Social Construction of Gender & Intersexed Individuals

[0TheSwerve0]

I'm fully against trying to start something just because women would be better at it then men. I think it's silly.

I didn't say just because, I said because I'd enjoy it. I like playing sports and games, hence I'd like to develop some more that would be tailored for me. Like movies or music or anything enjoyable. I'd like to see more movies that are scifi or fantasy. That doesn't mean I care about getting rid of crappy movies, I'd just like to have some choice. I don't want to do it just on principle, where'd you get that idea?

 

[Lisa!]

Yeah, that is annoying. But hey, when men control society, what can one do?

Nothing really. Just ask them very nicely "Please, do something for us. It's not fair this way!" and make them aware of what they never can think of it because of the lack of intelligence and they would really appreciate it! Or perhaps using her physical attractiveness to make them do what women want!(sorry I usually get angry when I hear that )
No dear. I know you don't agree with above! You know if all women thought/think like that, now we were as miserable as we used to be in the past centuries. We should do something that we think it's right and make other women to support us. And I'm sure they'll do if they like your idea.
Think of what's good for all women base on their abilities and interests and then I want to see how on the Earth men can do prevent us from doing what we all agree on this.
For get all I said and just Tell me something : why do you think men control society?

hehe, but anyhow, I hope that comment wasn't directed at me. I don't expect men to change things, I was thinking of society as a whole. This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend of mine about racism. He was saying how it's up to Africans to change Africa and stop blaming the white people. Guess the same applies here.

No, it wasn't. I'd be appreciate it if you tell me what you said to your friend.

Actually football does reflect a lot of American ideology so that isn't a new idea for me. Esp the business part - playing on a level field and working together to score. Ideology about equal opportunity runs rampant, tho it never really is equal in either realm.

Football isn't the most popular sport in the US anyway. But well most of sports are like that.

yeah, cause tennis requires the ability to hit hard...
I usu excel at air hockey, something that requires better aim rather than strenght alone, I find that pretty fun.

And hit right. Tennis is 1 of the sport that really requires talent. And most of time men and women play it together.

I'm more for getting past limitations (hard to do when they are so subtlely worked into our lives). I don't think all sports should be sex-neutral, I'm not trying to impose anything here. Obviously men and women like different things, so why try to impose something, esp something that isn't natural or beneficial?

I don't think anyone here is imposing anything!

Doesn't seem like there is any limitation to actually developing the things I'm talking about, but for some reason I just don't think that it'll happen.

What reasons?

Yeah, most chess players are nerds, and most nerds are men...

But hopefuly women are getting more and better every day!

 

[Lisa!]

What you are suggesting would mean telling my sister, "I'm sorry, Karen, but since you will never be able to compete on an even keel with men in lacrosse or track, you cannot compete in either sport." How fair is that? Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.

It happened in another way. I think the best woman football player had made a contract to play for men football team of a club but FIFA didn't let her. I really don't agree with it that woman should compete with men since I think it's not good for them, but well you have to accept there are always exceptions. On the other hand there are some men sport I seriously think women shouldn't play them since they're too violence and heavy for them, but unfortunately nobody does anything about them. Being equal to men doesn't mean you should be allowed to do whatever men do. But since nobody forces women to chose these sports, I think it's their own fault anyway.

One of the neat things about doing almost anything online is that superficial differences such as gender, race, age, etc. are utterly irrelevant. In many pursuits, you won't even know such information about a person.

I don't think internet stays as neat as it's now, in the not so far future and you know it's not as good as what you said even now. But yes, you're right that is most of the time.

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say just because, I said because I'd enjoy it. I like playing sports and games, hence I'd like to develop some more that would be tailored for me. Like movies or music or anything enjoyable. I'd like to see more movies that are scifi or fantasy. That doesn't mean I care about getting rid of crappy movies, I'd just like to have some choice. I don't want to do it just on principle, where'd you get that idea?

There's nothing stopping you from seeing fantasy and sci fi movies.

Personally I think both sports and movies are stupid...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Nothing really. Just ask them very nicely "Please, do something for us. It's not fair this way!" and make them aware of what they never can think of it because of the lack of intelligence and they would really appreciate it! Or perhaps using her physical attractiveness to make them do what women want!(sorry I usually get angry when I hear that )
No dear. I know you don't agree with above! You know if all women thought/think like that, now we were as miserable as we used to be in the past centuries. We should do something that we think it's right and make other women to support us. And I'm sure they'll do if they like your idea.
Think of what's good for all women base on their abilities and interests and then I want to see how on the Earth men can do prevent us from doing what we all agree on this.

