Time to throw away the chains of gender

Freiheit

'Where one's internal sense of gender does not match one's biological organs',a common definition of a transgendered person (Yes I know it's a broad church so please accept my apologies for inexact terminology:)). Is though societies definition of what equates to male and female a bit limited?. Is this fact being lost in popular discussion?.

I'm delighted at the huge social and political progress made by the transgendered community,but as one myself is restricted nature of gender expression, of what is acceptable expression for male and females being challenged? . Is the oppressive nature of this straightjacket being lost?.

A high percentage of the public would say 'your born a boy' (ie with a penis) 'that fact can't be changed,your indelibly a boy' or visa versa. But is the artifical confines within which the gender operates being explained to the public?.

I'd like a society where people are allowed to express themselves as is natural for them,whether they identify as trans or not. A lot of what we consider male and female I believe is socially constructed,reinforced by conditioning.

Gender variance is natural.

Maybe this needs to be emphasised more rather than focusing on two straightjackets?:)

Azure_sky

I think if we're all going to have a fruitful debate on this we'll have to define gender to begin with. There's so many definitions. Personally I differentiate between gender identity/brain sex and gender roles. The empirical evidence tells us brain sex exists but how it manifests as gender roles is far more complicated and diverse. I just want to know the facts, which may take a good few decades. What I have seen from other people is that gender expression and gender roles tend to often run on a spectrum, much like sexuality. Most people veer towards one end of the sprectrum but there's a large minority that fit somewhere in the middle. This leads to another question: Is anyone 100% straight or 100% gay?

Annasopra

I read an interview recently with David Beckham about the birth of his daughter and he started talking about having pink things and that you have to treat girls more delicately then boys. Frankly I found this quite absurd and horrifying - it has been decided by him that his baby daughter should have certain characteristics already. He is already creating a female role. Ive got mixed feelings about completely reconstructing the idea of gender altogether - I don't really understand myself the concept not being fixed and binary - as in people who identify as genderqueer. The other thing is that I have witnessed quite violent (not physical) reactions when stories are discussed about children being raised tenderness by schools or parents. From the anecdotal evidence Ive seen I think that Irish people are deeply hostile towards any idea that gender isn't fixed or binary. Im very open to such ideas but I dont think a lot of Irish people are.

G.K.

Azure_sky wrote: »

Is anyone 100% straight or 100% gay?

I dunno about the rest of the world but I certainly aren't.

Shakti

Define gender?
..good luck.

I dont buy into the brain sex either it would be nice and neat but the evidence has been resolutely debunked in my opinion. What the data does show is that overwhelmingly women and men are more alike than they are different.
Will Ireland ever be ready for women with penises and men with vaginas? I used to care but right now I don't and it kind of makes a mockery of us to reduce us to our genitals and denies us our history ancient and recent to objectify us as a phenomena.

baby and crumble

I personally think that society has (generally) understood the world in binary for so long that it would take a huge monumental surge to change that. Our brains seem to be built for mostly seeing the world in either/or.

Black/white
Rich/poor
male/female
yes/no
yin/yang
able-bodied/disabled

I personally don't hold much truck with this 'genderqueer' label people like to put on themselves. that's not to think it's wrong, I just don't see how it's useful or possible. Probably because in my brain people are either male or female. How you present your male or female-ness to the world is, of course, up for debate. But the essentials of it for me, stick to binaries.

wonderfulname

A lot of genderqueer is still within the binary though, and what isn't is generally described as the absence of either or the existence of both, so on a basic level binary is still relevant.

Gender roles and expectations however, are a purely social construct, as is the perception of there being a gulf between the two. However this gulf has been shrinking since world war one and we are now at a point where for women, for practicalities sake it is effectively non existent, although for men and socially for either sex there is still quite a way to go.

The other issue is that, as mango salsa has rightly pointed out, this is happening mostly with regards adults, children are still being conditioned to meet criteria based on gender and it certainly effects how the majority will present themselves in later life, regardless of who they actually are. Dolls for girls only and guns for boys only reinforces roles in their minds that actually no longer really exist for us.

Freiheit

From my perspective I simply believe allowing people to live in whatever ways makes them feel happy,they'l likely be mentally and physicaly healthier,live more productive lives. To me the penis and vagina enable different reproductive roles and they are no basis on which to define a life.

