Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AvatarForm wrote:Why do you need more than a difference in chromosomes and reproductive organs to differentiate?

As LordofHats said, as well as having biological differences between the genders, there are also social expectations put on one gender or the other. It is still quite common that a boy will be encouraged to play sport, while a girl will not.

What do you mean by gender studies and where are your sources?

There is the field of gender studies. This is a social science.

There are also specific scientific studies undertaken that have shown remarkable differences that can't be simply defined by genitalia and chromosones. As I mentioned earlier, they've found in studies of men wanting to be women, brain activity more closely matches that of a woman than a man.

Exactly. This is a fad and will pass.

It really isn't.

sebster wrote:No-one is denying that there are basic differences between the sexes. No-one.

What I am trying to explain to you is that in gender studies, the word gender refers explicitly to the differences resulting from society, whereas biological differences are refered to using the word 'sex'.

So when people refer to ending gender, they refer only to the ways society treats the two different genders. Do you understand that now?

Actually, If as you say, gender refers to societal differences, then those wanting to end gender are referring to how society treats the two different SEXES, not Genders.
That is the basic premise, that society 'created' gender due to how people of varying sexes were treated by said society. This suggests that the biological differences between male and female are negligable.
This premise is flawed.
Even within the homosexual society there are these gender divisions... both sides, male and female gays, differentiate between the "Male' archetype and the female, based almost solely on the behavior and attitudes of the individual. Female and male behavior patterns are recognised even in that "gender neutral" society.
Society may define genders but they are not a creation of society.

If society assigns traits which are not biologically-dependent to members of different biologically-differentiated groups, then society is magnifying the distinction and creating new expectations.

SOME "traditional" gender roles are biologically-based, but certainly not all of them. As recently as a generation or two ago even in the most progressive Western cultures, women were often expected to be housewives, not have career goals, or to sacrifice those goals for childrearing in preference to their male spouse doing so. Heck, I grew up watching TV in the 80s and it was still all over the place. But in reality that's not necessary. Either parent could do it, or they can share the burden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...

...and make it complicated.

This is the kind of thinking that really hurts transgendered and transexual people. In reality, biology is complicated and variation wide. Some people are even born "intersexed", with physical traits of both sexes. When people try to cram ALL human experience and ALL biological diversity into two simple boxes- "man" and "woman", they are distorting and ignoring reality. And they wind up slamming walls down on the people in the border areas.

helgrenze wrote:Actually, If as you say, gender refers to societal differences, then those wanting to end gender are referring to how society treats the two different SEXES, not Genders.
That is the basic premise, that society 'created' gender due to how people of varying sexes were treated by said society. This suggests that the biological differences between male and female are negligable.
This premise is flawed.

None of that is true, none of it is even close to what I've explained multiple times in this thread. Please just fething read what I'm saying.

There are differences between how the sexes act and are treated in society. Some of these differences have their origins in basic biological differences, some have their origins in how society thinks of people. We call the first set of differences sex, we call the second set of differences gender.

And what the feth do you mean 'as I say'? This isn't my definition, it's the commonly accepted definitions within the field of study. Look, here it is, explained in the first line of the OP's article;
"And by "gender" we mean, according to Merriam-Webster, "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.""

Society may define genders but they are not a creation of society.

And the parts of that difference that are biological are referred to as 'sex' and the parts of that difference that are driven by society are called gender. Because both exist.

It isn't that hard to understand. It really just fething isn't.

sebster wrote:Please just fething read what I'm saying.

How about we try to have a CIVIL discussion?

"And by "gender" we mean, according to Merriam-Webster, "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.""

And the parts of that difference that are biological are referred to as 'sex' and the parts of that difference that are driven by society are called gender. Because both exist.

It isn't that hard to understand. It really just fething isn't.

Lets break that quote down a bit shall we?
Behavioral - based on behavior = 1a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment
2: the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior
-Society does not decide HOW a person will act, the individual does.-

Cultural - based on culture = 5a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture> c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic
-in other words... this IS society's piece of the puzzle.-

Psychological - a : of or relating to psychology b : mental
2: directed toward the will or toward the mind specifically in its conative function
-This again refers to the individual-

So gender is a function of how one acts and thinks and how a given society views these traits.
An openly gay woman that dresses in jeans and t-shirt, wears little or no make-up and behaves in a dominant manner is considered, by her own social group to be "male".
An openly gay man who affects a less masculine demeanor, who acts submissive is considered by his own social group to be "female".
Is this behavior taken on because the individual wishes to project themselves as other than their 'sex' or because "society" says they have to act a certain way to be perceived how they wish to be?

