Social Construction of Gender & Intersexed Individuals

[0TheSwerve0]

You've confused the terms sex and gender. Sex is defined by sexual organs and whether you have two X chromosomes or an X and Y chromosome. Gender is the self-identity a person has as to whether they feel masculine or feminine. This also does not necessarily relate to sexuality. Someone who is a male (sex) homosexual (sexuality) does not need to feel feminine (gender), but may identify themselves as very masculine (gender). A genetic male (sex), may feel feminine (gender) and seek gender reassignment surgery (sex-change operation), consider themselves female (gender) and prefer the pronoun "she," but remains genetically male (sex), and may prefer relationships with either other men (sexuality; homosexual) or women (sexuality; heterosexual).

It's okay to be confused about the terminology, because it IS confusing, especially when mixed in with common usage of words to be synonymous, when scientific usage gives them very distinct meanings (I once listened to an entire lecture about transgendered homosexuals and heterosexuals, and realized that even despite my background on sexual behavior and the distinctions between sex, gender and sexuality, I had a really hard time keeping track of whether a homosexual, male-to-female transexual would be someone who preferred males or females).

Thank you, maybe I didn't make that clear to smurf before. Thank you to Motai as well. I posted a response before I read the rest. I'm also taking anthro classes (anthro major). It's hard to explain these concepts much less present them in a way that doesn't look as if I'm merely bashing Western culture, and in doing so science. Same thing happened to anthropologists with the "http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/spr95/smiths.htm" and as such has a part in controlling processes.

 

[loseyourname]

Thank you, maybe I didn't make that clear to smurf before. Thank you to Motai as well. I posted a response before I read the rest. I'm also taking anthro classes (anthro major). It's hard to explain these concepts much less present them in a way that doesn't look as if I'm merely bashing Western culture, and in doing so science. Same thing happened to anthropologists with the "http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/spr95/smiths.htm" and as such has a part in controlling processes.

I won't speak for everybody here, but one of the problems I have is that statements like this mistake the history of science, or oftentimes the set of accepted theories that guide current scientific research, for science itself. As far as I'm concerned, science is a methodology. The events that result from the use of technology, or even the technology itself, are not science, they are events and machines.

Science at its base is an epistemology, a set of guidelines that uses inductive logic to distinguish between which hypotheses we should discard as explanations for natural phenomena, and which we should pursue. It is also possible to conceive of science as an ontology, dedicated to the existence of physical relations as explananda. As such, science is certainly open to critique, but the critique should be methodological. If you think science is defective in any way, then suggest a better method for conducting research into natural phenomena. Obviously, anthropology has nothing to say on this matter, as anthropologists are themselves using the scientific method, validating its usage in the most concrete way they possibly can.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I won't speak for everybody here, but one of the problems I have is that statements like this mistake the history of science, or oftentimes the set of accepted theories that guide current scientific research, for science itself. As far as I'm concerned, science is a methodology. The events that result from the use of technology, or even the technology itself, are not science, they are events and machines.

Science at its base is an epistemology, a set of guidelines that uses inductive logic to distinguish between which hypotheses we should discard as explanations for natural phenomena, and which we should pursue. It is also possible to conceive of science as an ontology, dedicated to the existence of physical relations as explananda. As such, science is certainly open to critique, but the critique should be methodological. If you think science is defective in any way, then suggest a better method for conducting research into natural phenomena. Obviously, anthropology has nothing to say on this matter, as anthropologists are themselves using the scientific method, validating its usage in the most concrete way they possibly can.

It is still a product of culture. The point of the "Science in American Life" was to show science in context rather than treating it as a sacred cow...which is what the scientists were used to. Previous exhibits seemed to be mainly about inspiring awe and wonder in the blessings of science, e.g. technologies and explanatory theories which also serve to reinforce science's place as an ultimate authority. I did distinguish between the scientific method and scientistic thinking in one of my posts. I think that's what you are referring to. Yeah, how do you validate science except through the scientific method? Can't really take any more steps back to look in on this process. It's almost like a religious belief, e.g. Christianity - you can't penetrate the mysteries of God so you must simply accept them on their own terms.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I don't see any point in arguing about science's place in culture. Is there anyone who would like to address the ideas I brought up in my first post?

 

[loseyourname]

It is still a product of culture.

As much as anything else is, but it's also a product of individual innovation. The primitive empirical investigations conducted by DaVinci, Willis, and Boyle, actually went against the prevailing rationalistic methodology of the culture these men worked in and grew up in (just look at how much Hobbes struggled to accept Boyle's results). Even as late as the Optics and Principia, Newton was being a revolutionary in rejecting the geometrical methods of Descartes and Leibniz, the methods that western civilization for over a thousand years had said were the best way to uncover truth. When Bacon and Mill developed an inductive logic to codify the scientific method and make it philosophically rigorous, they were embarking on unknown territory, working with hardly any academic context at all.

The point of the "Science in American Life" was to show science in context rather than treating it as a sacred cow...which is what the scientists were used to.

