Jump to content

Gender IS NOT Entirely A Social Construct


Chardog

Recommended Posts

This article backs up what I've been trying to say all along-

http://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/

Gender Mostly used for cultural behaviors such as dress, mannerisms, signs of deference, et cetera, that differentiate the sexes, gender itself is not entirely a social construct. As already mentioned, neuroscience research over the past few decades indicates through an overwhelming amount of evidence that gender is not a blank slate that is imparted entirely by civilization, but rather has some inherent characteristics that manifest regardless of upbringing or environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lost247365

If there was no biological component to gender, then I would think that there would be civilizations that would have developed without the concept.

Yet, as far as I know, there does not exist a single civilization like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MoraDollie

We have 3 sexes only: female, male, intersex. What deems a child as intersex comes down to genitalia appearance at birth (essentially if it's "atypical"). isna.org is a GREAT resource for this kind of information (which sadly not all medical places are up to date with terminology, even famous ones like University of Rochester). What we view as feminine/masculine is totally culture dependent. We have sex features specific to body sexes (wide hips, large bust, big curve in spine for butt, musculature for men, etc), but this related to reproductive purposes and how our bodies developed and changed over time (sexology) to determine had had the "fittest" genes and who were most likely to reproduce and pass on their genes to offspring. It's what life comes down to, who can successfully pass their genes onto the next generation and push the species forward. It's a bit oversimplified, but from a biologist's standpoint, that is the meaning of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlaafyTaffy

Well, sure. It isn't going to be ENTIRELY a social construct. Doesn't mean society doesn't have a huge role in how each sex behaves. It's the nature vs nurture debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone actually reading the article? What I'm seeing for responses are regurgitated copies of statements from previous threads (where I've seen the same stuff posted verbatim). Beyond that, I'm also not seeing any indication that the information was viewed in context beyond the quote I posted..

In 3+ years of being on here, this is the first thread I've ever started. It will also be the last.

I have always defaulted to male preferences and behavior, despite being AFAB. Being exposed to

societal expectations hasn't affected this one way or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is entirely a social construct. Biology is the foundation in life, and culture is just that biology reacting to different environmental stimuli.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did try to read the linked article -- or rather, website. But it's almost impossible for me to read white-print-on-dark-background stuff without getting a migraine. Please do start another thread, with a link to a website much easier to read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did try to read the linked article -- or rather, website. But it's almost impossible for me to read white-print-on-dark-background stuff without getting a migraine. Please do start another thread, with a link to a website much easier to read.

That's funny, im the exact oppisite. I'll read this and respond tommorrow, sleeeep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "(This is not to say everyone who wants sexual reassignment surgery is legitimately a case of a brain and body mismatch. Some are simply mentally unhealthy and fixate on the notion of being transgender as a coping mechanism,only to regret the change later A sociological manifestation of this phenomenon is the so-called “pretendbians” – men who insist they are women, dress in women’s clothes, and present as women, but then wish to retain their male biological parts whilst saying that they are lesbians who want to date other lesbians. This includes having penis-in-vagina sexual relationships. These lesbians, who by very definition are not interested in having penetrative sex with a biologically male body, are then accused of being “transphobic” and creating – this is the actual term – a “cotton ceiling”; a play on words that borrows from the glass ceiling in female employment and the cotton construction of a typical pair of underwear. It’s a disturbingly misogynistic thing to believe as it implies that the the biological female lesbians owe their physical and emotional affection to someone who demands it and is incapable of meeting their needs. One author refers to these “pretendbians” as men engaged in a self-deluded form of “heterosexual kink”. In any event, they do tremendous damage to the political efforts of actual transgender people, like the Riley Grants of the world, who should be protected from employment discrimination, given access to mental health resources during transition, and supported in school during early childhood when beginning hormone treatment to rectify what is a very real biological condition. Men and women who fall into this faux form of transgenderism often display a litany of mental health and / or mood disorders.)"

This paragraph has multiple problems. This could be interpreted as saying trans people who choose to not transition are a different kind of trans person, which isn't the case. I think what it was trying to communicate was that people who do not experience physical dissatisfaction with their sexed bodies are not actually transexual, but I don't think this argument was clearly communicated. It didn't explain how "actual" transgender people differ from "faux transgenderism". The implication seems to be that the fake type of transgender doesn't have a brain that matches that of another sex, but that claim is not clearly made or supported within the article.