Simply taking the social/cultural traits out of the equation does nothing. Children learn behaviors by observation. You would have to completely remove the child from society to eliminate such learned behaviors.

A child raised without any contact with others would be the only possible way to create a truely gender neutral person.

Deadshane1 wrote:Let's take something natural, normal, and almost instinctive...

...and make it complicated.

Idiots.

That's what rampant liberalism does to this world.





...Did I really just say that?


Lettuce be reality here, being transsexual or whatever is just a deviation from the norm. Should they have rights? Sure, they're people too. But all this special treatment crap has to stop somewhere.

helgrenze wrote:How about we try to have a CIVIL discussion?

I would like that very much. I need you to understand that a civil discussion involves. I need you to understand that when I spend three posts explaining then repeating one simple thing, that you are not living up to your side of this civil discussion.

Simply taking the social/cultural traits out of the equation does nothing.

No-one is saying we need to do that. Stop making things up.

Children learn behaviors by observation. You would have to completely remove the child from society to eliminate such learned behaviors.

A child raised without any contact with others would be the only possible way to create a truely gender neutral person.

No-one wants a truly gender neutral person. That's just something you've made up inside your own head, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom.

People are talking about ways in which gender is perceived and enforced in society, and how this might be deconstructed where possible. Yes, that means looking to change society where society has an unhealthy attitude, much as we changed our attitudes to women in the workplace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Lettuce be reality here, being transsexual or whatever is just a deviation from the norm. Should they have rights? Sure, they're people too. But all this special treatment crap has to stop somewhere.

What special treatment? The special right to be treated as a human being?

sebster wrote: Is anyone saying that a child should be called it for the rest of its life? Is anyone suggesting that we aggressively deny all forms of biological difference?

If you can't see what's wrong with it, you're just as stupid as the parents. Yes, I am transgendered, but I chose to be, there are plenty of feminine males out there who choose to be/stay men, even hermaphrodites pick a gender. Sigmund freud once said "what we are never changes, who we are never stops changing". Even after I slipped the dress on, received breast implants, or put on my lipstick, the truth is I'm still a male. This is why I keep my doohickey, I may see my self as female gender, my sex is male in the end.

No-one in the article or in this thread has suggested raising a child to be entirely androgynous, or ignore the basics of biology.

Would people please kindly stop making things up?

Nobody is making it up, it is strongly implied.

This is why I hate people, and even sadder, why I understand why a lot of other countries hate america, because people can't be happy until they push all the buttons on the control panel of society. in a way, I feel sorry for the kid, and even sorrier for the parents who feel the need to do this. kids are cruel, like a den of lions, and they've tied a steak to the poor child, but, they don't care since they won't suffer, so, it's easy for them to hide the kid's identity. I know this from personal experience. when I began experimenting with crossdressing, I was mistreated, abused, and humiliated, and this was russia, and the kids in america are a lot meaner.

Raising a child in a non gender specific way does not remove what the child will observe and then immitate, unless both parents are acting in a gender neutral way. Human nature being what it is, makes this improbable as one parent or the other will, perhaps subconscienciously, act in a very gender specific manner and thus influence the child who is then likely to attempt the same mannerism because it was different from the childs normal experience with that parent.
Regardless of the child's sex, they may continue to act in that manner simply because it is different and is likely to get attention from both parents, though for negative reasons.

So then perhaps we should retrain some 11 billion people, from different social, economic, religious, and cultural backgrounds?
Not likely to happen overnight.

Some urban dwellers, especially in the larger western cities, have learned to make such adjustments.
However, until those that ARE outside the norm of both sex and gender, stop segragating themselves from the rest of society, due explicitly to their differences, Society is going to view them as "outsiders".
Consider New York City's East Village, Fire Lake, And certain sections of both Las Vegas and Los Angeles. These areas are the homosexual equivelent of the Chinatowns in these same cities.

Acceptance takes time, tolerance is learned, behavior is immitated.
If the gender nonspecific wish to be accepted by society for who they are, they also need to accept society for what it is.

sebster wrote:
What special treatment? The special right to be treated as a human being?

Purely on evolutionary terms, transsexuals aren't normal. This doesn't mean they're not nice people or anything, it's just that they're not normal.

Just because some people have some messed up wiring mean that kids should be forced to grow up without a gender, as the article notes that there are dangers for going against the gender roles.