It didn't treat science at all, though. It treated human military action. The best you can say about the part of science is that it enabled the development of technology that enabled human military action. The scientists were used to having their decisions in which direction they took their research being treated as a sacred cow. Perhaps that can be critiqued, but even then, no scientific research can ever dictate a course of action. Science cannot tell you to drop a bomb. Before we get too hung up on the fact that several hundred thousand people died due to the use of nuclear weapons (many more would have died had atomics not been used, by the way), let us remember that nuclear power may very well free us from our dependence on fossil fuels until we are able to develop better alternative energies. Would the world really have been a better place had Oppenheimer, et al told the US and Germany "screw you, we're not doing this?"

Previous exhibits seemed to be mainly about inspiring awe and wonder in the blessings of science, e.g. technologies and explanatory theories which also serve to reinforce science's place as an ultimate authority.

Maybe I'm too much of a pure academic, but I see the role of science as being a pure arbiter of naturalistic knowledge. Do you want to know something about nature? Then you turn to science. What you do with the knowledge - make the world a better place, or nuke it, is entirely up to the people and culture in possession of that knowledge (and, of course, the necessary materials to use the knowledge). I don't see a display of atomic destruction in Japan as being a critique of science; it is a critique of the Truman administration.

I did distinguish between the scientific method and scientistic thinking in one of my posts.

You should probably distinguish between scientistic thinking and scientific thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but scientism is the metaphysical belief that only science can bestow knowledge of any kind. Perhaps, in its strongest sense, it can also be said to be the belief that all of the precepts of currently accepted scientific theory are correct. If this is the case, then scientistic thinking is actually at odds with scientific thinking.

I think that's what you are referring to. Yeah, how do you validate science except through the scientific method?

I think you might be mincing terms a bit here, too. If by "science" you mean the accepted theories that are contained in science textbooks, then yes, of course the only way to validate a scientific theory is to use the scientific method. However, if by science you mean what I mean, that is, the scientific method itself, then it cannot validate itself. Mill's System of Logic and the tenets of inductive logic that he lays out in it, may remain the best justification we have of the scientific method itself, at least philosophically speaking. In common sense terms, we believe the method to work on pragmatic grounds. Rationalistic attempts at science rarely resulted in theories that gave true predictions, whereas science as carried out by Newton, explained by Bacon, and honed over the following four centuries, has been quite successful.

Can't really take any more steps back to look in on this process.

Read System of Logic. The furthest step back that we can probably take is either the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature or the Law of Causality, depending on whether or not you think they are the same thing (Mill did not, but many do). I say "probably" because there are some, like Mill, who try to argue for these principles, some, like Hume, who try to argue against them, and some, like Kant, who treat them as properly basic. How you will treat them is your own decision.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't see any point in arguing about science's place in culture.

It's interesting that you bring that up, because I think the argument can be made that the success of science as manifested in the products created by scientists, have made academic society outside of the sciences less scientific. "Scientism," if I take your usage of the term correctly, almost seems the default position these days. Anything published in a scientific journal is treated by the wider public as gospel. The institution of the academic sciences has been so wildly successful, that it seems to be assumed that they can never be wrong. (Oddly enough, the general public doesn't seem to realize the great amount of disagreement that still exists in most fields, especially in the social sciences - someone must be wrong!)

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, I'm sorry to have completely derailed your thread. What I'm posting really belongs in Philosophy of Science and isn't pertinent to the question of how we should assign gender and/or sex.

 

[arildno]

I'll try to start out by making a few comments to your original post:

So, seeing intersexed individuals as equal states for the trait of sex, how can we begin to understand and delineate structures for this understanding? These people are sterile, but that assumes that sex must always be tied to reproduction (please don't respond that it is and leave it at that, explain why this is something I must take for granted). For some, sex is not tied to reproduction (leave out why they are wrong by using science, thanks again). We define sex in terms of gametes, the female having the larger gamete and the male the smaller. But what about those who have both? Are they are 3rd sex that blends both or are should they be considered an unrelated category of sex?

This, as I see it, concerns the biological features.
I can't see much problems in stating the correct view that there are two dominant sex chromosome combinations, i.e, XY and XX. That there may be othor sex chromosome combinations is no contradiction to that.
What we might need to watch out for is the type of language we use when speaking of the "special cases".

Secondly, how should we assign gender? Should this always be tied to sex (as it is in Western culture)? It will be hard for some of us to separate this for my discussion, but consider that in other cultures the males are taught to be the passive, nurturing, emotional ones and the females are taught to be the aggressive ones. We could justify gender being related to sex because of hormones, but I think that humans are more than just their physiologies and that even there, there are degrees. I consider myself to be more masculine, as Western culture defines it. In astrology, there are male and female signs, and I have way more masculine signs (again, as Western culture defines it) it. So, is there any other more accurate system for assigning gender? Which qualities should be female, male, and which can be assigned to both? Should the majority of characteristics be either/or, or both? In this way, an intersexed individual would not have an ambiguous gender. And if we specified a third category they would not have an ambiguous sex either. For that matter, should sex be exact or a matter of degrees and why?

First, please don't mix astrology into this.
Secondly, I would say that modern day, Western culture is one of the least gender-obsessed cultures I know of. In particular, in matters of child-rearing, both girls and boys now are treated more equally than what has been the custom earlier. For example, segregation customs in terms of what type of education the child is given are a lot weaker nowadays than they were before, and what they still are in many other cultures

 

[comwiz72]

in fact, this is an attempt (in my opinion)

It's either a fact or an opinion, and unless you provide strong evidence for your claim, it will remain an opinion.

lol very true, poorly worded(!), when i said in fact, i meant it more along the lines of "to the contrary" as a sort of colloquial use.