Yes David Beckham making such comments,very unenlightened,from a man who did in a small wall expand the binary.

Gender Queer? well for me it means simply a queering of the conventional gender 'norms' (by norm I mean how people were dictated to act), I mean simply being yourself and not worrying about gender...My parents grew up with queer as an insult,I don't view it as such though,not in it's literal meaning.

I'm not necessarily advocating an abolition of the binary,it won't happen in my or in many future lifetimes,there's no need to anyway. But I hope that the parameters or male and female can be expanded,that stigmatisation of such can be eroded and that parent's will no longer feel anxious if their baby boy plays with dolls. That's it's nothing to be afraid of whether,whether the child eventually does or doesn't go on to identify as gay or transgender,it's nothing to be afraid of.

Maybe if there was greater focus on the socially constructed aspect to gender. More realisatiom of and education on the fact the our expectations of male and female and intersex (scandalously altered at birth without their consent 'to fit in' as either male or female,not allowed to make their own minds later) are to a large extent due to nurture,to socially constructed expectations rather than nature.

Recently read that no two organs in nature are as similar as the male and female brain. Male brain tends to be bigger,because most male bodies are bigger. Female brains on average smaller as most vagina containing bodies are smaller thus wiring needs to be a little bit more efficent,like a small and a large computer,but there is no evidence that either operate any differently. A lap top tend to be larger than a desk top,but they have virtually identical capabilities and functioning. Perhaps not identical but almost. That is I believe a good analogy for the male and female brains and you don't give your lap top a dress just because it's brain is smaller.

Azure_sky

(Controversial opinion. :pac:) Is it not reasonable to say that these gender roles are a manifestation of brain sex and the male and female brain evolved differently over aeons?

In general, and the term general is the thing to be aware of here, women are shorter and physically weaker than men. In general women have more empathy than men and have a higher emotional I.Q.
Man has been the hunter while woman has been the nurturer of the off spring; and as this was advantageous to humanity it's still hardwired into us. It might not be politically correct, but that does not alter it's truth value. We see gender roles in the animal kingdom.

Freiheit

Higher empathy? Is this not a result of nurture? of conditioning? females are -expected- to be high in empathy and receive social advantage if they develope this trait. Males are not,men are not expected to rate as highly in this department,thus this capacity is not encouraged as much and there is less social disadvantage if it is present to a low degree. In the playground it's accepted,encouraged even for boys to play rough,it's disencouraged amongst girls.
It's like a muscle,stimulate it and it will develope,don't and it will rot away,so it's natural then that females tend to rate higher in empathy on average,but it's cultivated.

Higher emotional IQ? same thing,the brain physicaly developes in accordance with it's experience,with it's nurturing. There is no evidence that males who are encouraged to develop empathy skills rate any lower. There is also the 'self fulfilling prophecy'. It's recognised that in IQ tests,or any test for that matter, that if you tell someone that they are likely to perform less well than person x for whatever reason,that in most cases they will . The reverse is also true. Tell a group of girls that they are likely to perform less well than a group of boys because they are girls then on average they will. There is no evidence that there is anything that these children were born with is responsible for such.

I've yet to see any evidence of a brain sex. Sure there is the case of the hypothalamus in male to female transsexuals being of a similar size to that of at birth assigned females but that was a tiny study,of only 6 I think,5 of whom had undergone hormonal treatment and the hypothalamus is an area senstive to hormones.

Hormones which do vary on average between male and female bodies will affect mood and some bodily function but that does not equate to a brain sex.

I'm not advocating a genderless society ,people should be free to identify as they want and for most that will be either male or female and that's fine. But again perhaps through greater awareness of the role of nurture,of social construction,that male and female space will be freer,with more scope and with overlap and wth people able to travel between. And above all a realisation that there is no need to fear such,for parent's or society at large. The bi-gender system,in it's current restricted form,especially for men is unnatural and causes mental and physical health problems,prejudice and in some cases suicide.

Azure_sky

Freiheit wrote: »

Higher empathy? Is this not a result of nurture? of conditioning? females are -expected- to be high in empathy and receive social advantage if they develope this trait.
It's like a muscle,stimulate it and it will develope,don't and it will rot away,so it's natural then that females tend to rate higher in empathy on average,but it's cultivated.

