brain, and they are the most obvious differences if we are talking about gender. Physical differences can be cause by habit. You get trained to use a particular finger in an act repeatedly repeatedly - hey presto, more connections to that finger in the brain. Hence, sociocultural factors cannot be eliminated. Also physical differences in brains: low sample size, more within-group than between-group variations, etc. Practically none of this has been proven. It is collected as beginning evidence that may or may not turn out to be misleading once more data comes in. A study or two with thirty people is an advancement of knowledge, but does not prove much, if anything, about all of humanity.

You still haven't responded to most of my points, but I understand you cannot.

So we do know there are clear genetic differences which influence temperament and brain development.

We know this, and competent people have said this already.
There are genetic factors distantly influencing behaviour, yes. None of this has anything to do with gender as you define it. The conclusions you are drawing are erroneous or way overstated.

The warrior gene does not necessarily mean an individual is going to be a warrior and the title of the gene is just being used for marketing purposes. What that gene shows is that certain individuals are more likely to use violence or join gangs when in a dangerous environment. This is a gene which promotes a certain response to a certain environment or specific situation. If this gene exists there probably is also a gene which promotes panic attack behavior and other responses. The environment does play a role, genes do play a role, temperament is influenced by both genes and the environment. If you don't have the right genes you won't become masculine in behavior.

I don't think it's any specific gene that makes a person masculine or feminine but it's a collection of genes which you are activated both when you are a baby and by the environment. The environment can act as a trigger to bring out your masculine or feminine side so if you grow up in an unsafe environment or get bullied as a child you might have genes activated in response to provocation which turns you much more masculine than you ever would have been prior to provocation. On the other hand if you grow up in a safe environment while you might have the genes to be violent, because you were never really provoked these genes never fully express and activate themselves. So environment does play a role but for the most part it's genes.

Temperament (the real definition, not yours) is affected a lot by genes and prenatal environment.

Gender, particularly the stuff you consider gender (helplessness, liking babies, wearing pink, liking guns, a protector complex etc.) have everything to do with the environment because they are not part of temperament.

And nothing whatsoever proves that people need to be taught the social roles you have chosen to believe in, despite reality.

[timetraveler]

The fact that sex can (very occasionally) be changed does not affect the definitions of the words "masculine" and "feminine."

Gender does not cause sex. :suspicious: That is clearly lunacy.


How do you explain transsexuals?


Hormones change the brain, and they are the most obvious differences if we are talking about gender.


Which hormones? Neurotransmitters, dopamine and etc have influence on the brain but show me what hormones control the brain? What what I know about how the brain works, hormones do not alter the development of the brain. You can inject estrogen into a man and it wont make him gay. You can inject testosterone into a woman and it wont make her gay. And estrogen and testosterone alone do not make an individual masculine or feminine.


Physical differences can be cause by habit. You get trained to use a particular finger in an act repeatedly repeatedly - hey presto, more connections to that finger in the brain. Hence, sociocultural factors cannot be eliminated. Also physical differences in brains: low sample size, more within-group than between-group variations, etc. Practically none of this has been proven. It is collected as beginning evidence that may or may not turn out to be misleading once more data comes in. A study or two with thirty people is an advancement of knowledge, but does not prove much, if anything, about all of humanity.

You still haven't responded to most of my points, but I understand you cannot.


I've responded and my position has not changed. I've offered evidence backing my positions while you have offered none. I have offered evidence that genes (not hormones) influence the development of the brain. There is no evidence that hormones determine who has panic attacks. There is no evidence that hormones determine who will become suicidal or homicidal. There is no evidence that hormones influences the emotional spectrum and the only evidence is that hormones influence the intensity. It's been proven certain pills can make an individual already prone to suicide actually attempt it. It's been proven that testosterone given to a person already prone to violence can result in roid rage. This doesn't change the fact that their brains structure develops according to their genes and not their hormones.


We know this, and competent people have said this already.
There are genetic factors distantly influencing behaviour, yes. None of this has anything to do with gender as you define it. The conclusions you are drawing are erroneous or way overstated.


If genes influence behavior genes influence gender.


Temperament (the real definition, not yours) is affected a lot by genes and prenatal environment.


Temperament is gender.


Gender, particularly the stuff you consider gender (helplessness, liking babies, wearing pink, liking guns, a protector complex etc.) have everything to do with the environment because they are not part of temperament.


I never said helplessness! I never said pink! I never said guns! I said the protector instinct and the instinct to use weapons is determined by temperament. Some people just can't handle the sight of blood and can't function under specific stressful situations. These individuals are feminine in temperament. The masculine individuals will be able to function under certain stressful environments and even thrive in it. Yes environment plays a role because if you grow up surrounded by violence you'll be better at dealing with it, but temperament is what determines if you'll be able to deal with it or if you'll have a nervous breakdown. I'm talking about toughness as being masculine, not specifics such as liking guns or the color pink. I'm saying the journalist who goes into a warzone with a camera is tough and masculine, as are the doctors/medics overseas risking their lives to save lives. Not just the shooter or snipers on the rooftops who pull the triggers. Yes the snipers are masculine too but I don't see them as more masculine simply because they are more violent. They are more masculine if they can handle the stress of the situation, stay calm, cool headed and disciplined.

If you are in a dangerous environment and you watch your friends get killed in front of you and you don't have a nervous breakdown or suffer a panic attack or shell shock, thats when you know you are masculine. It's a temperament not everyone is born with and this is why not everyone copes in the same way. I'm not saying individuals who have PTSD are wussies or feminine, but your ability to cope/toughness under stress is a core masculine trait. It's a masculine trait because it's a necessary trait to have to be a successful protector, if you cannot deal with watching your friends die you have no business picking up and using a gun.