Is this just guessing, or do you have some sources to back up this statement?

i was referring to the article, a link to which i noted on a news site. i posted a link to the actual website for the article a few posts ago.
i was using the article as the basis for my opinion because i have / had 2 homosexual friends, one of which had an abusive father, and the other was very reclusive, did not participate in sports and seemed to get ridiculed by the other guys a lot, so in the context of what i knew, and the friends i had, this view on the subject seemed to make sense, as opposed to a genetic viewpoint.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

As much as anything else is, but it's also a product of individual innovation.

Ok, good now we can try to see how the insitution of science (vs just the methodology, which I know most of you see as being somehow pure and removed from culture but it does say a lot about ourselves that we need to see concrete evidence and proofs, please don't say yeah but we're right, that's just what any other culture would say about their rationale and their proofs).
Science does gains meaning only in our culture because it is a product of that culture and reinforces the concepts that organize our world view.
e.g. social stratification is justified by ideas that those who are poor are just not trying hard enough, as is seen by unintelligence, seen in poor grades. There has been a shift in the last hundred years from the idea that everyone has something to contribute, to the idea that everyone has a specific level of intelligence (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_%28factor%29" ) and that those with higher levels of general intelligence will have more to contribute overall and those with lower will have less. Thus, there is a contradiction in American ideology and social organization - everyone can succeed in America, we all have equal opportunity; yet, some people will be naturally suited to doing better and we will give more rewards to those who reinforce this ideal. People who are able to demonstrate knowledge of science are deemed as the cream of the crop and are given more rewards than those who contribute other kinds of knowledge or work. Why is that except that this is the kind of knowledge that Western culture uses to justify all of its actions as rational and true. I am not addressing the scientific methods merits in helping us survive better, I'm addressing the use of "science" (which you can think of as a cultural instituion/ideology) as being a part of the systems in Western culture.

Examples of science in a cultural context:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5353/992?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Kelly%2C+Kevin&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=
http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/148.html

-> When a discipline earns the title science it "acquires the authority to promulgate truthful and reliable knowledge, control over education and credentials, access to money and manpower, and the kind of political clout that comes from possessing knowledge that is essential yet esoteric"
Because science has so much control over where we put money (and money is power in Western culture), it isn't simply a matter of gaining knowledge, it is at work in multiple sites, both at the level of the individual and the institutional.

Science allows us to feel justified that we are able to correctly assess everyone's level of intelligence (a term loaded with biases) and better rank them and put them in their place...as we do in our own culture so we do with other cultures.

It didn't treat science at all, though. It treated human military action. The best you can say about the part of science is that it enabled the development of technology that enabled human military action. The scientists were used to having their decisions in which direction they took their research being treated as a sacred cow. Perhaps that can be critiqued, but even then, no scientific research can ever dictate a course of action. Science cannot tell you to drop a bomb. Before we get too hung up on the fact that several hundred thousand people died due to the use of nuclear weapons (many more would have died had atomics not been used, by the way), let us remember that nuclear power may very well free us from our dependence on fossil fuels until we are able to develop better alternative energies. Would the world really have been a better place had Oppenheimer, et al told the US and Germany "screw you, we're not doing this?"

I think you misunderstand the term science. It isn't simply the scientific method. As I said above, science encompasses ideology of Western culture which is used (more often than not) to justify ways of organizing our society and interacting within and without that society.

Maybe I'm too much of a pure academic, but I see the role of science as being a pure arbiter of naturalistic knowledge. Do you want to know something about nature? Then you turn to science.

Yes, science is involved with our perspective of the world and our perspectives on how we can understand that world. Science is made to seem almost a part of the natural world, it is a thing that is removed from humans as you see it. Western culture just happened to stumble on the key to universal truths that nobody else has access to. It couldn't possibly be coming from within our own minds.

You should probably distinguish between scientistic thinking and scientific thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but scientism is the metaphysical belief that only science can bestow knowledge of any kind. Perhaps, in its strongest sense, it can also be said to be the belief that all of the precepts of currently accepted scientific theory are correct. If this is the case, then scientistic thinking is actually at odds with scientific thinking.

Yes, scientism is pretty much what our culture believes in. However, scientific thinking still claims that we can gain true knowledge and that that knowledge is somehow more true than knowledge gained by other means. It can and is still used to justify and rationalize cultural norms, systems, and controlling processes.

However, if by science you mean what I mean, that is, the scientific method itself, then it cannot validate itself. Mill's System of Logic and the tenets of inductive logic that he lays out in it, may remain the best justification we have of the scientific method itself, at least philosophically speaking. In common sense terms, we believe the method to work on pragmatic grounds.

Ok, can we stay in a place where we admit science isn't the ultimate dispenser of truth? And even further, concepts of sex, gender, reproduction, and kinship are the underlying sources for how we see things. Science is merely justifying our previously held ideas. Religion used to do this for us, science has taken that function over.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I'll try to start out by making a few comments to your original post:

This, as I see it, concerns the biological features.
I can't see much problems in stating the correct view that there are two dominant sex chromosome combinations, i.e, XY and XX.