Then again, I'm an donkey-cave and I don't care much for people who "flaunt" who they are- be it white, green, straight, gay, whatever. I don't give a crap. By flaunting your difference, you're making it an issue.

remilia_scarlet wrote:If you can't see what's wrong with it, you're just as stupid as the parents. Yes, I am transgendered, but I chose to be, there are plenty of feminine males out there who choose to be/stay men, even hermaphrodites pick a gender. Sigmund freud once said "what we are never changes, who we are never stops changing". Even after I slipped the dress on, received breast implants, or put on my lipstick, the truth is I'm still a male. This is why I keep my doohickey, I may see my self as female gender, my sex is male in the end.

That's great, but it has nothing to do with this article, or any argument put forward in this thread.

Nobody is making it up, it is strongly implied.

Not only is it not implied, the opposite has been outrightly stated.

This is why I hate people, and even sadder, why I understand why a lot of other countries hate america, because people can't be happy until they push all the buttons on the control panel of society. in a way, I feel sorry for the kid, and even sorrier for the parents who feel the need to do this. kids are cruel, like a den of lions, and they've tied a steak to the poor child, but, they don't care since they won't suffer, so, it's easy for them to hide the kid's identity. I know this from personal experience. when I began experimenting with crossdressing, I was mistreated, abused, and humiliated, and this was russia, and the kids in america are a lot meaner.

That thing where you assume that the parents are going to continue treating the kid as non-gendered for the rest of his life is a thing you've just made up in your own head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:Raising a child in a non gender specific way does not remove what the child will observe and then immitate, unless both parents are acting in a gender neutral way. Human nature being what it is, makes this improbable as one parent or the other will, perhaps subconscienciously, act in a very gender specific manner and thus influence the child who is then likely to attempt the same mannerism because it was different from the childs normal experience with that parent.

Yes, and being aware of that, and trying to minimise that where we see that it is harmful is what this is about.

So then perhaps we should retrain some 11 billion people, from different social, economic, religious, and cultural backgrounds?

No, what? Did we have to retrain 7 billion people to begin reducing racism in the world? No, we each just did what we could, tried to become aware of our own racism and work to correct that. This is no different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Just because some people have some messed up wiring mean that kids should be forced to grow up without a gender, as the article notes that there are dangers for going against the gender roles.

The point isn't to deny gender roles for the sake of the transgendered, I don't know where you got that from. The point is that a perfectly normal, straight girl might just prefer playing with guns and cars when she's a kid. A perfectly normal, straight boy might love to play house.

The point is to let kids find out for themselves what kind of kid they want to be, without as little social pressure as possible.

I think the idea of mitigating social pressure is a good one, but it is hard to put into practice. It always seems like the lowest people in our society do most of the social steering.

Sebster, I'd just give up. Gender studies is a highly complicated field, and can be quite difficult to understand at the best of times. When my gender neutral friend first told me about this particular area, I couldn't really understand what she was talking about. It wasn't until I sat down in an academic library, researching the topic of gender, that I finally managed to wrap my head around the concept, and even then it required a complete shift in thinking as to how I regarded the difference between the words 'sex' and 'gender'.

Fact is, I don't think we're going to have much luck explaining it to the people here. From what I can see, we have a number of people who didn't read the article, a number of people making ignorant comments and implying its just a load of attention seeking made up stuff, and a number of people who could understand, but probably won't, or will refuse to in the context of an internet argument.

What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

The fact that not everyone necessarily wishes to adhere to them, or feels comfortable in them, or indeed even possesses the traits required to fulfill 'traditional roles', and expecting and putting social pressure on them to conform is ignorant. There's also the fact that a huge amount of sexism can be traced back to these 'traditional gender roles'.

In fact, there's quite a bit wrong with 'traditional gender roles'.

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

The fact that not everyone necessarily wishes to adhere to them, or feels comfortable in them, or indeed even possesses the traits required to fulfill 'traditional roles', and expecting and putting social pressure on them to conform is ignorant. There's also the fact that a huge amount of sexism can be traced back to these 'traditional gender roles'.

In fact, there's quite a bit wrong with 'traditional gender roles'.

Well put, Ketara. It's hardly a great system to assign people societal roles and occupations based on their sex, no more than it is to do so by their skin colour.

