Jump to content

Are humans really that sexually dimorphic?


ace_k

Recommended Posts

Sexual dimorphism is the differences between males and females of the same species.

I recently went on an art tour focusing on women's paintings. The docent asked if "it was possible" that a man painted the painting made by a woman. I thought of course, everyone is different. But apparently it is NOT POSSIBLE. Men CAN'T think that way.

For me, my gender really isn't a huge issue. I know that men and women are very different, but we're all human and are all capable of the same artistic creations. I am not an artist or anything (my circles look like triangles) but is gender really that limiting in creating art?

I was just wondering what other people thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reader of Strange Books

I've been reading a book called "Between XX ad XY, Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes" by Gerald N. Callahan, Ph.D., which talks about that very issue. Yes, I know, I read strange books. It's quite interesting, and it gives a whole new dimension to this whole marriage is between one man and one woman debate. Because how do you define a man and how do you define a woman? He doesn't say anything about asexuality as an orientation, just as a means of reproduction, though.

Anyway, according to Callahan, we are all on a spectrum. There are people who physically appear to be one sex but genetically are not. If two X's make a female and one Y makes a male, then what about XXY people? I knew about intersex or hermaphrodite animals because we occasionally get one in the laboratory where I work, and what applies to animals is often the case with people, but I was astounded at the range of genetic combinations involving X and Y. So what is male and what is female?

Unfortunately the religious tradition I was raised in has no room for these kinds of questions. I have often wondered how intersex people fit in with traditional Christianity given that same-sex activities are a big no-no. Does Christianity demand that intersex people remain celibate? I don't know.

As far as what that guide said, that's pure hogwash. I have been told that I do not think like a woman, but like a man. But physically I am a woman and I have no reason to doubt that genetically that is the case also (although it might be interesting to be tested). I've heard that brains can be masculinized or feminized in utero based on whatever hormones are present and that this apparently is not tied to whatever genitalia are developing. I tend to like "male" things more than classically "female" things and growing up I was definitely a tomboy. It is only now, later in life, that I have started becoming more interested in women's interests. As to whether I would have preferred to have been born a boy, there are times when yes, I would have. But I am coming more and more to accept and value my femaleness. Remember, I was born at a time when women didn't have very many options, and so I viewed being female as being lesser than male. That has changed thankfully and I look at the young girls growing up now with a sort of envy because they have a self-confidence and self-assurance that I never had.

So--to answer your question, is gender really that limited in creating art? Only if you allow it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading a book called "Between XX ad XY, Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes" by Gerald N. Callahan, Ph.D., which talks about that very issue.

I really want to say that I've part of that book, or at least one very similar. Very interesting material.

As to the question at hand, I want to say yes and no. Because if you consider males and females on some opposite points of a spectrum of body types there's still a significant amount of variation. Though, I take issue with this approach of putting males on one pole and females on another. Any given man or woman does not have every single marker associated with being male or female. (E.g., a man who is 5'3", since tallness is typically associated with maleness. Or a fairly muscular woman, and so on.)

Hormone levels in utero have been implicated in degrees of masculinity or femininity, but these things can be pain to study since some the effects won't be apparent until puberty rolls around. And there's so much time for a young person to absorb cultural norms and practices in the mean time. So tying specific gendered behavior to developmental hormone levels would be even harder to do that just looking at gross anatomy.

I'm curious, what exactly did the docent say in making the point that men can't think like women?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Holly Hobgoblin

This reminds me of an essay I'm reading for my Cultural Anthropology class that's about the Berdache tradition: many Native American religions give people who us AVENites would call "genderqueer" the status of a "berdache." A third sex. A gender that serves as the mediator between male and female. This is to keep the people who don't fit the sexually dimorphic bill from being labeled as social deviants, since they're fulfilling the social role of the berdache. There are many other societies scattered around the world that also have a concept of a third sex.

Alas, the Western World is dominated with the Judeo-Christian concept of there only being two genders that must act according to what's between their legs, so much so that it appears that even art is being chained to it. *dissaproving shake of the head*

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting. To your point, I think there is much more physical dimorphism that psychological. I agree - gender is not really limiting in creating art. It can be, though, if a given person lets social stereotypes based on gender (and other things) to form a box (prison) they can't get out of.

It reminds me of writers... often, female writers will just use initials and a last name instead of their full name. These writers are often assumed to be male, indicating that the vast majority of people (possibly everyone) can't tell the writer's gender based on their works. I think there really isn't a difference. The same seems to apply to other art forms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the religious tradition I was raised in has no room for these kinds of questions. I have often wondered how intersex people fit in with traditional Christianity given that same-sex activities are a big no-no. Does Christianity demand that intersex people remain celibate? I don't know.

I don't know if Christianity has ever figured out a doctrine on the subject, but modern medical science tends to take the position that infants born with ambiguous genitals should have surgery as soon as possible to "normalize" their anatomy and ensure that they get assigned a clear gender by the time they're old enough for it to matter. The typical criterion seems to be whether the person in question has a penis large enough for "normal" male sexual functioning—if they don't, the doctors just remove it and give them a vagina instead. I believe there was a lot of anger in the GLBT community at those sorts of operations a few months ago.

As to the question at hand, I want to say yes and no. Because if you consider males and females on some opposite points of a spectrum of body types there's still a significant amount of variation. Though, I take issue with this approach of putting males on one pole and females on another. Any given man or woman does not have every single marker associated with being male or female. (E.g., a man who is 5'3", since tallness is typically associated with maleness. Or a fairly muscular woman, and so on.)

I tend to think that there are two separate spectra for physiological maleness and femaleness. You can have prominent characteristics of both sexes simultaneously, or you can have neither, or any combination in between.

This reminds me of an essay I'm reading for my Cultural Anthropology class that's about the Berdache tradition: many Native American religions give people who us AVENites would call "genderqueer" the status of a "berdache." A third sex. A gender that serves as the mediator between male and female. This is to keep the people who don't fit the sexually dimorphic bill from being labeled as social deviants, since they're fulfilling the social role of the berdache. There are many other societies scattered around the world that also have a concept of a third sex.

I think the preferred term now is "Two-Spirit," since "berdache" was a somewhat derogatory term introduced by Europeans. And I hear that some people add a "2" to their preferred "GLBTQQIA2OMGBBQ" acronym of doom to include them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was another student that answered the question the docent agreed with. She said men tend to think more mechanically and visually, while women focus on emotions and stuff...I'm not as articulate as she was, but I hope you get the point. She pointed to a pot shaped like a rabbit and said that a man would make that before painting the piece. I probably should have mentioned this; in the center of the painting is a big female part that was hacked into the canvas with a big knife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...