It also defines lesbianism inaccurately. Some lesbians would not be willing to have penetrative sex with someone who is biologically male, but others differ in this respect.

I agree that it is gross to try to argue that anyone owes anyone sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

A little bit of problematic language in that one paragraph, but I agree with the gist of the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always defaulted to male preferences and behavior, despite being AFAB. Being exposed to
societal expectations hasn't affected this one way or another.

Same.

They tried to make me into a girl, rather. They weren't too pushy, but still. I went to college with a bit of self-awareness and suddenly all pieces of the puzzle fell into place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone actually reading the article? What I'm seeing for responses are regurgitated copies of statements from previous threads (where I've seen the same stuff posted verbatim). Beyond that, I'm also not seeing any indication that the information was viewed in context beyond the quote I posted..

In 3+ years of being on here, this is the first thread I've ever started. It will also be the last.

I have always defaulted to male preferences and behavior, despite being AFAB. Being exposed to

societal expectations hasn't affected this one way or another.

Your article is very interesting actually, I was having a conversation with a pal about this yesterday actually xD Or at least something on that note that was similar. I know as an autistic(person with aspergers anyway) that while I maybe AFAB I obviously don't have the mindset of a typical female. This test would be interesting to take in that matter being the fact my folks are always saying I have "guyish tendacies" and a mindset that is "more masculine".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did try to read the linked article -- or rather, website. But it's almost impossible for me to read white-print-on-dark-background stuff without getting a migraine. Please do start another thread, with a link to a website much easier to read.

I seriously don't have time to go hunting for more "scientific evidence" just to have crap picked apart.. I'm sorry you can't read it, but this is the article I have (which I only have because someone I know posted the link on FB).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "(This is not to say everyone who wants sexual reassignment surgery is legitimately a case of a brain and body mismatch. Some are simply mentally unhealthy and fixate on the notion of being transgender as a coping mechanism,only to regret the change later A sociological manifestation of this phenomenon is the so-called pretendbians men who insist they are women, dress in womens clothes, and present as women, but then wish to retain their male biological parts whilst saying that they are lesbians who want to date other lesbians. This includes having penis-in-vagina sexual relationships. These lesbians, who by very definition are not interested in having penetrative sex with a biologically male body, are then accused of being transphobic and creating this is the actual term a cotton ceiling; a play on words that borrows from the glass ceiling in female employment and the cotton construction of a typical pair of underwear. Its a disturbingly misogynistic thing to believe as it implies that the the biological female lesbians owe their physical and emotional affection to someone who demands it and is incapable of meeting their needs. One author refers to these pretendbians as men engaged in a self-deluded form of heterosexual kink. In any event, they do tremendous damage to the political efforts of actual transgender people, like the Riley Grants of the world, who should be protected from employment discrimination, given access to mental health resources during transition, and supported in school during early childhood when beginning hormone treatment to rectify what is a very real biological condition. Men and women who fall into this faux form of transgenderism often display a litany of mental health and / or mood disorders.)"

This paragraph has multiple problems. This could be interpreted as saying trans people who choose to not transition are a different kind of trans person, which isn't the case. I think what it was trying to communicate was that people who do not experience physical dissatisfaction with their sexed bodies are not actually transexual, but I don't think this argument was clearly communicated. It didn't explain how "actual" transgender people differ from "faux transgenderism". The implication seems to be that the fake type of transgender doesn't have a brain that matches that of another sex, but that claim is not clearly made or supported within the article.

It also defines lesbianism inaccurately. Some lesbians would not be willing to have penetrative sex with someone who is biologically male, but others differ in this respect.

I agree that it is gross to try to argue that anyone owes anyone sex.

I did have a problem with that part, but decided not to "throw the baby out with the bath water" per se because the rest of the article is good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

Agreed on some of the language not being very good. I've seen too many articles that use that same kind of language coming from less than well-intentioned people.

Otherwise, the general premise, I'm inclined to agree. While I don't necessarily think that it's always so clear cut (in the example of the kid holding scissors to herself in the shower) I've never liked the "social construct" line people spout. Of course there are socially constructed elements to how we "perform" gender. But that's obviously not the whole story.

