Social Construction of Gender & Intersexed Individuals

[0TheSwerve0]

I think this is a corrupt argument. Why arn't these sports talored to you? Just because women in general are not as good as men does not mean you can't enjoy a sport just as much. I think that when you say that it's not talored to you and your definition of something being talored to your group is one that makes your attributes the requirements for winning your not really egalitarian anymore, you're taloring for a specific group.

yep, you're the one making the value judgment not me. I never said sports designed by men and for men were wrong or bad or negative, I just said that they are limiting and that having a wider variety would give everyone more opportunities. I'm just being redundant at this point...PS I got the 100th post! schwing!

 

[Smurf]

PS I got the 100th post! schwing!

Check again...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Damn, thought I saw the 100 posts with mine being the last...

The count is different when you look at it from the social sciences forum itself, as of now it says 102 posts when here it says 103. I got the 100th reply it seems

 

[Smurf]

So are we going to talk about social and natural psychology or not?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

pffft, hold your horses...
I guess so, but I think you should start the new thread. Unless you want to continue it here.
And what exactly is the thesis? I guess from what I know humans are equally influenced by nature and nurture. My teacher presented a study for my sex differences class, I think http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/862927470.Ge.r.html" is the same one:

Genetic influence for homosexuality?

They looked at the pedigree for male homosexuals to see if it ran in the family. They found that Researchers found that the concordance rate for homosexuality is highest among identical twins, lower among fraternal and lowest in adopted siblings. Such a pattern is evidence for a genetic basis to homosexuality... the closer you are genetically to your sibling, the more likely you both are to be gay. If you are not genetically related, you are less likley to both be gay, even though you grew up in the same home. However, it should also be stressed that the researchers found aconcordance rate of around 50% for both gay and lesbian pairs of identical twins... *not* 100%. In other words, half of those with an identical twin who is gay are also gay, half are not. This probably means that, although genes play a role in sexual orientation, they are likely *not* to be the only factor, as they are for traits like eye and hair color.

The final piece of evidence comes from studies on gene linkage. Remember the pedigree analysis that suggested a gene for male homosexuality on the X-chromosome. To review some basic genetics, girls inherit 2 X-chromosomes, one from each parent. Boys get an X-chromosome from their mother, and a Y-chromosome from their father. The fact that gay men tended to have more gay relatives on the mother's side than on the father's suggested that, if homosexuality was inherited, the gene would be on the X-chromosome.

So there is a link, just not a really strong one. Plus, there aren't any studies for women. There are other studies that claim male homosexuals have "female" looking brains, eg the INHA3 and studies on how lower levels of testosterone in the womb are related to this (related to sexual preference). But what about females? Do lesbians have brains that look like males?

Oh, found it, here's my notes on the study (http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/textonly/browseablepublications/geneticsandhb/report_418.html" )
Percent indicates the proportion of siblings that were both homosexual
_______________________Male____________________Female

identical twins___________52%______________________48%
fraternal twins___________22%______________________16%
adopted siblings__________11%______________________6%This also relates to a book I read by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes" )

edit: he also says he's not sure, but it was just a hypothesis that helped to explain it in part.
Should I move this to a new thread?

 

[Smurf]

Do you know of any studies about possible correlations between Homosexuality and Intersexuals?

 

[Smurf]

_______________________Male____________________Female

identical twins___________52%______________________48%
fraternal twins___________22%______________________16%
adopted siblings__________11%______________________6%

It seems awfully mysterious to me that they left out just plain siblings, no adoption, no twin~ism.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

that's shown by fraternal twins, they are only called twins because they are born together, but they don't share identical dna; they're pretty much plain siblings in terms of genetics.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Do you know of any studies about possible correlations between Homosexuality and Intersexuals?

I've just heard stories of sex confusion due to sex operations on hermaphrodites. Like the one Joel posted, about the kid who had a botched penis operation and was made into a girl instead. He felt attracted to females tho, due to his physiology, so he eventually had reconstructive surgery and is now married to a woman. We also had a couple of people come into our class last semester - a female to male transsexual; and a woman and her husband who had a sex change to a woman, but they stayed together. Seems like in that case it wasn't as much about sexuality as it was about self-perception (not including sexuality) of sex/gender and affinity of personalities. I guess for intersexuals, it works like it does for unambiguous sex - influence of hormones and culture.

I also found this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuals" :

Overview
The common habit in the 21st century of elevating the role of the sex chromosomes above all other factors when determining gender may be analogous to the older habit of finding "true" sex in the gonads. Though high school biology teaches that men have XY and women XX chromosomes, in fact there are quite a few other possible combinations such as XO, XXX, XXY, XYY, XO/XY, XX male, XY female, and there are many individuals who do not follow the typical patterns (such as cases with four or even more sex chromosomes).

Thus, people nowadays may be more likely to look towards the sex chromosomes than, for example, the histology of the gonads. However, according to researcher Eric Villain, "the biology of gender is far more complicated than XX or XY chromosomes".[2] Many different criteria have been proposed, and there is little consensus.[3]

This ties back into my thesis post.

Also from that page:

Treatment of intersexuals by society
Intersexual individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In some cultures intersexuals were included in larger "third gender" or gender-blending social roles along with other individuals. In most societies, intersexed individuals have been expected to select one sex, and conform to its gender role.

Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, intersexuals with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either male or female genitals. But there are increasing calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersexuality as healthy variations which should not be subject to correction. Some have attacked the common Western practice of performing corrective surgery on the genitals of intersexuals as a Western cultural equivalent of female genital mutilation. Despite the attacks on the practice, most of the medical profession still supports it. Others have claimed that the talk about third sexes represents an ideological agenda to deride gender as a social construct whereas they believe gender is a biological reality.

Corrective surgery is generally not necessary for protection of life or health, but purely for aesthetic or social purposes. It may lead to negative consequences for sexual functioning in later life, which would have been avoided without the surgery; in other cases negative consequences are avoided by surgery. Defenders of the practice argue that it is necessary for individuals to be clearly identified as male or female in order for them to function socially. However, most intersex individuals have resented the medical intervention, and some have been so discontented with their surgically assigned gender as to opt for sexual reassignment surgery later in life.

The writer Anne Fausto-Sterling coined the words herm (for hermaphrodite), merm (for an intersex person that most closely resembles a male), and ferm (for an intersex person that most closely resembles a female), and proposed that these be recognized as sexes along with male and female. However, her use was "tongue-in-cheek"; she no longer advocates these terms even as a rhetorical device.

So if intersexuals were not forced to choose either sex or gender, how do we think they would turn out? Would this lead them more often to bisexuality? Or would hormones still be at work to direct them more clearly to one or the other sex? or is culture really playing a huge part in sexuality? I think that last is the key. As we've seen in bonobos, being bisexual can be natural in the primate world, it's purely used to calm members of the group, not tied to reproduction at all. Seems that if bisexuality were more accepted, most people would not identify themselves as strictly one extreme or the other. This gets at the idea that sexuality is about more than just sex (tho I do agree that sex drive points us in one direction).

 

[Lisa!]

Ok, I think I kind of understood that. I thought you were serious at first, damn sarcasm.

I always thought football was the most popular sport here.

I don't know perhaps you're right!

PS Thanks for replying to my questions.

 

[Smurf]

Swerve, how would you respond to, from the opinion that gender is socially constructed, John Money's failure with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#David_Reimer" to prove just that.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I already did

I've just heard stories of sex confusion due to sex operations on hermaphrodites. Like the one Joel posted, about the kid who had a botched penis operation and was made into a girl instead. He felt attracted to females tho, due to his physiology, so he eventually had reconstructive surgery and is now married to a woman. We also had a couple of people come into our class last semester - a female to male transsexual; and a woman and her husband who had a sex change to a woman, but they stayed together. Seems like in that case it wasn't as much about sexuality as it was about self-perception (not including sexuality) of sex/gender and affinity of personalities. I guess for intersexuals, it works like it does for unambiguous sex - influence of hormones and culture.

I think physiology has something to do with it as well; In my sex differences class, we saw that even chimpanzees follow some gender roles, eg the female chimps played with dolls while the males preferred to rough house (and some other things, can't them of em now). We are still animals, but we're cultural animals. So some aspects of our identity and our behavior will be influenced by culture, eg why males won't take the urinal right next to each other unless it is the only one left

In the nature/nurture debate, it was pretty much proved that children will follow what we consider gender roles even at an early age, EG female babies tend to look more at a person's face while male babies look at objects longer (which researchers interpret as preference for human interaction vs object manipulation); also, females do tend to want to play with dolls and males with trucks; but some things don't always follow as they get older - EG the idea that math is for males and language studies is for females; or that females are more nurturing and emotional. These things are true on the large scale, when you test hundreds or thousands of people. But the point is, that it is a minimal influence (for most of us sub-geniuses) that only emerges clearly after you look at a lot of people. The average female or male won't show a strong leaning for gender type in these areas.

We've been maximized for success and evolutionarily speaking, males succeeded by hunting and fighting (spatial abilities and aggression) while females succeeded by caring for young, being cautious, and cooperating with other females (language abilities and caregiving). So if we tie gender to sex, then any physiological influences will carry some weight. Since these things don't need to be segregated along sex lines any longer, it seems logical that nowadays less and less people are molded into these types. Women who are more interested in career and education and less in family aren't going to be weeded out as often. Men don't have to have big muscles to get a woman. Plus, there are aspects of the self that aren't influenced by sex but are just inborn leanings and preferences. Culture also points people down a certain path, EG women in patrifocal societies who are not allowed to pursue and education and interests outside the home. Perhaps she would have preferred and education, perhaps she would've chosen to tend the family. Heck, maybe she'd like to do both!ps I am aware that my posts are wordy, I'll try to be more concise next time

 

[Lisa!]

Now you say that, I admit I've not read most of the replies because most of them are too wordy(not only yours), but I think your posts have to be like that here.

 

[Smurf]

Don't you dare try to be concise. I love your wordy replies.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4567791" a concise example of how biology and concepts of gender influence human behavior - in this case voicing ones opinions.

 

[Smurf]

That clip is just a radio show where a bunch of weiner's voice their uneducated opinions on crap they don't understand. Excuse my cynicism.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So you think both biology and culture can be discounted as influences for how people behave? Why do we behave the way we do then?

 

[Smurf]

Because I, god, determine how you will behave before hand.

I was actually complaining about it's lack of 'scientific' merit, rather than it's subject.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It's on NPR, not in a peer-reviewed journal. It was more of a prompt