Higher emotional IQ? same thing,the brain physically developes in accordance with it's experience,with it's nurturing.

I think there is a social element to it but I think it's mainly down to evolution. If humans evolved physically different based on what their environment and what would have been advantageous for them I don't see why the brain would not evolve differently based on gender. We can see it in the animal Kingdom but their are also anomalies within the animal Kingdom, again a comparison could be made with sexuality.

Certainly society and experience can influence a person but there seems to be a limit of how far this can go. I could have trained to be a soccer player all my life with the best trainers and I could still suck at it. Some people could have all the best education in the world and still not be too bright. It's mainly about genetics.

Ultimately I agree with what you're saying. I think that few people are 100% male or female in terms of gender. It's a spectrum and most people are veering towards one end, but there's a large minority somewhere in the middle. I think what we disagree on is how this is so. I believe it's primarily innate while you seem to believe it's primarily empirically learned.:)

Hormones which do vary on average between male and female bodies will affect mood and some bodily function but that does not equate to a brain sex.

My understanding is that hormonal influences during foetal development decides brain sex and physical sex.

The bi-gender system,in it's current restricted form,especially for men is unnatural and causes mental and physical health problems,prejudice and in some cases suicide.

I agree with you 100%. People just need to be educated, and be compassionate and tolerant.

Freiheit

My personal belief is that it's evolution of society,not of the brain. I can easily understand how society evolved to produce the conditions that we have today. Hopefuly it will continue to evolve in the light of new knowledge and circumstances.

However the cause shouldn't matter,regardless of what it is doesn't make it more or less legitimate. The concept that gender variance is something to discourage is what needs to change. Attitudes need to evolve and they are.

I just feel that the fact that gender itself is to a certain extent at very least socially constructed is absent from most media coverage,it doesn't challenge what is in my eyes the real problem. That people are expected to live in a certain way because of the prescence or abscence of a penis.

Azure_sky

Freiheit wrote: »

My personal belief is that it's evolution of society,not of the brain. I can easily understand how society evolved to produce the conditions that we have today. Hopefuly it will continue to evolve in the light of new knowledge and circumstances.

However the cause shouldn't matter,regardless of what it is doesn't make it more or less legitimate. The concept that gender variance is something to discourage is what needs to change. Attitudes need to evolve and they are.

I just feel that the fact that gender itself is to a certain extent at very least socially constructed is absent from most media coverage,it doesn't challenge what is in my eyes the real problem. That people are expected to live in a certain way because of the prescence or abscence of a penis.

I think it's a chicken and the egg scenario. I believe that the brain has adapted along with it's environment because it's more advantageous to survival. Peoples from hot climates have darker skin because their bodies needed to adapt to the climate. Peoples from cold climates tend to have more facial hair due to colder environments. The brain is a physical entity too, so I'd assume it would work in the same way.

I think the best way for transgenders to get rights is by proving that brain sex is innate. It's no coincidence that gay rights have drastically improved since homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. As more evidence for a physiological cause to gender dysphoria arises GID will be delisted as a mental disorder in more countries. Social acceptance of transsexuals and rights will follow.

In the future it will all be irrelevant as science advances anyway to the point of making transhumanism a reality. People will be able to alter their brain sex, physical sex and sexual orientation, and that's just the beginning.

Freiheit

Is that what brain sex is about though then, access to medical treatment? Sure I can see it's advantage there and also from the point of view of legal rights. If there is an innate variant area of the brain it sounds a lot more convincing. However it just doesn't make sense to me. I also feel that this argument is limiting the scope of gender expression.

The facts are that there is no discernable difference between male and female brains,size being the only general trend,which is a general pattern only.

Azure_sky

Freiheit wrote: »

Is that what brain sex is about though then, access to medical treatment? Sure I can see it's advantage there and also from the point of view of legal rights. If there is an innate variant area of the brain it sounds a lot more convincing. However it just doesn't make sense to me. I also feel that this argument is limiting the scope of gender expression.