It sucks to lose friends but it's the nature of war. It's a part of certain professions. When you enter the profession you know for sure not everybody you work with or care about will survive. It's the ability to experience these situations and still accomplish and complete the mission, that is where manhood is proven. It's temperament because not everyone will be able to stay calm and follow their training.


And nothing whatsoever proves that people need to be taught the social roles you have chosen to believe in, despite reality.

Like I said if you are going to be a protector you need to be trained. Nobody is born with skills at anything. I don't say that protectors have to all be marines or commandos like Rambo. That is one masculine image but it's not like the majority of masculine men are the Rambo type. A masculine man is a man who is tough enough to complete their mission and cool headed enough to follow their training whatever that is. The feminine individual would see the images, hear the sounds, experience the horrors of whatever is going on around them and go into shell shock. This shell shock prevents them from completing their mission and for this reason they are not fit for certain kinds of assignments. In general your temperament is what determines what kinds of assignments and missions you'll be able to handle.


I don't know if we have an accurate way to determine what a person can handle before putting them to the test. If they are tested then we know they are masculine. And I don't think feminine people are "weak" or "flawed" in any way. Those who are masculine and who experience whatever they experience don't come back from it a better person, just a tougher person. It's like a muscle which if you train it or use it you just keep getting tougher, and the problem with this is that it can have negative side effects of its own. PTSD is one example of a side effect experienced by masculine individuals. Paranoia is another side effect experienced by masculine individuals. So while the feminine individual might have a nervous breakdown or a panic attack, the masculine individual will have PTSD or become paranoid.

So no I don't think being in a harsh environment is good for anybody including the masculine types and this is why the feminine types are so essential. It's the feminine individuals who keep the masculine individuals sane. It's the masculine individuals who protect the feminine individuals partially because these feminine individuals keep them sane. Does that make sense?

[Prunesquallor]

How do you explain transsexuals?

Sex change operations change sex. Certain brain structures which you are calling gender cause the desire for one, cause discomfort in one's body.

Which hormones? Neurotransmitters, dopamine and etc have influence on the brain but show me what hormones control the brain? What what I know about how the brain works, hormones do not alter the development of the brain. You can inject estrogen into a man and it wont make him gay. You can inject testosterone into a woman and it wont make her gay. And estrogen and testosterone alone do not make an individual masculine or feminine.

Define "control."

I've responded and my position has not changed.

And it's still wrong.

I've offered evidence backing my positions while you have offered none. I have offered evidence that genes (not hormones) influence the development of the brain. There is no evidence that hormones determine who has panic attacks. There is no evidence that hormones determine who will become suicidal or homicidal. There is no evidence that hormones influences the emotional spectrum and the only evidence is that hormones influence the intensity. It's been proven certain pills can make an individual already prone to suicide actually attempt it. It's been proven that testosterone given to a person already prone to violence can result in roid rage. This doesn't change the fact that their brains structure develops according to their genes and not their hormones.

None of your evidence has backed your opinions. You finally started to cough up some references to science, but none of it has directly supported your main points. Your interpretation of the results has no justification.


If genes influence behavior genes influence gender.

Doesn't follow. One gene you pointed out influences behaviour. Is it relevant for gender? Only if you erroneously decide that:

Temperament is gender.

Which it isn't. You're not Humpty-Dumpty. Use the word in its real meaning.

I never said helplessness! I never said pink! I never said guns!

You said guns and inability to defend oneself which = helplessness. Pink I added in because it's part of the same ridiculous pattern. Just as laughable and jsut as far from science.

I said the protector instinct and the instinct to use weapons is determined by temperament. Some people just can't handle the fight of blood and can't function under specific stressful situations. These individuals are feminine in temperament. The masculine individuals will be able to function under certain stressful environments and even thrive in it. Yes environment plays a role because if you grow up surrounded by violence you'll be better at dealing with it, but temperament is what determines if you'll be able to deal with it or if you'll have a nervous breakdown. I'm talking about toughness as being masculine, not specifics such as liking guns or the color pink. I'm saying the journalist who goes into a warzone with a camera is tough and masculine, as are the doctors/medics overseas risking their lives to save lives. Not just the shooter or snipers on the rooftops who pull the triggers. Yes the snipers are masculine too but I don't see them as more masculine simply because they are more violent. They are more masculine if they can handle the stress of the situation, stay calm, cool headed and disciplined.

Prove where "the protector instinct" comes from genetically and why it is associated with a willingness to use guns, being male, male behaviour, masculinity...

This whole paragraph is your interpretation, your ideas, mostly form your culture, not science, nothing proven.


If you are in a dangerous environment and you watch your friends get killed in front of you and you don't have a nervous breakdown or suffer a panic attack or shell shock, thats when you know you are masculine. It's a temperament not everyone is born with and this is why not everyone copes in the same way. I'm not saying individuals who have PTSD are wussies or feminine, but your ability to cope/toughness under stress is a core masculine trait. It's a masculine trait because it's a necessary trait to have to be a successful protector, if you cannot deal with watching your friends die you have no business picking up and using a gun.

It sucks to lose friends but it's the nature of war. It's a part of certain professions. When you enter the profession you know for sure not everybody you work with or care about will survive. It's the ability to experience these situations and still accomplish and complete the mission, that is where manhood is proven. It's temperament because not everyone will be able to stay calm and follow their training.

Not it's not masculine. Not scientifically. That is not proven. Only in terms of sociocultural assumptions is it sometimes considered masculine. That does not constitute proof.