If it was just a social construct, how would HRT help people? If you put me on a desert island, with no one else, I still would've come to this conclusion, and I still would've needed HRT to feel at peace with myself. The biggest changes for me have been mental, as though my brain was craving things to be a certain way all along. Even I'm astonished with how much my mental health has improved. That's no construct, that's some kind of biology at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly speaking, this article is rather interesting, but very bad phrased.

I think that once you start throwing in in-depth technical details (how chromosomes are divided and which parts the biology of the person influences its behaviour, clinical cases like the Fairchild one) you should really sway away from throwing speculations and/or inserting a lot of complex arguments. I've found really interesting the whole chromosome part, because I have to admit I didn't know there were the XXY or XYY or even XXXY chromosome combinations, but literally got a bit mad at this part:

Sometimes, but not always, this condition is caused because a male fetus is immune to testosterone. When this happens, the testosterone released by the mother’s body during development doesn’t trigger the signal to map the brain as male, and a female mind is created, despite the fact the genetic instructions from the chromosomes is busy making the physical body male.


Being immune to testosterone does NOT mean your brain will develop as a female brain, rather, you'll miss things from the male development. It may seem like a small detail, but it really depicts the biology as "male/female"... these technicalities confuse the argument he/she's trying to say, because the physical conditions marked as "pseudo-hermaphroditism" contemplates also different hormone levels and brain behaviour.

  • As uncovered by the economists behind the Freakonomics series, why do heterosexual men secretly consume enormous quantities of so-called “she-male” porn, involving beautiful women with both breasts and a penis, but gay men have virtually zero desire to see the same thing and are turned off by it? There is something here I’m missing that is the key to understanding a lot about biological drive. It’s too big, and odd, of a disparity.

Actually speaking, this research was a bit shallow and presumptuos, quoting from the researchers:

The Internet is like a much, much, much larger version of the Gergen study. Put a billion anonymous people in a virtually darkened room. See what they do when their desires are unleashed. As we say in the book, “This is the world’s largest experiment on human behavior: the Internet.”

We studied the results of this experiment by analyzing as much Internet behavioral data as we could get our hands on: Web searches, individual search histories, paid porn site subscription statistics, erotic stories and videos, digitized romance novels, online personal ads, almost 50,000 of the world’s most popular adult sites, and much more. We combined all this sexual data with findings from neuroscience, animal studies, clinical psychology, biology, neurological damage, and sex research, as well as with ideas from our own field of computational neuroscience, to reveal a new portrait of human desire.

A lot of actual sociology concurs on the evidence that internet data is faked or incorrect. Standing by some easy evidence, there is facebook estimate "fake" profile, which is between 5.5% and 11.2%... this actually occurs on a site that almost FORCES you to use real-life informations.

On a porn site, you are very rarely forced to provide real informations, and instead you can even make a fake identity of yourself. This means that, basing it on a rough percentage, atleast 20% of the data on a porn site is faked.

Do we really want to base an article containing technical informations, on a research done on incospicous subjects? We may very well tape a blank paper on a wall asking unknown people to write how they feel and then assume that the majority of what's written there it's true.


IN SHORT:
Blank slate is actually a fifty-fifty science. Biology surely plays an important role on the brain developing and such, but the whole point of society is to make you attuned to all the social structure and fit in. We are NOT blank when we're born, but more like slightly colored. Our behaviours, thoughts and desires still may differ depending on the society that surrounds us. An example of this may be the part about feeling pain: indeed we feel pain different from person to person, and indeed there may be a brain, biologic, difference, but it's also true that one individual can be an asceticist in it and another can scream even if you touch them with a finger. This is not only a "public" demonstration of how we feel pain, but we can actually grow up and learn to not FEEL it, thus invalidating the biologic feeling of pain.

As such, I would more refer to the blank slate as a "tracing paper slate": we trace our initial behaviours from our biology, but can then change or assume different behaviours with time. We adapt a lot as humans, and should not forget this when talking about our "nature".


SORRY FOR THIS WALL OF TEXT, I JUST HAD TO :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to continue reading up on more recent studies, and what they do conclude, and from my findings, it seems whether males and females are different or the same ends up having to do with the statistical approach you applied to your study.