The facts are that there is no discernable difference between male and female brains,size being the only general trend,which is a general pattern only.

http://www.medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69

Admittedly it is best for our cause if we prove that brain sex is innate, but irrespective of that, I honestly do believe it is primarily innate. I don't know if there's an innate variant area of the brain or if it's simply a case of anomalies, like inter-sexed people. Gender expression is a difficult one because we're back to the issue of the definition of gender. I certainly agree that some aspects of gender expression more social constructs than others. The preference for the colour pink etc.

wonderfulname

You talk of brain sex as though it is concrete, it isn't at all, there are various elements and you'd be hard pressed to find an individual that has all of those elements in either category. If we talk purely brain sex I'm actually smack bang in the middle with equal qualities of both, it doesn't effect my gender, there are many people with technically opposite brain sex to the gender they identify with.

Breaking down gender barriers isn't so much about saying that everyone is innately the same, it's in saying that irrespective of gender, there is a certain probability for anyone that they will not fit cleanly on one side of that barrier, that potentially people can be or do anything, and that probability is bloody massive! On average I think someone will, to put it simply, have a brain sex that is about 75% true to their gender, 25% is a pretty sizeable chunk and it does merit the way our society is moving. I actually don't think it would benefit trans people to prove that people are innately on one side of this divide, because scientifically and medically there isn't a problem with trans, it's when you get into society and politics (bloody people) that we see tensions, why is this? I would argue it's because people are too rigid in their perception of gender, reinforcing this is not good.

I've just realised that there is a possibility that Azure is fusing brain sex with the idea that someone's perception of their gender is innate, it's not quite the same, and I thought the latter had been proven anyway, or at least was taken to be fact by the medical and scientific communities, see, it's people that are the problem, and lord knows proof doesn't sway people...

Azure_sky

wonderfulname wrote: »

You talk of brain sex as though it is concrete, it isn't at all, there are various elements and you'd be hard pressed to find an individual that has all of those elements in either category.

I think you may have misinterpreted me. I actually agree with this. I'm just saying that it exists does effect people's gender identity, rather than gender identity being primarily empirically learned, but that few people are 100% male or female in terms of gender identity-it's the same as sexual orientation. But again we all really need to have a definition of gender that we can agree on because otherwise it'll just make everyones head spin.

wonderfulname

If we are to be brutally honest, nobody can define gender as we haven't pinned it down to anything in the physical realm yet, I would say that gender identity is gender, it is the only constant, we just don't know where it comes from.

EDIT: forgot to mention, brain sex and GI definitely separate, just like physical sex and GI are definitely separate, they tend to correlate yes, but correlation =/= causation.

Asry

Well like. I'm a woman but I'm not feminine or girly that much. I wear (stupidly expensive) makeup and bows in my hair sometimes but...I think I would if I was born a man, as well. I feel that I'm half female and half male, but I would not define myself that way. Well, more male than female, really. I'm a woman. I was born with woman parts and my body looks like a woman's. I dislike the assignation of 'genderqueer'. There's too many labels, nowadays. I stick with the 'partly gay' one to make people like me more visible, because we seem to fall through the cracks more often than not, but that's pretty much the only reason.

I would disagree with treating girls more delicately etc as Beckham was saying, as was mentioned in an earlier post. People are who they are. If my son (who will probably never exist because of my aversion to children!) were to want to play with barbies, that'd be fine. I know little boys who are now men who played barbies with me as a child. We played GI Joe as well. But that doesn't make him less of a man, just a person with facets, like the way everyone has them. He's still a man though. Do your sexual parts at birth not assign you, unless you change them later? Or is that too restrictive in the eyes of some people? This might offend some people, for which I apologise. I have a tiny brain.

Azure_sky

Asry wrote: »

Do your sexual parts at birth not assign you, unless you change them later? Or is that too restrictive in the eyes of some people? This might offend some people, for which I apologise. I have a tiny brain.

No. Intersexed people and transsexuals etc.

Asry

But there's brain gender and physical gender I suppose, as demonstrated by me up above. Sex doesn't = gender, I suppose. The hijra are pretty cool. There should be a third gender.

Kanoe

Azure_sky wrote: »

In general women have more empathy than men and have a higher emotional I.Q.

I don't even know how this stereotype was born. I know a lot of cold women and a lot more "warm" men. maybe the men are just better at acting that way, I dunno but my experience has always been the reverse of this. Is it the mothering nurturing aspect that is associated with empathy in women?