Like I said if you are going to be a protector you need to be trained. Nobody is born with skills at anything. I don't say that protectors have to all be marines or commandos like Rambo. That is one masculine image but it's not like the majority of masculine men are the Rambo type. A masculine man is a man who is tough enough to complete their mission and cool headed enough to follow their training whatever they is. The feminine individual would see the images, hear the sounds, experience the horrors of whatever is going on around them and go into shell shock. This shell shock prevents them from completing their mission and for this reason they are not fit for certain kinds of assignments. In general your temperament is what determines what kinds of assignments and missions you'll be able to handle.

I don't know if we have an accurate way to determine what a person can handle before putting them to the test. If they are tested then we know they are masculine. And I don't think feminine people are "weak" or "flawed" in any way. Those who are masculine and who experience whatever they experience don't come back from it a better person, just a tougher person. It's like a muscle which if you train it or use it you just keep getting tougher, and the problem with this is that it can have negative side effects of its own. PTSD is one example of a side effect experienced by masculine individuals. Paranoia is another side effect experienced by masculine individuals. So while the feminine individual might have a nervous breakdown or a panic attack, the masculine individual will have PTSD or become paranoid.

So no I don't think being in a harsh environment is good for anybody including the masculine types and this is why the feminine types are so essential. It's the feminine individuals who keep the masculine individuals sane. It's the masculine individuals who protect the feminine individuals partially because these feminine individuals keep them sane. Does that make sense?

The relationship of any of this to gender (the real definition) has not been proven.

[daydreamer]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Yet you are still convinced that nobody sees gender the way I'm describing even when Wikipedia is saying the same thing.

btw timetraveler, i can't help but notice the wiki link is about gender roles, not masculine/feminine temperaments, or a classification of masculine or feminine motives.

[Prunesquallor]

So to sum up:

One Look up the definition of gender.

Two What you need to prove; I'm laying it out for you since you seem to have great difficulty understanding what actually proves your arguments and what is unrelated. I can't help but think much of this confusion is deliberate, but I suppose it may not be. Anyway:
If you wish to say that there are two temperaments rel what you personally consider masculine and feminine, then you must show a correlation between all of the key traits you consider to belong to each temperament. The "feminine" traits must be more likely to go with one another than with "masculine" traits. There has to be statistical significance to this. Plus, you must prove that these clusters of traits are the only two, or the only significant ones. You must also make an argument that this temperament model is better, or at least equal to, the accepted ones (eg big five) that exist already and have plenty of research behind them. If you wish to extend this beyond one social setting, then you must do cross-cultural comparison. In doing this, you must have valid and consistent ways of measuring these traits, instead of looking at each culture and trying to find ways to explain their behaviour via your model, as that would fall prey to confirmation bias. Then, if you through some miracle succeed in finding sufficient evidence for this, you must show a significant correlation with sex, if you want to call it gender and name these temperaments "masculine" and "feminine."

Then, we have all your statements about what society "needs" and how children must be taught these roles you personally believe in blah blah which requires a whole whack of other evidence, but I''ll not get into that yet; you have enough on your plate.

[smabers]

So to sum up:

One Look up the definition of gender.

Two What you need to prove; I'm laying it out for you since you seem to have great difficulty understanding what actually proves your arguments and what is unrelated. I can't help but think much of this confusion is deliberate, but I suppose it may not be. Anyway:
If you wish to say that there are two temperaments rel what you personally consider masculine and feminine, then you must show a correlation between all of the key traits you consider to belong to each temperament. The "feminine" traits must be more likely to go with one another than with "masculine" traits. There has to be statistical significance to this. Plus, you must prove that these clusters of traits are the only two, or the only significant ones. You must also make an argument that this temperament model is better, or at least equal to, the accepted ones (eg big five) that exist already and have plenty of research behind them. If you wish to extend this beyond one social setting, then you must do cross-cultural comparison. In doing this, you must have valid and consistent ways of measuring these traits, instead of looking at each culture and trying to find ways to explain their behaviour via your model, as that would fall prey to confirmation bias. Then, if you through some miracle succeed in finding sufficient evidence for this, you must show a significant correlation with sex, if you want to call it gender and name these temperaments "masculine" and "feminine."

Then, we have all your statements about what society "needs" and how children must be taught these roles you personally believe in blah blah which requires a whole whack of other evidence, but I''ll not get into that yet; you have enough on your plate.

Yawn. The question we are trying to answer is whether gender is mutable. The burden of proof is on anybody who has an opinion on the matter. That means you too. Besides looking up words in a dictionary, which didn't prove anything, you haven't provided any proof at all.

[Prunesquallor]

Yawn. The question we are trying to answer is whether gender is mutable. The burden of proof is on anybody who has an opinion on the matter. That means you too. Besides looking up words in a dictionary, which didn't prove anything, you haven't provided any proof at all.

If he wants to prove his points, however irrelevant they are to the topic of the thread, I laid out a structure for that. The dictionary definition didn't prove anything much, yes; it disproved, however, some of his allegations about what gender meant. I discussed my own opinion way back and that's done with. I've merely been trashing his fallacies since.

[smabers]

If he wants to prove his points, however irrelevant they are to the topic of the thread, I laid out a structure for that. The dictionary definition didn't prove anything much, yes; it disproved, however, some of his allegations about what gender meant. I discussed my own opinion way back and that's done with. I've merely been trashing his fallacies since.

In this case, when you ask for proof, we assume that you have proof to the contrary. Notice how nobody asked you for proof when you discussed your own fallacies. Proof is kind of hard to come up with when you're talking about pseudo-science. I hope you don't think you're any more correct than timetraveler is.