LOL, can we not use loaded terms like correct? Read my above posts to understand why it is not helpful. And don't take my laughing as an insult, it's just funny that we appear to be students trying to define a term without using the term in it's definition. Very awkward indeed

That there may be othor sex chromosome combinations is no contradiction to that.
What we might need to watch out for is the type of language we use when speaking of the "special cases".

Again with the ideas of normal and abnormal. At this point, I've almost forgotten what it was that I was asking anyhow. I'll have to come back when I have more time to think it over and respond.

First, please don't mix astrology into this.

Why not? It is another way of categorizing people. I'm simply more familiar with it and I assumed others would be to. It was an example to faciliate understanding. I really don't know that much about how other cultures go about categorizing people along sex/gender lines. Besides, I myself practice astrology and I am continually offended by those that toss it aside without so much as a glance as to what it is and how it works.

Secondly, I would say that modern day, Western culture is one of the least gender-obsessed cultures I know of. In particular, in matters of child-rearing, both girls and boys now are treated more equally than what has been the custom earlier. For example, segregation customs in terms of what type of education the child is given are a lot weaker nowadays than they were before, and what they still are in many other cultures

It is gender obsessed. Western culture is based on a separation of the sexes. And this comes from religious and philsophical ideas that organize those concepts for us. That is why when women began encroaching on the "male" domain of work, breast enhancements became popular. That is why women who look less like men and who emphasize female characteristics (ie breasts, butt) and de-emphasize the male characteristics (having muscles, being tall, being strong in general) are the ones thought of as "real women" and "sexy." Simply put, they don't threaten a man's maleness. This shows just how important a separation of sexes really is. Even if you hear about equal rights and equality for the sexes, it is still a major division in our culture. Why do females still get paid less? There are bunch of examples I could bring up but I have to go watch "Firefly" with my sister! I will be back later to give you more examples.

 

[arildno]

LOL, can we not use loaded terms like correct? Read my above posts to understand why it is not helpful. And don't take my laughing as an insult, it's just funny that we appear to be students trying to define a term without using the term in it's definition. Very awkward indeed

It IS correct. Count up the empirical evidence. XY and XX combinations are the two most common combinations.

Again with the ideas of normal and abnormal. At this point, I've almost forgotten what it was that I was asking anyhow. I'll have to come back when I have more time to think it over and respond.

No, just stating some empirical facts.

It is gender obsessed. Western culture is based on a separation of the sexes.

I never denied that, did I?
I said it was one of the least gender-obsessed cultures I know of. That's quite a different statement.

 

[Smurf]

I can tell you have no idea, I excuse you from further discussion. I am not in fact trying to classify personality in a dualistic viewpoint, I am saying that it is done in this way.

You don't say? Maybe that's why I was asking for clarification. It's not my fault everything you write is incoherent.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You don't say? Maybe that's why I was asking for clarification. It's not my fault everything you write is incoherent.

Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the study of anthropology. As for me, I'd be lost in studies of Kant! If you are confused, please ask. It seemed that you were just putting blinders on to what I was saying. I'm sorry I was so snappish, but it's hard to translate what a social science says to those who rely more on the "hard" sciences and are consequently within my area of study.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It IS correct. Count up the empirical evidence. XY and XX combinations are the two most common combinations.No, just stating some empirical facts.

Is there any way to have the discussion I first posted if you still hold this in mind?

I never denied that, did I?
I said it was one of the least gender-obsessed cultures I know of. That's quite a different statement.

So how is that comment pertinent? I don't need comparative statements since I am only looking within our culture. It seems that you would make a comment like this in response to what I first said - that Western culture is based on a very divisive and antagonistic form of dualism. This encompasses ideas about race, gender, class, status, etc. Also, surface changes make it seem like more has changed than actually has. The underlying ideas are still there, we've just gotten very polite and PC about it, but if you look at the statistics, we're still very stratified and segregated.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Secondly, how should we assign gender? Should this always be tied to sex (as it is in Western culture)? It will be hard for some of us to separate this for my discussion, but consider that in other cultures the males are taught to be the passive, nurturing, emotional ones and the females are taught to be the aggressive ones. We could justify gender being related to sex because of hormones, but I think that humans are more than just their physiologies and that even there, there are degrees. I consider myself to be more masculine, as Western culture defines it. In astrology, there are male and female signs, and I have way more masculine signs (again, as Western culture defines it) it. So, is there any other more accurate system for assigning gender? Which qualities should be female, male, and which can be assigned to both? Should the majority of characteristics be either/or, or both? In this way, an intersexed individual would not have an ambiguous gender. And if we specified a third category they would not have an ambiguous sex either. For that matter, should sex be exact or a matter of degrees and why?

Finally, where does sexuality fit in? There are those who are asexual and do not have a sex drive. I have talked to one girl who says she has more of an affinity for women, though she has no sexual interest in either sex. This seems like a good example of the separation between gender and sex & sexuality and reproduction.

This is being approached from an anthropological point of view, which sees science as a part of culture (tho it took a while to do so). We can link physical phenomenon with ways of understanding concepts such as sex and gender, but that is for another discussion.

Can we address this part? I'd like to talk about where gender and sexuality fit in and whether or not you find accepted norms to be useful or not. What alternatives would be better if any?