Genders are rooted very heavily in a biology. Male and Female brains are not the same. While there are people all he way along the scale there is a definate trend. It might seem that it is society drawing boys towards sports but this just isn't the case. male brains are much more competitive and enjoy competition- sports being a very good way to compete. Girls play with dolls for the same reason- the desire to care for and look after something is built into them. There is also the fact that boys relate easy to males and girls relate easier to females. Even if you give them freedon to choose they will still connect easier with someone of the same sex.

The conscious part of our brains may seem similar but subconsciously we are very different. While are brains are different genders will stay.

Societies ability to force people into roles they don't wish is overexagerated. Most people who desire to go against societies expectations do. In the past (and in some places it still is) being homosexual was not accepted but there have been openly gay people for a very long time. Just look at some of the examples in the article. People are choosing the life they want- there really isn't any need to force people to live a genderless upbringing- it does more harm than good.

What harm does it do to bring someone up in a genderless environment? If gender is as rooted in biology as you say, wouldn't it make no difference, the traits you mentioned naturally asserting themselves?

What harm does it do? No harm, until said person steps out of their gender-less environment and into the regular world, where they will be judged.

iproxtaco wrote:What harm does it do? No harm, until said person steps out of their gender-less environment and into the regular world, where they will be judged.

I know of no force on Earth that will prevent people from judging one another, generally harshly and based on superficial impressions. But that's not the thrust of my question, the implication of the post I quoted was that gender naturally asserts itself biologically. If raised in a genderless environment, how what that be affected? Raising a child in a counter-gender environment, sure, I could see that. But a genderless environment, following the logic of the idea of biological predetermination, would just see the gender assert itself, regardless of the absence of gender-based role models.

Getting the chance to see how individuals from both sex act, affect and are effected by the world around them is a import part of a childs education. Learning and understanding society is an importand skill. Children learn how to behave from looking at others. By taking this away from them you aren't helping. Yes they should be free to choose- this can be done by showing them how people from either gender behave and making it clear it is ok to choose. Taking away all the people who they can relate to just leaves as isolated child.

They will be living in the real world- they need to find therir place in this world not in a genderless world created by their parents.

So, a single person or a group of people are raised in a genderless environment.
I would hypothesis, that the single person, when raised with no concept of gender, would notice his biology, but would not apply any term for himself. If he was then placed with females(sex), he would differentiate from them due to his biology, essentially creating two genders by himself.
The same would happen if a group were raised collectively in the same genderless environment, they would separate themselves based on their biology.
It's not a simple as that though. There are numerous factors to take into account. Are these people raised by other humans? If so, to remain genderless, these people would have to be the same, genderless to begin with. Also, would these subjects have this philosophy ingrained into them, as in, they were taught to think like this, or would they be raised without any of this stimuli? It's far too complicated to work with our current western society. As soon as gender roles are applied around them, they will then question their own up-bringing and will be judged for their belief, ignorant of the norm or otherwise.

4M2A wrote:Getting the chance to see how individuals from both sex act, affect and are effected by the world around them is a import part of a childs education. Learning and understanding society is an importand skill. Children learn how to behave from looking at others. By taking this away from them you aren't helping. Yes they should be free to choose- this can be done by showing them how people from either gender behave and making it clear it is ok to choose. Taking away all the people who they can relate to just leaves as isolated child.

They will be living in the real world- they need to find therir place in this world not in a genderless world created by their parents.

Ah, OK, I thought you meant a truly genderless environment, rather than just a genderless parental unit. That is to say, a genderless planet, if you will, or a contained environment where the will not come into contact with sex-gender axioms. If nothing else, this would provide an interesting insight into the child's development of it's own gender identity, but the ethics of that are admittedly questionable.

But the second point you make, about them being free to choose by telling them it is OK to choose - why must gender role be so binary? As you say, there is a spectrum of gender traits that, defining each gender as a seperate and distinct thing and telling a child to choose one is still enforcing traditional gender divides on a developing childs personality. There is no real evidence that this is necessarily a beneficial thing.

htj wrote:What harm does it do to bring someone up in a genderless environment? If gender is as rooted in biology as you say, wouldn't it make no difference, the traits you mentioned naturally asserting themselves?

It makes for a wussified hothouse creature thats going to get steamrolled by LIFE (TM) the first time they step out their door. Zombie Hitler is waiting with his space Nazi ubermen to take over the world as soon as this trend spreads. You have been warned. Watch the Skies!

If everyone simply accepted the behaviour roles and conditions imposed on them by social tradition we would still be living in damp caves.