You also failed at using the dictionary. There are always a few meanings to words.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*

gender: The condition of being female or male; sex.
gender: Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

[Prunesquallor]

In this case, when you ask for proof, we assume that you have proof to the contrary. Notice how nobody asked you for proof when you discussed your own fallacies. Proof is kind of hard to come up with when you're talking about pseudo-science. I hope you don't think you're any more correct than timetraveler is.

You also failed at using the dictionary. There are always a few meanings to words.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.*

gender: The condition of being female or male; sex.
gender: Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.

Yes, and neither of those meanings match timetraveller's either.

Your assumptions are not my problem. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. I've not been advancinging a hypothesis lately, only pointing out the many flaws in another's.

You clearly have no idea what I'm claiming, as your criticisms are irrelevant to what that actually is. I understand it's a long thread and you probably haven't read all of it. I'll recap: gender as a social construction obviously changes along with society. Gender if one definess it more related to the treds re brain differences in males and females tends to be overstated and I suspect, as further studies are done, more fallacies will be revealed. The proof to that can come when the studies are done. Given the lack of complete evidence, I don't think too many absolutist claims can be made. Opinion is valid in a situation lacking full evidence, - but if one, as tt did, claims scientific backing for their claims, then one needs back it up - and logical fallacies are obviously open for attack. If he acknowledges he has mostly bias and opinion, then it's not so much a problem; it still is based on sexist personae, of course, which is another issue.

[smabers]

I've not been advancinging a hypothesis lately.

...

Gender if one definess it more related to the treds re brain differences in males and females tends to be overstated and I suspect, as further studies are done, more fallacies will be revealed.

...

If he acknowledges he has mostly bias and opinion, then it's not so much a problem; it still is based on sexist personae, of course, which is another issue.

You crack me up. I guess we can wait until those further studies are done, but for now we can look at the data we do have. Modern science has found real physical differences in mens and womens brains and there are repeatable experiments with predictable outcomes that suggest the same.

Your "not a hypothesis" is exactly what I thought you were arguing the entire time. Let's face it, he's provided a few examples of real, scientific experiments which backed up his claims, meanwhile you're still waiting for some FURTHER studies which you SUSPECT will reveal fallacies. How about you go do those studies and come back to us. Oh I forgot doing science is hard work, on the other hand, claiming somebody is a sexist is easy.

Oh by the way, this discussion is over because you pulled out the sexism card.

[Prunesquallor]

You crack me up. I guess we can wait until those further studies are done, but for now we can look at the data we do have. Modern science has found real physical differences in mens and womens brains and there are repeatable experiments with predictable outcomes that suggest the same.

Your "not a hypothesis" is exactly what I thought you were arguing the entire time. Let's face it, he's provided a few examples of real, scientific experiments which backed up his claims, meanwhile you're still waiting for some FURTHER studies which you SUSPECT will reveal fallacies. How about you go do those studies and come back to us. Oh I forgot doing science is hard work, on the other hand, claiming somebody is a sexist is easy.

Oh by the way, this discussion is over because you pulled out the sexism card.

Yes, studies with more within-group than between group variation, incomplete elimination of sociocultural factors etc. Everyone overstates the results. That's not to say there are not differences, just that the ones that people believe for cultural reasons are not always backed up by science. eg the "women are stupider; black people are stupider" hypotheses and much of that ilk. There is a pretty strong trend disproving bunk and thinking it shall continue is not unreasonable - and there is also some science showing what the real differences are, which aren't nearly as strong as people used to believe. Competent people - people with degrees, not six unscientific books, have discussed some of these differences.

He's come up with nothing that backs his personal characterisation of gender. Only stuff that shows that, yes, there are some differences, much of which was mentioned before. But since he claims that gender is actually temperament and has nothing to do with sex, nothing about sex differences supports his reasoning anyway. You haven't been reading the thread have you?

You have given evidence of being sexist yourself in many of your posts, so I do not expect you to understand when sexist fallacies are pointed out, and getting offended is pretty much par for the course.

[smabers]

Yes, studies with more within-group than between group variation, incomplete elimination of sociocultural factors etc. Everyone overstates the results. That's not to say there are not differences, just that the ones that people believe for cultural reasons are not always backed up by science. eg the "women are stupider; black people are stupider" hypotheses and much of that ilk. There is a pretty strong trend disproving bunk and thinking it shall continue is not unreasonable - and there is also some science showing what the real differences are, which aren't nearly as strong as people used to believe. Competent people - people with degrees, not six unscientific books, have discussed some of these differences.

He's come up with nothing that backs his personal characterisation of gender. Only stuff that shows that, yes, there are some differences, much of which was mentioned before. But since he claims that gender is actually temperament and has nothing to do with sex, nothing about sex differences supports his reasoning anyway. You haven't been reading the thread have you?

You have given evidence of being sexist yourself in many of your posts, so I do not expect you to understand when sexist fallacies are pointed out, and getting offended is pretty much par for the course.

I'm not offended, I'm just bored. Give some urls backing something you said up or gtfo.

[Prunesquallor]

I'm not offended, I'm just bored. Give some urls backing something you said up or gtfo.

You've never read any of these studies, have you? Look at any of them and analyse the statistics. Plenty of people have linked to genuine studies - pick one. If you have anything remotely resembling an open mind, you'll see what I mean. These results are a start - not full-fledged proof of something inherant and universal in the male/female psyche through all cultures blah blah etc. If we want to discuss trends, far too many citations would be required and you'd never read them. I cannot hand a degree in psychology to you on a platter. And, no, I don't expect you to trust me, I expect you to find out if you really want to know - though I expect you don't.