 

[loseyourname]

We did address this part. I said (I cannot remember if Arildno agreed) that gender should be done away with altogether, as it is a very imprecise and misleading means of classification. I also said that I think we should classify the sexes along two lines according to what gametes they carry, since I am pretty sure this is always unambiguous (please correct me if this is not the case), whereas Arildno said that we should classify according to chromosomal arrangements (XY, XXY, etc.). If you want to move on from here, then engage us on these suggestions. What do you think we should do with gender and sex distinctions?

 

[Smurf]

but it's hard to translate what a social science says to those who rely more on the "hard" sciences and are consequently within my area of study.

I am taking nothing but social science courses... except english.. but I can't get out of that.

What I found paticularly confusing (i think - still not sure if I understand you) is that you seem to insist that a person has to "feel" male or "feel" female and that this holds some specific significance to a person's personality. I've usually interpreted anyone as feeling like they belong to the wrong gender as a dysfunction caused by gender roles within a society. If a male has a personality which is generally interpreted as being "feminine" by society, he will either change his personality, or develope an unhappiness with his physical form.

 

[loseyourname]

I am taking nothing but social science courses... except english.. but I can't get out of that.

Yeah, but she's an upperclassman. You've been in college for a month.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, but she's an upperclassman. You've been in college for a month.

So? My high school classes were always social sciences too...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I am taking nothing but social science courses... except english.. but I can't get out of that.

What I found paticularly confusing (i think - still not sure if I understand you) is that you seem to insist that a person has to "feel" male or "feel" female and that this holds some specific significance to a person's personality. I've usually interpreted anyone as feeling like they belong to the wrong gender as a dysfunction caused by gender roles within a society. If a male has a personality which is generally interpreted as being "feminine" by society, he will either change his personality, or develope an unhappiness with his physical form.

There I was talking about gender. I'm not questioning my sex (as we've defined it). I'm saying that there are specific mental, emotional, and social qualities that are assigned to gender based on sex. Like Moonbear and Motai said, they are synonymous. One is "real" and the other is socially constructed. To say that one is feminine is not to state that they are female, but to say they exhibit qualities associated with the female sex - eg nurturing, passive, emotional, ...whatever else we consider females in this culture. What I am asking is whether or not these qualities should be associated with being female (or male for that matter). Gender roles also spring out of this idea - eg females should be housewives and take care of children because that is feminine. To work outside the home is masculine (at least in our culture, how many househusbands do you see?).

So what is dysfunctional about not conforming to something that is not real? If I am female but wish to be an engineer or a scientist, am I having a gender crisis? If I am attracted to females is that a sign of confusion? Sounds like with physical form you are talking about transsexuals who believe they are females trapped in male bodies or vice versa. That is separate from sexuality. A female may get an operation to become male and still prefer males.

btw, I don't need a male body to do "masculine" things. If I want to be accepted as an authority figure, I don't need to be aggressive or domineering. Actually, I can do that just fine with my female body. Similarly, a male can be nurturing and sensitive just fine. No need to change my body because I don't see those traits as necessarily going with one's genitalia

 

[Joel]

On a similar level this is paralled in linguistic terminology. Langauge forms have gender but they do not necessarily have sex.

And it is very confusing trying to distinguish the terms "sex" and "gender" when one's culture has the norm of using them as synonyms. A recent (and rather confusing) debate similar to this one cropped up in my anthropology class.

As a curiosity, Finnish doesn't have gender specific nouns. "Hän" is used for both "he" and "she". To increase the confusion, both Swedish (kön) and Finnish (sukupuoli) have only one word that means both gender and sex. You can imagine how upset people sometimes get when someone forgets to specify what kind of "kön" they are talking about.

 

[Joel]

This is being approached from an anthropological point of view, which sees science as a part of culture (tho it took a while to do so). We can link physical phenomenon with ways of understanding concepts such as sex and gender, but that is for another discussion.

I've never taken an anthropology class, but I hope my perspectice can still be of some use.

Secondly, how should we assign gender? Should this always be tied to sex (as it is in Western culture)? It will be hard for some of us to separate this for my discussion, but consider that in other cultures the males are taught to be the passive, nurturing, emotional ones and the females are taught to be the aggressive ones. We could justify gender being related to sex because of hormones, but I think that humans are more than just their physiologies and that even there, there are degrees. I consider myself to be more masculine, as Western culture defines it. In astrology, there are male and female signs, and I have way more masculine signs (again, as Western culture defines it) it. So, is there any other more accurate system for assigning gender? Which qualities should be female, male, and which can be assigned to both? Should the majority of characteristics be either/or, or both? In this way, an intersexed individual would not have an ambiguous gender. And if we specified a third category they would not have an ambiguous sex either. For that matter, should sex be exact or a matter of degrees and why?

Right, where to begginn? In adulthood, I think one should have the right to identify as whatever gender one chooses (more on gender classification later). But thinking very pragmatically, a child will need role-models and support when growing up and I have a very hard time imagining myself giving support to a teenage girl, who had her first PMS, for example. My point is, that there are sex depending experiences that a child will need guidance in and I think parrents have to take that into account when giving advice. In other words, some form of minimal gender assignment has to be done, even if it doesn't mean boys only have to be taught to fight and girls to cook.