There is a meta-analysis I have found that has to do with anatomy of the human brain, and as it turns out, the majority of the brain part for the most part overlaps and are similar on average, but yes there were some differences. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011; In that study, there is some issues such as reliance on absolute brain volume over relative brain volume. But nonetheless, that meta-analysis doesn't really go against the very possibility that the brains are actually arguably more on the mosaic model since you can have observed differences all over the spot, and you might find some average difference when you put them all together meaning you can still make the case that male/female brains are actually far more similar than differences accounting for relative size, and functional difference. The 2015 study I have seen does support the very idea that the brains are functionally similar, and probably for the most part fits more of the mosaic model, but it's not enough to rule out the possibility that males and female brains are different.

When it comes to Hyde studies and the Joel study, there is a case to be those analysis are not reliable when it comes to being tested via stimulation studies. - http://cogprints.org/10046/1/Delgiudice_etal_critique_joel_2015.pdf. As far as the study with 23+ million people showing very little difference between males and females, I'm not seeing any actual criticism behind the analysis, and I would naturally assume that the study is more or less of a slam dunk against the argument that males and females are psychologically different to the point where you can tease out males and females just by behavior alone. Where they are different from what I observed seem to do with health conditions that affects their brain such as aging, substance abuse, and so onrather than overall performances and the likes. Overall, males and females intellectual abilities are far more similar, and as well as their overall psychology are far more similar when you consider that 2015 study.

Looking further into Del Guidice, he pointed that no study as of that time - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265and by no study, I mean absolutely no study fits the strict criteria that is needed to be considered for data analysis of males and females psychological difference studies, and not even meta-analysis of 100+ studies suits the required criteria. I'm not sure if that 2015 study would fit the necessary criteria, but if it is, then by that point, we can definitely say males and females are actually functionally very similar. But as of now, with no statistical simulation analysis on the methodology that was employed on the updated version of the 2015 study, we really do not know how much difference there is between males and females. The two sides of this debate so far are valid as far as I'm concerned, and that only means we really need a lot more studies and even more strict statistical analysis, and as well as application of different methodology as and as well as accounting for issues with different methodology for us to know which sides is more or less valid. His approach suggests that there is moderate or large difference between the genders, and Hyde's studies suggest there is no to little difference between the gender.

At this point, given the two sides, I don't even know what to believe anymore. But gonna stick with little difference simply because that is what I have observed over 10+ years of observation of males and females, and I do not see any significant difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to continue reading up on more recent studies, and what they do conclude, and from my findings, it seems whether males and females are different or the same ends up having to do with the statistical approach you applied to your study.

There is a meta-analysis I have found that has to do with anatomy of the human brain, and as it turns out, the majority of the brain part for the most part overlaps and are similar on average, but yes there were some differences. - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011; In that study, there is some issues such as reliance on absolute brain volume over relative brain volume. But nonetheless, that meta-analysis doesn't really go against the very possibility that the brains are actually arguably more on the mosaic model since you can have observed differences all over the spot, and you might find some average difference when you put them all together meaning you can still make the case that male/female brains are actually far more similar than differences accounting for relative size, and functional difference. The 2015 study I have seen does support the very idea that the brains are functionally similar, and probably for the most part fits more of the mosaic model, but it's not enough to rule out the possibility that males and female brains are different.

When it comes to Hyde studies and the Joel study, there is a case to be those analysis are not reliable when it comes to being tested via stimulation studies. - http://cogprints.org/10046/1/Delgiudice_etal_critique_joel_2015.pdf. As far as the study with 23+ million people showing very little difference between males and females, I'm not seeing any actual criticism behind the analysis, and I would naturally assume that the study is more or less of a slam dunk against the argument that males and females are psychologically different to the point where you can tease out males and females just by behavior alone. Where they are different from what I observed seem to do with health conditions that affects their brain such as aging, substance abuse, and so onrather than overall performances and the likes. Overall, males and females intellectual abilities are far more similar, and as well as their overall psychology are far more similar when you consider that 2015 study.