I'm not, however, going to try to change the mind of a sexist person. I will trash foolish claims when people make them, but giving proof does nothing to people like you. See LP's thread on discrimination - it's just not possible to get through to sexist people, they have to come to it on their own. There's simply no point in talking to you. Frankly, I have no interest in convincing you anyway; that's never why I post. I gave feedback to the OP, and I pointed out the flaws in a foolish argument to someone who probably still doesn't understand how foolish it is. I have given enough evidence to back up my claims in past posts - way past - especially considering how modest they are, and I shall not repost them. The fact that you have not read the entire thread is not my problem.

[admittedheretic]

You crack me up. I guess we can wait until those further studies are done, but for now we can look at the data we do have. Modern science has found real physical differences in mens and womens brains and there are repeatable experiments with predictable outcomes that suggest the same.


Is there anyone actually arguing against this?

I believe all the fuss is about confusing the biological functions with those which are effectively learned from society.

[Prunesquallor]

Is there anyone actually arguing against this?

I believe all the fuss is about confusing the biological functions with those which are effectively learned from society.

Honestly no. Arguing that the differences tend to be overstated by people who want to believe in these differences, arguing that the studies aren't always perfect, but not arguing that differences are there and that some have been plausibly demonstrated given the limitations of current science.
He's just misstating my argument to make himself feel smart or something. God knows.

And yes, a lot of people can't tell the difference between what has been learnt from society and what is ingrained. Kind of sad, really.

[firebee]

I'm not offended, I'm just bored. Give some urls backing something you said up or gtfo.

If you are bored, that is your problem. We do not have to entertain you.

The studies timetraveler talks about contradict his idea. timetraveler says that gender is not tied to physical sex. The study mentions differences which are tied to physical sex. That means that the way timetraveler is defining gender is not supported by the studies he talks about.

Prunesquallor has explained the sort of studies that would prove timetraveler's case. If what timetraveler says is right, then the things people do and the thoughts they have can be split up into two groups. Regardless of whether someone is a boy or a girl, they will tend to act either one way or another way. This is what timetraveler calls "temperament". If timetraveler is right, there would be studies that show that people who are good at using words are bad at using guns or that people who are good at taking care of children are not brave. There may be a study like that, but nobody has mentioned one yet.

Do you know of a study like that? If you did, you could post it here for us to read, and that would be nice.

[admittedheretic]

1) Proof higher testosterone means lower verbal ability.

Second-to-fourth digit ratio related to Verbal and Numerical Intelligence and the Big Five (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Androgens influence individual differences in a predictable way: they “masculinise” people. The ratio of index finger length to ring finger length (2D:4D) is an index of prenatal androgen exposure. We related 2D:4D to Verbal Intelligence, Numerical Intelligence and the Big Five personality dimensions in a Dutch sample of 44 men and 37 women. We found a relation between right-hand 2D:4D and Verbal and Numerical Intelligence as well as Agreeableness (R2’s around .22), in a typical masculine pattern (low 2D:4D, low verbal intelligence, high numerical intelligence, and low agreeableness). We conclude 2D:4D is a valuable tool in the study of the determinants of individual differences.

2) Proof testosterone is correlated with better spatial ability.

Second-to-Fourth Digit Length, Testosterone and Spatial Ability (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. Based on stimulating findings suggesting that prenatal levels of steroids may influence cognitive functions, a study with N=40 healthy volunteers of both sexes was conducted. Prenatal levels of testosterone (T) were estimated by use of the second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) which is supposed to be controlled by the same genes involved in maturation of gonadal tissue and therefore may reflect the level of prenatal T. Moreover, activational effects of T were investigated by measuring T levels in saliva directly. Subjects completed several subtests of intelligence batteries for verbal, numerical and spatial abilities. Levels of T were not related to any of the cognitive functions. The 2D:4D was lower in males as compared to females. Males outperform females on spatial ability. Moreover, females with low 2D:4D performed better on cognitive tests measuring spatial as well as numerical ability as compared to females with high 2D:4D. Results are discussed with respect to the assumed role of prenatal and present levels of T in brain development and cognitive functioning.

Thus evidence supporting the claim that someone who is bad at words is likely good at using good guns because bullet trajectory is influenced by spatial reasoning. There are other ways in which the adeptness of shooting a gun may be in influenced by hormones.


If it assumed that taking less risks is associated with better care of children then a single study could be used as evidence supporting it.

Testosterone and financial risk preferences (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Abstract

Many human behaviors, from mating to food acquisition and aggressiveness, entail some degree of risk. Testosterone, a steroid hormone, has been implicated in a wide range of such behaviors in men. However, little is known about the specific relationship between testosterone and risk preferences. In this article, we explore the relationship between prenatal and pubertal testosterone exposure, current testosterone, and financial risk preferences in men. Using a sample of 98 men, we find that risk-taking in an investment game with potential for real monetary payoffs correlates positively with salivary testosterone levels and facial masculinity, with the latter being a proxy of pubertal hormone exposure. 2D:4D, which has been proposed as a proxy for prenatal hormone exposure, did not correlate significantly with risk preferences. Although this is a study of association, the results may shed light on biological determinants of risk preferences.

[Storm]

I'm not offended, I'm just bored. Give some urls backing something you said up or gtfo.

Two seconds on Google:

Neuroscience for Kids (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

As you will no doubt learn from reading the article, few real differences have been found between male and female brains. The few differences have not been found to have a great effect. When there is no evidence for a claim, one should not assume the conclusion.

I also read an article once (sorry, don't have the cite) where they asked people to describe the activities men enjoy and the activities women enjoy. Typically, people would respond with traditional gender stereotypes (women like to shop, men like to watch football). The same people were then asked what they did with their same sex friends. The stereotypes didn't play out. Men and women reported watching sports. Men and women reported in sitting around and talking and nothing else.