Also, when intersex babies are born, the parrents and doctors agree on what gender they are raised as, which I've understood isn't always easy. My neuroscience book presents "John/Joan's case" as an example. John lost his penis as an infant in an operation accident and his parrents where adviced to have all necessary operations and hormonal treatments made to change his sex - and so they did - afterwich they also raised him (her) as a girl. In the popular press it was brought up as a, "... dramatic case ... provides strong support ... that conventional patterns of masculine and feminine behaviour can be altered. It also casts doubt on the theory that major sex differences, psychological as well as anatomical, are immunutably set by genes at conception". (Times, January 8, 1973). However, in a follow up report his brother among others said John was teased during his childhood for not fitting in. He was attracted to girls, felt like a man according his own words and was finally told about his background. All that lead to conciderable emotionall problems. Despite his quite traumatic past, he has now done a sex change (again) and is now married with a wife. (Neuroscience, by Bear, Connor, Paradiso).

I think there are two important lessons from this story. One, that we can not just cut&paste as desired, there may very well be many biological differences affecting our gender identification that we are not aware of. (Well, actually that was Bear & Co:s point...)

Two, regardless of how society ought to behave, threathened minority memberships are always a challenge, especially for a child. Most have them, I belong to two, but I still think parrents ought to think about them when raising their children. A child will not necessarily understand that by raising him for example genderlessly (if it's even possible) he will help to reach an ideal of non-superficial classifications. "A child can't be taken to the barricades".

Finally, regarding sex classification... I've seen numbers ranging from 1,2% to 0,02% of newborns being intersex (depending on the deffinition). Is this not a quite good coverage? I understand there is a political point in thinking about sex as a gradual scale or having more classes, but it really ought to be possible to treat intersex people equally, without changing the cathegorization. As you said, our two valued logic springs from Platon, so there may be too much to change in that regard.

I hope I havn't missed the ENTIRE point or sound too pessimistic, but these are very interesting matters and my main point is that these things are far from straightforeward, like you yourself have pointed out repeatedly.

 

[Smurf]

So what is dysfunctional about not conforming to something that is not real? If I am female but wish to be an engineer or a scientist, am I having a gender crisis?

Perhaose. If you want to become an engineer but you believe it to be impossible because of your gender (because society has told you it is) then you may become discontent with your gender and I would call that a gender crisis.

I don't believe there is any "true" qualities that should be associated with one sex or the other. It is all a matter of culture and society. If a person does not accept their gender it is the result of dysfunction in their society.

If I am attracted to females is that a sign of confusion?

No, it's a sign of homosexuality.

btw, I don't need a male body to do "masculine" things.

Quite wrong, actually. You will never, barring certain feats of engineering, be able to pee 2 meters standing up!

If I want to be accepted as an authority figure, I don't need to be aggressive or domineering. Actually, I can do that just fine with my female body. Similarly, a male can be nurturing and sensitive just fine. No need to change my body because I don't see those traits as necessarily going with one's genitalia

Actually that's not true. It's almost impossible for a woman to be accepted as an authority figure because if you do exhibite qualities of aggression and dominance, you're usually regarded as a "*****".

But I get your point.

 

[loseyourname]

There is one arena in which I think we can justify the separation of people according to physical traits that correlate with biological sex: sports. The only sport I can think of in which the elite-level women are capable of seriously competing with the elite-level men is ultramarathon running. In something like, say, hockey or the 100 meter dash, it is best to segregate - have women compete with women, and men with men.

I am, however, all for allowing the genetic freaks among the women - like Michelle Wie or Cheryl Miller - to at least attempt competing with the men.

 

[Smurf]

There is one arena in which I think we can justify the separation of people according to physical traits that correlate with biological sex: sports. The only sport I can think of in which the elite-level women are capable of seriously competing with the elite-level men is ultramarathon running. In something like, say, hockey or the 100 meter dash, it is best to segregate - have women compete with women, and men with men.

I am, however, all for allowing the genetic freaks among the women - like Michelle Wie or Cheryl Miller - to at least attempt competing with the men.

I agree. It's only fair.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Hello and welcom Joel! I swear there are Finns on every messageboard I find, esp Tolkien Online. There are evenhttp://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=82751"!

I've never taken an anthropology class, but I hope my perspectice can still be of some use.

Right, where to begginn? In adulthood, I think one should have the right to identify as whatever gender one chooses (more on gender classification later). But thinking very pragmatically, a child will need role-models and support when growing up and I have a very hard time imagining myself giving support to a teenage girl, who had her first PMS, for example. My point is, that there are sex depending experiences that a child will need guidance in and I think parrents have to take that into account when giving advice. In other words, some form of minimal gender assignment has to be done, even if it doesn't mean boys only have to be taught to fight and girls to cook.

I think that giving guidance on issues that have to do with one's sex is helpful and needed. I think the main thrust of my point is that parents should cultivate and encourage whatever a child has a natural propensity or liking for, rather than only exposing them to gender-oriented activities. People are often discouraged from trying activities that have traditionally been assigned to the opposite sex. It seems we could be missing out on a lot because of this. It's also hard to reconcile physical anthropological studies with cultural ones because, though they share common ground, they are essentially grounded in the nature vs nurture debate. I post a lot on this forum about the influence our biology plays, esp in light of primatology studies. However, even a cursory exploration of other cultures shows how wide-ranging human behavior can be.