Looking further into Del Guidice, he pointed that no study as of that time - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265and by no study, I mean absolutely no study fits the strict criteria that is needed to be considered for data analysis of males and females psychological difference studies, and not even meta-analysis of 100+ studies suits the required criteria. I'm not sure if that 2015 study would fit the necessary criteria, but if it is, then by that point, we can definitely say males and females are actually functionally very similar. But as of now, with no statistical simulation analysis on the methodology that was employed on the updated version of the 2015 study, we really do not know how much difference there is between males and females. The two sides of this debate so far are valid as far as I'm concerned, and that only means we really need a lot more studies and even more strict statistical analysis, and as well as application of different methodology as and as well as accounting for issues with different methodology for us to know which sides is more or less valid. His approach suggests that there is moderate or large difference between the genders, and Hyde's studies suggest there is no to little difference between the gender.

At this point, given the two sides, I don't even know what to believe anymore. But gonna stick with little difference simply because that is what I have observed over 10+ years of observation of males and females, and I do not see any significant difference.

Good for you once again Reptilian... You may not see any difference from your perspective, but I don't need any scientific papers to tell me what I've experienced in life.

But as you've said before, everyone else's life experience, other than yours is complete and total BS..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sage Raven Domino

Hmm, I didn't think about the possibility of DNA copies in the body being so different, thanks for sharing!

I did try to read the linked article -- or rather, website. But it's almost impossible for me to read white-print-on-dark-background stuff without getting a migraine. Please do start another thread, with a link to a website much easier to read.

As with any grey-on-black text, highlighting it with the mouse makes it more readable (white-on-blue in this case).

Alternatively, you can play around with the Stylish extension for Chrome or Firefox. Try installing the band-aid style that I've just written ;)

Edit / xx:41 - please update the style now if you installed it earlier - it now makes the background grey in order for the comment section to become readable as white-on-grey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla

I did try to read the linked article -- or rather, website. But it's almost impossible for me to read white-print-on-dark-background stuff without getting a migraine. Please do start another thread, with a link to a website much easier to read.

As with any grey-on-black text, highlighting it with the mouse makes it more readable (white-on-blue in this case).

Alternatively, you can play around with the Stylish extension for Chrome or Firefox. Try installing the band-aid style that I've just written ;)

Accessibility FTW!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you once again Reptilian... You may not see any difference from your perspective, but I don't need any scientific papers to tell me what I've experienced in life.

But as you've said before, everyone else's life experience, other than yours is complete and total BS..

I use scientific studies because they are way more reliable than life experiences. Hell, even my life experience is as much bs as yours, and equally everyone else. They are really that invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I actually agree with the position that some mtf folks are motivated primarily by kink, not gender issues. It's sexual for them.

I've known people who transitioned, only to later regret it. Ok, I've known two. But they both also had horrific eating disorders, which I take to mean that have a generalized disconnect or hatred with their physical being, but no matter what changes they make, they're still unhappy.

None of that means trans people aren't real, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the article in general. I think it's likely that people have some sort of internal map of their body inside their brain and when it doesn't match their physical body it causes distress. For transgender people the sex of the internal map doesn't necessarily match their physical sex. I think when other parts of the map are off it could possibly cause disorders like biid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

Eh, I actually agree with the position that some mtf folks are motivated primarily by kink, not gender issues. It's sexual for them.

I won't say that this isn't the case, but be careful with that broad brush. The "kink" factor was what stopped me with identifying with it for so long. I was always told (and am still told by my mom) that all "those people" are just a bunch of "freaks living out their sexual perversions." As an asexual person, or at the very least a "not very sexual" person, I knew I wasn't into any of that stuff, so it was hard for me to accept who and what I am, because I was always told it was a kink.

Only to find that now, after transitioning for a while, I'm starting to "get" things. I get the appeal of certain sexual things. It makes sense. The more my body comes into line, the more so much makes sense, and dare I say it...even sounds personally appealing to me :blush:

But even now, there's a voice in my head that says, "no, you can't feel turned on by that, or attracted to that. That's a freak sexual fetish and bad" But the fact of the matter is, it's indistinguishable from any sexual cis woman out there. If they get to enjoy those things, so can I.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I actually agree with the position that some mtf folks are motivated primarily by kink, not gender issues. It's sexual for them.