People often preserve gender differences due to confirmation bias, and not because of real differences.

[Evangelist]

I read an article about a South African track runner named Caster Semenya. She is running so fast, that the community began to question whether or not she was a female. When I saw the article, I said, "How dare someone be so demeaning." These folks were serious. Her president and her family stand by the fact that she is truly a woman, but because she is leaving folks in the dust, it is questioned. I feel like we live in a society where sex comes into play far more than it should.

[Freedom Geek]

There might be a predisposition to certain behaviors with a certain gender or there might not, I don't know. This however is irrelevant, we know that at least a few individuals of each gender can take part in the entire range of human behaviors and as such we should treat both genders equally.

[Prunesquallor]

The first article is not quite 100 people - a start, but compared to 6 billion is a little small, even when added to comparable studies; plus the studies were not controlled for sociocultural effect, not a huge difference in the numbers, and the last one - there is a major drop in testosterone in a male when he becomes a father, so to better care for his offspring. I guess being a father isn't masculine, then? :suspicious:

Like I said, puzzle pieces, info, a start, not "proof" of an inherant universal (or almost) difference between males and females. The studies are not invalid in themselves, but their conclusions should not be overstated, and the research in general has a long way to go before full "proof" can be claimed for most of these things.

[admittedheretic]

The first article is not quite 100 people - a start, but compared to 6 billion is a little small, even when added to comparable studies; plus the studies were not controlled for sociocultural effect, not a huge difference in the numbers, and the last one - there is a major drop in testosterone in a male when he becomes a father, so to better care for his offspring. I guess being a father isn't masculine, then? :suspicious:

Like I said, puzzle pieces, info, a start, not "proof" of an inherant universal (or almost) difference between males and females. The studies are not invalid in themselves, but their conclusions should not be overstated, and the research in general has a long way to go before full "proof" can be claimed for most of these things.

I'm aware of short comings of the studies. If you would do some searching of your own you will find that there are dozens upon dozens of articles that will support the same argument. The ball is now in your court and if you want to disprove something lets see some journal citations from you.

Your intuition is working well because you caught onto that thing with testosterone later in life. Actually what this is telling you is that sexual hormones have certain influences during critical periods of time.

There are plenty of females who have high levels of testosterone and the associate cognitive development so certainly these conclusions should not be generalized.

Again, I could bore myself with more links supporting the same arguments, but I will wait for you to provide me with a study disproving one.

[Prunesquallor]

I'm aware of short comings of the studies. If you would do some searching of your own you will find that there are dozens upon dozens of articles that will support the same argument. The ball is now in your court and if you want to disprove something lets see some journal citations from you.

Your intuition is working well because you caught onto that thing with testosterone later in life. Actually what this is telling you is that sexual hormones have certain influences during critical periods of time.

There are plenty of females who have high levels of testosterone and the associate cognitive development so certainly these conclusions should not be generalized.

Again, I could bore myself with more links supporting the same arguments, but I will wait for you to provide me with a study disproving one.

Again, you don't know what I'm arguing - in fact, you probably agree with it. You certainly aren't saying anything that I don't already know, anyway.

I am arguing that the studies, of which I acknowledged there are more than you posted, have limitations. And I am arguing that overstating the results, given these limitations, is bad. Are we clear yet?

I mentioned a study way earlier about people's excessive need to know the gender of a child, studies have been linked to showing how early socialisation occurs re gender, etc. which all shows how powerful sociocultural factors are. Evidence was already brough to the table re that, so we know that sociocultural factors can account for a lot of the difference - no one is saying all of the differences, to my knowledge. I am not arguing all the studies are wrong, that the converse of all their results is actually true, blah blah; I am arguing that making strong statements about big differences between the genders in most cases is unjustified at this point.

What exactly do you expect me to defend here, that doesn't already have evidence?

[timetraveler]

Yes, and neither of those meanings match timetraveller's either.

Your assumptions are not my problem. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. I've not been advancinging a hypothesis lately, only pointing out the many flaws in another's.

You clearly have no idea what I'm claiming, as your criticisms are irrelevant to what that actually is. I understand it's a long thread and you probably haven't read all of it. I'll recap: gender as a social construction obviously changes along with society. Gender if one definess it more related to the treds re brain differences in males and females tends to be overstated and I suspect, as further studies are done, more fallacies will be revealed. The proof to that can come when the studies are done. Given the lack of complete evidence, I don't think too many absolutist claims can be made. Opinion is valid in a situation lacking full evidence, - but if one, as tt did, claims scientific backing for their claims, then one needs back it up - and logical fallacies are obviously open for attack. If he acknowledges he has mostly bias and opinion, then it's not so much a problem; it still is based on sexist personae, of course, which is another issue.

Who are you calling sexist? Nothing I have claimed in any of my posts was sexist. I said sex is correlated with gender, I did not say sex is gender. I said gender is temperament and determined by the brain. I said sex is mutable and determined by hormones and other physically malleable factors. I did not claim that my ideas represent a hypothesis, I said they are ideas. The only firm statement I have made and will continue to make is that gender is temperament and therefore not mutable.

You have not provided any evidence that gender is mutable. I have provided case studies which show John Money was wrong and that gender is not mutable. The response I received from you and others was to claim that not all post genderists are so extreme in their beliefs. Now that I've presented evidence backing my beliefs I wait for you to present some evidence on the mutability of gender and the only response I see from you is personal attacks. Your use of personal attacks is a sign of desperation. If anyone is clinging to outdated notions of gender it's you, you are the one who claims gender must always be attached to sex. You are the one saying gender must always be attached to culture.