Also, when intersex babies are born, the parrents and doctors agree on what gender they are raised as, which I've understood isn't always easy. My neuroscience book presents "John/Joan's case" as an example. John lost his penis as an infant in an operation accident and his parrents where adviced to have all necessary operations and hormonal treatments made to change his sex - and so they did - afterwich they also raised him (her) as a girl. In the popular press it was brought up as a, "... dramatic case ... provides strong support ... that conventional patterns of masculine and feminine behaviour can be altered. It also casts doubt on the theory that major sex differences, psychological as well as anatomical, are immunutably set by genes at conception". (Times, January 8, 1973). However, in a follow up report his brother among others said John was teased during his childhood for not fitting in. He was attracted to girls, felt like a man according his own words and was finally told about his background. All that lead to conciderable emotionall problems. Despite his quite traumatic past, he has now done a sex change (again) and is now married with a wife. (Neuroscience, by Bear, Connor, Paradiso).

I think there are two important lessons from this story. One, that we can not just cut&paste as desired, there may very well be many biological differences affecting our gender identification that we are not aware of. (Well, actually that was Bear & Co:s point...)

I definitely agree that biology does control a lot of our actions and preferences. Natural selection has maximized us for reproduction and survival, which entails separate strategies for each sex. Really interesting studies on this, esp the theory about the origin of the sexes. Really makes you wonder what it would be like if we were isogamous...I assume we couldn't be this large for one thing, or multicellular! Interesting cases for gender role swapping is seen in birds - there are species of birds (a minority) in which the female has a harem of males who also tend the eggs. Plus, male pigeons are involved in the nurturing of young, most clearly seen by the production of http://www.stanfordalumni.org/birdsite/text/essays/Bird_Milk.html". Wow, doesn't take much for me to get off track! Ok, so yes, I agree that our behavior, preferences, and to a degree our personalities are influenced by our sex.

Two, regardless of how society ought to behave, threathened minority memberships are always a challenge, especially for a child. Most have them, I belong to two, but I still think parrents ought to think about them when raising their children. A child will not necessarily understand that by raising him for example genderlessly (if it's even possible) he will help to reach an ideal of non-superficial classifications. "A child can't be taken to the barricades".

True, my goal would be to enrich my child as much as possible, which would entail ignoring gender classifications in some cases. I'm not actually pushing for abolishment of genders, I'm just interested in deconstructing Euro-American ideas of gender to understand them better, perhaps even modify them. Obviously, I do think that there is still segregation of the sexes, to the detriment of both sexes. Think of all the things that males are forced into! Maleness is a huge concern to our culture, thus males are under tight control, perhaps even more so than females.

Finally, regarding sex classification... I've seen numbers ranging from 1,2% to 0,02% of newborns being intersex (depending on the deffinition). Is this not a quite good coverage? I understand there is a political point in thinking about sex as a gradual scale or having more classes, but it really ought to be possible to treat intersex people equally, without changing the cathegorization. As you said, our two valued logic springs from Platon, so there may be too much to change in that regard.

I'm actually not even considering this from a politically correct viewpoint. I just think we might have a more enriched culture if we didn't stress such a diametric framework. And yes, I am in agreement about Plato. I don't think much can actually change. Culture is way too ingrained in our lives for that to happen, and it would be very threatening to social institutions and aspects. It is nice to muse over it tho

Hello and welcom Joel! I swear there are Finns on every messageboard I find, esp Tolkien Online. There's are evenhttp://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=82751"!

I've never taken an anthropology class, but I hope my perspectice can still be of some use.

Right, where to begginn? In adulthood, I think one should have the right to identify as whatever gender one chooses (more on gender classification later). But thinking very pragmatically, a child will need role-models and support when growing up and I have a very hard time imagining myself giving support to a teenage girl, who had her first PMS, for example. My point is, that there are sex depending experiences that a child will need guidance in and I think parrents have to take that into account when giving advice. In other words, some form of minimal gender assignment has to be done, even if it doesn't mean boys only have to be taught to fight and girls to cook.

I think that giving guidance on issues that have to do with one's sex is helpful and needed. I think the main thrust of my point is that parents should cultivate and encourage whatever a child has a natural propensity or liking for, rather than only exposing them to gender-oriented activities. People are often discouraged from trying activities that have traditionally been assigned to the opposite sex. It seems we could be missing out on a lot because of this. It's also hard to reconcile physical anthropological studies with cultural ones because, though they share common ground, they are essentially grounded in the nature vs nurture debate. I post a lot on this forum about the influence our biology plays, esp in light of primatology studies. However, even a cursory exploration of other cultures shows how wide-ranging human behavior can be.

Also, when intersex babies are born, the parrents and doctors agree on what gender they are raised as, which I've understood isn't always easy. My neuroscience book presents "John/Joan's case" as an example. John lost his penis as an infant in an operation accident and his parrents where adviced to have all necessary operations and hormonal treatments made to change his sex - and so they did - afterwich they also raised him (her) as a girl. In the popular press it was brought up as a, "... dramatic case ... provides strong support ... that conventional patterns of masculine and feminine behaviour can be altered. It also casts doubt on the theory that major sex differences, psychological as well as anatomical, are immunutably set by genes at conception". (Times, January 8, 1973). However, in a follow up report his brother among others said John was teased during his childhood for not fitting in. He was attracted to girls, felt like a man according his own words and was finally told about his background. All that lead to conciderable emotionall problems. Despite his quite traumatic past, he has now done a sex change (again) and is now married with a wife. (Neuroscience, by Bear, Connor, Paradiso).