[quote=Vladsimpale
Then again, I'm an donkey-cave and I don't care much for people who "flaunt" who they are- be it white, green, straight, gay, whatever. I don't give a crap. By flaunting your difference, you're making it an issue.

sebster wrote:The point isn't to deny gender roles for the sake of the transgendered, I don't know where you got that from. The point is that a perfectly normal, straight girl might just prefer playing with guns and cars when she's a kid. A perfectly normal, straight boy might love to play house.

The point is to let kids find out for themselves what kind of kid they want to be, without as little social pressure as possible.

Exactly. I've been reading "Raising my Boychick", and the author rises quite a point: Parents should really loosen their grip on some issues that are, more or less, beyond their control.

It has reminded me of all the critizism Amy Chua got for that book on "Tiger Moms" and how strong discipline during childhood leads to successful adults. Most critics said Ms. Chua's methods were not only cruel, but also counterproductive. Believing that genetics or upbringing predispose your kid for success, attempting to rout out enthropy through tight control, is self deceiving. Education is about giving kids the tools to better deal with future situations, not programming them for a bright future which may never come.

That said, I've still got issues against Queer Theory and most diatribes on gender espoused by the author of "Raising my Boychick". Gender studies rely too much on broad generalizations and categorizing that, in the long term, end up reinforcing traditional gender roles. By making up new categories such as cisgender, male/female assigned, intersexual and the like, or by adhering to orientalistic, deeply illiberal views on "other genders", they are effectively denying the fact that gender roles change and adapt as society does. Queer theorists' views on gender depend of an incredibly restrictive, almost medioeval definition of male and female gender roles, a world in which males are all psychopathic beer-guzzling promiscuous apes and women all feerical mother-figures always in the verge of hysterical breakdown. Accompanying these two caricatures lie a host of "intermediate genders", where all deviations from the "norm" are tagged and categorized as aberrations demanding proper study.

Needless to say, reality doesn't conform to this in the slightest.

In the end, it all boils down to girls playing with guns and toy cars and boys playing house. What a couple centuries ago (or fifty thousand kilometers away) was a defiance to gender roles is no longer regarded as such. Problem is, Queer Theorists and gender activists still do.

@Agent_Tremolo.

That was an excellent post. I agree with you right down the line.

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:What exactly is wrong with traditional gender roles? Anyone?

The fact that not everyone necessarily wishes to adhere to them, or feels comfortable in them, or indeed even possesses the traits required to fulfill 'traditional roles', and expecting and putting social pressure on them to conform is ignorant.

Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority? I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people. In fact, I pretty much leave those people the feth alone because I have no interest in them.

I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is. And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it. In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks. OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind. Dress it up however you like, but there it is.

There's also the fact that a huge amount of sexism can be traced back to these 'traditional gender roles'.

I can be traced back to Irish hill-farmers. I, however also live in a major metropolitan area of England, and am a music student. Does that which came before me influence me? Undoubtedly.
However, I am not exactly the same, in fact I am massively different, almost unrecognisable.

See where I'm going with this? The roles of men and women in society are constantly evolving towards greater and greater equality - that DOES NOT mean that we need to do away with the concepts of 'man' and 'woman'.

In fact, there's quite a bit wrong with 'traditional gender roles'.

Cool, I'm all ears, since so far all you've posted was 'some people don't like them' and 'uh, sexism and that'. Shoot.


Also, do you consider yourself a man?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Agent_Tremelo - Just seen your post. Word.

Albatross wrote:Well, I am a 'man' in a the (largely) traditional sense. Why should I be forced to adopt a gender-neutral position just to satisfy an insignificant minority? I'm not trying to tell them how to live their lives, much less that they are somehow ignorant or bad people. In fact, I pretty much leave those people the feth alone because I have no interest in them.

I am not 'neutral' to the concept of 'gender', barely anyone is. And I suspect that most of those who claim to be have to try really, really hard at it. In fact, I'd go further than that, and state that I'm of the opinion that Gender Studies and 'queer theory' are a load of subjective bollocks. OK, so I'm down with the idea that 'gender' roles are largely performative/demonstrative, and that this leads to outcomes whereby individuals take on a gender identity different to their biological sex - it doesn't change the uncomfortable fact that it is, fundamentally, all in the mind. Dress it up however you like, but there it is.

QFT. I agree with everything you've said so far, and you've put it better than I ever could.

Traditional Gender roles aren't bad, the way I see things. The fact that the majority of women and men I know are perfectly happy in their traditional gender roles are a testament to that. But, as Albatross has said, I'm open to an opposing opinion.