I never said sex or culture were what cause gender. I said the neuroscience of the brain causes gender. You can change your sex and your culture but you'll never change your brain. If you aren't a masculine person then when you are in a masculine situation you will break down and realize you don't belong in that situation. Nobody brought up race, nobody said anything about intelligence, nobody said anything about masculinity being better. You have these internal issues due to your own personal self esteem and no one on this forum has anything to do with that.





timetraveler added to this post, 8 minutes and 17 seconds later...

There might be a predisposition to certain behaviors with a certain gender or there might not, I don't know. This however is irrelevant, we know that at least a few individuals of each gender can take part in the entire range of human behaviors and as such we should treat both genders equally.

That doesnt make sense. You are confusing gender with sex. Yes a few members from either sex can be masculine or feminine. This does not mean anyone is going to go from being a feminine to being a masculine, or go from being a masculine to a feminine just because you make them wear pants or a dress. Gender determines gender roles. Sex does not determine gender. Gender is not a choice anymore than homosexuality is a choice to gay people. People are born with a gender orientation and they only become more masculine or more feminine as they get older.

Did anyone here who is masculine or feminine actually choose their gender? I didn't choose to be the way I am. I never had a choice to have the temperament I have. And I don't think anyone else has a choice either. If it's not a choice then it's not mutable.





timetraveler added to this post, 10 minutes and 14 seconds later...

I read an article about a South African track runner named Caster Semenya. She is running so fast, that the community began to question whether or not she was a female. When I saw the article, I said, "How dare someone be so demeaning." These folks were serious. Her president and her family stand by the fact that she is truly a woman, but because she is leaving folks in the dust, it is questioned. I feel like we live in a society where sex comes into play far more than it should.


If she does not have a vagina then her sex should be called into question. From what I read about that story they determined she had both male and female parts and is therefore a crossgender. This story is based on heresay and not important to the topic of discussion.

[Prunesquallor]

Who are you calling sexist? Nothing I have claimed in any of my posts was sexist. I said sex is correlated with gender, I did not say sex is gender. I said gender is temperament and determined by the brain. I said sex is mutable and determined by hormones and other physically malleable factors. I did not claim that my ideas represent a hypothesis, I said they are ideas. The only firm statement I have made and will continue to make is that gender is temperament and therefore not mutable.

You have not provided any evidence that gender is mutable. I have provided case studies which show John Money was wrong and that gender is not mutable. The response I received from you and others was to claim that not all post genderists are so extreme in their beliefs. Now that I've presented evidence backing my beliefs I wait for you to present some evidence on the mutability of gender and the only response I see from you is personal attacks. Your use of personal attacks is a sign of desperation. If anyone is clinging to outdated notions of gender it's you, you are the one who claims gender must always be attached to sex. You are the one saying gender must always be attached to culture.

I never said sex or culture were what cause gender. I said the neuroscience of the brain causes gender. You can change your sex and your culture but you'll never change your brain. If you aren't a masculine person then when you are in a masculine situation you will break down and realize you don't belong in that situation. Nobody brought up race, nobody said anything about intelligence, nobody said anything about masculinity being better. You have these internal issues due to your own personal self esteem and no one on this forum has anything to do with that.

I said, in fact, that the two personae, the "temperaments" you call match the very sexist 50s gender stereotypes. Theoretically one could believe that these are real without being sexist, I suppose. I don't really care, as they're wrong anyway.

The mention of race etc. was showing how, hey, science disproves a lot of ignorant cultural assumptions! Maybe they'll keep doing so! You really have to try to read with attention, dearie..

Dude, will you please cite a valid source that uses your personal definition of gender. I've cited several already with the real definition, if you want to argue for yours, you bloody well need some proof that anyone else but you uses the definition.

Temperament is not inhernatly related to sex, but it is not the same thing as gender.

[admittedheretic]

Again, you don't know what I'm arguing - in fact, you probably agree with it. You certainly aren't saying anything that I don't already know, anyway.

I am arguing that the studies, of which I acknowledged there are more than you posted, have limitations. And I am arguing that overstating the results, given these limitations, is bad. Are we clear yet?

I mentioned a study way earlier about people's excessive need to know the gender of a child, studies have been linked to showing how early socialisation occurs re gender, etc. which all shows how powerful sociocultural factors are. Evidence was already brough to the table re that, so we know that sociocultural factors can account for a lot of the difference - no one is saying all of the differences, to my knowledge. I am not arguing all the studies are wrong, that the converse of all their results is actually true, blah blah; I am arguing that making strong statements about big differences between the genders in most cases is unjustified at this point.

What exactly do you expect me to defend here, that doesn't already have evidence?

What is it I have overstated? I'm to heed your warning, but I don't know what it is I have done to warrant such a response.

What conclusion did you jump to about this thing I have over stated? What is a small difference and what is a large difference to you?

So, what you are saying is that you acknowledge that there are real biological differences, but they don't matter?

[Prunesquallor]

What is it I have overstated? I'm to heed your warning, but I don't know what it is I have done to warrant such a response.

What conclusion did you jump to about this thing I have over stated? What is a small difference and what is a large difference to you?

So, what you are saying is that you acknowledge that there are real biological differences, but they don't matter?

There are real biological differences, but no study has successfully shown them without some contamination from cultural factors, etc. so saying it is "proven" that men are better at X or women are better at Y and that this is not cultural but biological is wrong. Saying that studies seem to suggest there is some biological basis for certain differences (which are probably increased by socialisation) is more accurate. I wasn't actually accusing you, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

[timetraveler]

If you are bored, that is your problem. We do not have to entertain you.