I won't say that this isn't the case, but be careful with that broad brush. The "kink" factor was what stopped me with identifying with it for so long. I was always told (and am still told by my mom) that all "those people" are just a bunch of "freaks living out their sexual perversions." As an asexual person, or at the very least a "not very sexual" person, I knew I wasn't into any of that stuff, so it was hard for me to accept who and what I am, because I was always told it was a kink.

Only to find that now, after transitioning for a while, I'm starting to "get" things. I get the appeal of certain sexual things. It makes sense. The more my body comes into line, the more so much makes sense, and dare I say it...even sounds personally appealing to me :blush:

But even now, there's a voice in my head that says, "no, you can't feel turned on by that, or attracted to that. That's a freak sexual fetish and bad" But the fact of the matter is, it's indistinguishable from any sexual cis woman out there. If they get to enjoy those things, so can I.

That's what makes me cringe when people bring up the "kink" argument too. I've seen too many transphobic people use it to delegitimize trans people(mostly trans-women).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I actually agree with the position that some mtf folks are motivated primarily by kink, not gender issues. It's sexual for them.

I won't say that this isn't the case, but be careful with that broad brush. The "kink" factor was what stopped me with identifying with it for so long. I was always told (and am still told by my mom) that all "those people" are just a bunch of "freaks living out their sexual perversions." As an asexual person, or at the very least a "not very sexual" person, I knew I wasn't into any of that stuff, so it was hard for me to accept who and what I am, because I was always told it was a kink.

Only to find that now, after transitioning for a while, I'm starting to "get" things. I get the appeal of certain sexual things. It makes sense. The more my body comes into line, the more so much makes sense, and dare I say it...even sounds personally appealing to me :blush:

But even now, there's a voice in my head that says, "no, you can't feel turned on by that, or attracted to that. That's a freak sexual fetish and bad" But the fact of the matter is, it's indistinguishable from any sexual cis woman out there. If they get to enjoy those things, so can I.

Oh, of course! And anyway one's motivations are one's own, and shouldn't prohibit them from doing whatever they want to do.

Feeling more sexual as your body comes into alignment... that sounds very happy and healthy to me! And maybe an indication that you're very much on the right path?

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

Oh, of course! And anyway one's motivations are one's own, and shouldn't prohibit them from doing whatever they want to do.

I won't say that it doesn't happen that AMAB people who would be better off not transitioning (maybe they're just gay or something) end up transitioning. It does. I've read about it. But in many cases, they're hardly to blame. There are sooooo many pressures when it comes to transitioning, especially for trans women. Pressures to conform to extremely strict cis standards, and many a trans woman has been pressured into lower surgery that probably wasn't the best for her. And while there might be a lot of people out there, cis AND trans, who would scream "shenanigans!" at a trans woman who didn't want lower surgery, those people are not being fair to individual experiences.

Feeling more sexual as your body comes into alignment... that sounds very happy and healthy to me! And maybe an indication that you're very much on the right path?

Well, it's scary as hell, but I'm trying to enjoy the experience :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Random Happenstance

too tired to read through all the replies, but there was nothing in the link that proves gender is innate to my mind. yes, intersex people exist, and yes, the way our brains perceive our bodies may well be innate from birth. but in my opinion, that is not gender, nor does it say much about gender.

personally, the way being trans and non-binary has made the most sense to me is that - my brain has certain expectations of my body (for whatever reason; biological or otherwise), that both my body and the expectations of those around me contradicted. and that probably informed how my gender developed, because i would have had a greater tendency to instinctively place myself with the people i saw as most like me, where i saw myself fitting. it became much easier to figure out my gender when i threw away the need to categorise it based on physical dysphoria.

we socialise ourselves, as much as (or more so than) those around us socialise us, so to say that external pressures/expectations would form our genders if they were entirely social constructs is notably false to my thinking. no one is raised in a vacuum, so of course the way the brains of women and men develop will have some differences (no note on non-binary ppl apparently), though likely with a lot of overlap too. unless you can raise people in a vacuum, and then see what they think about gender/gendered things, there's no way to prove there is anything innate about it, it's just opinion.

and then you have to consider what gendered likes or dislikes to consider innately gendered - many things have changed over time.

everyone is absolutely free to their own interpretation of gender, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, i just find it frustrating when people suggest there's some conclusive proof as to what gender is, especially considering how varied people's experiences are

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...