I think there are two important lessons from this story. One, that we can not just cut&paste as desired, there may very well be many biological differences affecting our gender identification that we are not aware of. (Well, actually that was Bear & Co:s point...)

I definitely agree that biology does control a lot of our actions and preferences. Natural selection has maximized us for reproduction and survival, which entails separate strategies for each sex. Really interesting studies on this, esp the theory about the origin of the sexes. Really makes you wonder what it would be like if we were isogamous...I assume we couldn't be this large for one thing, or multicellular! Interesting cases for gender role swapping is seen in birds - there are species of birds (a minority) in which the female has a harem of males who also tend the eggs. Plus, male pigeons are involved in the nurturing of young, most clearly seen by the production of http://www.stanfordalumni.org/birdsite/text/essays/Bird_Milk.html". Wow, doesn't take much for me to get off track! Ok, so yes, I agree that our behavior, preferences, and to a degree our personalities are influenced by our sex.

Two, regardless of how society ought to behave, threathened minority memberships are always a challenge, especially for a child. Most have them, I belong to two, but I still think parrents ought to think about them when raising their children. A child will not necessarily understand that by raising him for example genderlessly (if it's even possible) he will help to reach an ideal of non-superficial classifications. "A child can't be taken to the barricades".

True, my goal would be to enrich my child as much as possible, which would entail ignoring gender classifications in some cases. I'm not actually pushing for abolishment of genders, I'm just interested in deconstructing Euro-American ideas of gender to understand them better, perhaps even modify them. Obviously, I do think that there is still segregation of the sexes, to the detriment of both sexes. Think of all the things that males are forced into! Maleness is a huge concern to our culture, thus males are under tight control, perhaps even more so than females.

Finally, regarding sex classification... I've seen numbers ranging from 1,2% to 0,02% of newborns being intersex (depending on the deffinition). Is this not a quite good coverage? I understand there is a political point in thinking about sex as a gradual scale or having more classes, but it really ought to be possible to treat intersex people equally, without changing the cathegorization. As you said, our two valued logic springs from Platon, so there may be too much to change in that regard.

I hope I havn't missed the ENTIRE point or sound too pessimistic, but these are very interesting matters and my main point is that these things are far from straightforeward, like you yourself have pointed out repeatedly.

I hope I havn't missed the ENTIRE point or sound too pessimistic, but these are very interesting matters and my main point is that these things are far from straightforeward, like you yourself have pointed out repeatedly.

Nah, you sound like you're being realistic. I think one can be optimistic and realistic at the same time. I think a great first step is deconstructing these things so we can understand why we do the things we do and what action we should take accordingly. Funny how we pride ourselves so much on the "human" ability to think and understand our surroundings when there are so many veils we do not penetrate in our everyday lives.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

There is one arena in which I think we can justify the separation of people according to physical traits that correlate with biological sex: sports. The only sport I can think of in which the elite-level women are capable of seriously competing with the elite-level men is ultramarathon running. In something like, say, hockey or the 100 meter dash, it is best to segregate - have women compete with women, and men with men.

I am, however, all for allowing the genetic freaks among the women - like Michelle Wie or Cheryl Miller - to at least attempt competing with the men.

Perhaps we also need more sports/games that are less violent. Sports don't have to be centered on physical size and muscle (male characteristics). Sports don't even have to be competitive. There are plenty of sports that other cultures play in which the goal is not to accumulate more points than the other (which is tied to our notion of status), but instead to have fun. Usually the game ends when the two teams are tied, if they even remember the score. I know that sounds like an oxymoron - uncompetitive sport. My point is that American sports are designed to have one side clearly win and one clearly lose and are also tailored so that those with masculine attributes win. Where are the sports that are tailored to females? Gymnasitcs? Where are the sex-neutral sports?

 

[Smurf]

The last thing we need is more sports...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Perhaose. If you want to become an engineer but you believe it to be impossible because of your gender (because society has told you it is) then you may become discontent with your gender and I would call that a gender crisis.

K, must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant that if I wanted to get a "male" job I would be suffering from gender crisis, as if I were dysfunctional.

I don't believe there is any "true" qualities that should be associated with one sex or the other. It is all a matter of culture and society. If a person does not accept their gender it is the result of dysfunction in their society.

Can you explain more of this? Do you mean that society is simply wrong? If you think that this confusion of gender in a society is a sign of dysfunction, then you may as well call of all society dysfunctional to a degree since a large part of culture and societal frameworks operate as gender does. Not an incorrect surmise in my understanding.

No, it's a sign of homosexuality.

lol, okie dokiez.

Quite wrong, actually. You will never, barring certain feats of engineering, be able to pee 2 meters standing up!

smart@ss

Actually that's not true. It's almost impossible for a woman to be accepted as an authority figure because if you do exhibite qualities of aggression and dominance, you're usually regarded as a "*****".

But I get your point.

coolio

btw, where on the gender spectrum would consider yourself and why?
and, for anyone who is interested, the http://community.sparknotes.com/gender/"

I've gotten male and female equal numbers of times. Let's see what comes up this time.