The studies timetraveler talks about contradict his idea. timetraveler says that gender is not tied to physical sex. The study mentions differences which are tied to physical sex. That means that the way timetraveler is defining gender is not supported by the studies he talks about.

Prunesquallor has explained the sort of studies that would prove timetraveler's case. If what timetraveler says is right, then the things people do and the thoughts they have can be split up into two groups. Regardless of whether someone is a boy or a girl, they will tend to act either one way or another way. This is what timetraveler calls "temperament". If timetraveler is right, there would be studies that show that people who are good at using words are bad at using guns or that people who are good at taking care of children are not brave. There may be a study like that, but nobody has mentioned one yet.

Do you know of a study like that? If you did, you could post it here for us to read, and that would be nice.

Correlated not "TIED". Can't you read? It's a correlation not a tie. A tie is when A is required for B. It's not required that you have male parts to be masculine. It's not required that you have female parts to be feminine. Both male and female individuals can give birth so sex is completely malleable now. Gender is not malleable because nobody I've ever met has every chose their gender. You either have the temperament for the role or you don't.

And to try to claim there are hundreds of temperaments and try to confuse the issue. It's really simple, there are some people who have temperaments for roles which are associated with masculinity. Some individuals are better at being protectors. Some people are calm when in danger and never lose their cool. And there is a scale and everyone is a dot somewhere on that scale.

I'm on the scale slightly leaning towards masculine. As a result I'm a masculine individual. I'm not an extreme masculine because I'm capable of some feminine roles, I'm just better at the masculine roles because my temperament is more masculine than feminine. I don't claim that a majority of humans are either so masculine they cannot read and write, or so feminine they have panic attacks. I'm saying everybody falls somewhere on the spectrum and if you understand fuzzy logic and how math works, on a 10 point scale if you are a 6 you are masculine. If you are a 4 you are feminine. You don't like the 10 point scale because you think it's sexist? Okay...

+9 +8 +7 +6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9

Everyone falls somewhere on that scale with 9 being the masculine and 9 being the feminine. Depending on which side you fall under decides your gender. You could determine it roughly by giving a gender exam. Individuals who score on one side of the scale or the other would be more masculine or feminine. The questions would be questions like "would you kill one to save ten" and "do the ends justify the means" and "would you be willing to use a gun to protect your family, your wife, your child, an innocent woman or child?" etc. You can also include other situations which aren't so clear but in general it would not be difficult to create a test to determine just how masculine or how feminine someone is.

I wouldn't rely on this test completely but it would be at least as affective as the other IQ tests. We could call it the gender IQ test and charge people to take it and let them be a certified masculine or feminine individual.

[Prunesquallor]

again, prove it

[admittedheretic]

There are real biological differences, but no study has successfully shown them without some contamination from cultural factors, etc. so saying it is "proven" that men are better at X or women are better at Y and that this is not cultural but biological is wrong.

Your claim that it is wrong is just as subjective as your dispute about it being "proven."


I wasn't actually accusing you, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

A hypocritical cutesy little saying is all you have to warrant this thing I have over stated? I hardly stated anything at all so could you please elaborate on any details that led you on the path of what it is you think I am unaware of?

If they are wrong then you should be able to find some empirical evidence done on it a peer reviewed journal.

[Paul Siraisi]

Are you suggesting that I could be homosexual without noticing?

Are you saying I should pretend to have (on average) 26% less muscle than I do?

There are similar questions about race, which are so politically toxic they can't be stated here.

What if we figured out how to live with a little more truth in our lives?

[Storm]

Who are you calling sexist? Nothing I have claimed in any of my posts was sexist. I said sex is correlated with gender, I did not say sex is gender. I said gender is temperament and determined by the brain. I said sex is mutable and determined by hormones and other physically malleable factors. I did not claim that my ideas represent a hypothesis, I said they are ideas. The only firm statement I have made and will continue to make is that gender is temperament and therefore not mutable.

Did anyone here who is masculine or feminine actually choose their gender? I didn't choose to be the way I am. I never had a choice to have the temperament I have. And I don't think anyone else has a choice either. If it's not a choice then it's not mutable.

I have yet to meet a person who shared exclusively all masculine or all feminine traits. Most people possess traits in varying numbers. I, personally, do not consider myself masculine or feminine. I possess traits from both realm. I have not observed that a person is either masculine or feminine. Nor have I observed that a person is either good at math OR good with words, good with children OR a good fighter. Instead the human spectrum is much more varied. Thus, gender is not only mutable, but a mere social construct.

[timetraveler]

I have yet to meet a person who shared exclusively all masculine or all feminine traits. Most people possess traits in varying numbers. I, personally, do not consider myself masculine or feminine. I possess traits from both realm. I have not observed that a person is either masculine or feminine. Nor have I observed that a person is either good at math OR good with words, good with children OR a good fighter. Instead the human spectrum is much more varied. Thus, gender is not only mutable, but a mere social construct.


Thats why I said there is a scale. Every brain favors one or the other. It's not complicated.

And no gender is not mutable, and the brain is not socially constructed anymore than the ability to run fast is a social construct. Track and field is a social construct, but you put the wrong person on the track team and they'll run very slow. The simple fact is that some people are naturally inclined to act a certain way and it doesn't matter what culture they are in or what social construct you put them in. It's not like if you get rid of "male" and "female" there would be no more masculine behaviors. If it were that simple then it would have happened a long time ago.

It's never going to happen because the masculine feminine spectrum is real. Just changing the names around or pretending it doesn't exist isn't really going to work in a debate. If you think it's a social construct show me a person who is neither masculine or feminine, if such a person can even exist. And if you think it's much more varied, what else is on the spectrum?

What else exists beyond protectors and nurturers?