Ok, I think I kind of understood that. I thought you were serious at first, damn sarcasm. I'm not losing any sleep over this, just something that was pertinent to the thread. I do agree that if you want the status quo to change, you've got to work hard. In the end, I don't care enough about sports to do this myself.

For get all I said and just Tell me something : why do you think men control society?

I don't think men control every society, I'm just talking about ours. Plus, I kind of go with Foucault on this -

(Nader, 1995: 711) For Michel Foucault, in contrast, power was "not a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizens" but a force that permeated all realms of social life, with no real center and no one employing power tactics.

In culture, the certain aspects have to be in the right place at the right time for things to "lock." It's not that men are consciously in control of everything, it's that our culture is based on Judeo-Christian patriarchy (and other supporting ideas), men are perceived to be the ones that should be in power, and hence they are. Now, I know today we say that a person's sex should not matter when it comes to wielding power (not everyone says this), but we still have way more males in positions of power at every social level, top and bottom. We can postulate as to why this is, perhaps men are just more interested in being in power. Yet, it seems that even if that were true, why would there be such a huge disparity? And why is the gap closing as time goes on? I'm sure we could have a great discussion as to why this is, but for my part, I know that cultural roots plays at least some part (and it usu plays a large part more often than not). Same thing in Turkey, they're also from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and men are also perceived to be the rightful possessors of control - (Delaney, 1986: 498)

The seed carries the spark of life which is theoretically eternal but demands that men produce sons to carry it down the generations. In Turkey, women continue to bear children until a son is born. The son is the incarnation of the father and the one who can continue the patriline. Sulale, the Turkish word for patriline, is derived from the Arabic and means something like reproductive semen. There is a saying, 'A boy is the flame of the line, a girl the embers of a house'. In other words, seed is imagined as a kind of torch passed from father to son, ad infinitum, while women are the fuel consumed in the process...
In Turkish village men are imagined to have the creative power within them, which gives them a core of identity, self-motivation or autonomy. Women lack the power to create and therefore project themselves. Men's bodies are viewed as self-contained while women's bodily boundaries oscillate and shift...Physical attributes, filtered through this logic, take on moral qualities. The notion that a woman's intelligence is not as sharp as a man's suggests that she lacks the proper equipment to penetrate the ambiguities of life, she does not have a core principles to determine the line between right and wrong but oscillates and shifts according to the influences brought upon her.

There's much more in the article to explain this, if anyone thinks the anthropologist is twisting words and ideas to fit their thesis. Something very similar exists in Western culture (no matter how unconscious or veiled), hence men here are instinctually given control over much of society. Yet, we have consciously acted to change this. So we are somewhere between our ideal and reality.

No, it wasn't. I'd be appreciate it if you tell me what you said to your friend.

We were listening to an NPR report about the state of Africa - indemic warfare with no end in sight, horrible living conditions, poverty...hell pretty much. I was saying "If only those damn Europeans/Americans would leave them alone and let them solve their own problems." He was saying that by now, Europeans/Americans are trying to help Africans, but it seems to me (and I haven't researched this much), that if Europeans are anywhere, it's likely got to do with their own gain. He seemed to think that the aid Europeans/Americans give was invaluable at this point. We talked some more and he concluded by pretty much saying that despite who is at fault, things won't get better unless the Africans themselves get heavily involved. No point in sitting around and whining about it, the only thing to be done is deal with an unfair situation to get out of it. I don't see involvement from the outside as being as useful as internal work. The same applies here, if I as a woman want sexist things to change, the only way they will (in reality, not ideally), is if I do most of the work. However, my point in bringing up that men are in control and that we are such a male oriented culture was not to whine about it, but to show how this patrilineal ideology affects us in our everyday lives...which is pertinent to our discussion of sex and gender.

Football isn't the most popular sport in the US anyway. But well most of sports are like that.
And hit right. Tennis is 1 of the sport that really requires talent. And most of time men and women play it together.

I always thought football was the most popular sport here. Is it baseball?

I don't think anyone here is imposing anything!
What reasons?
But hopefuly women are getting more and better every day!

It seemed that people were misunderstanding what I was saying, that I was somehow acting like a feminazi.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

There's nothing stopping you from seeing fantasy and sci fi movies.

No there isn't, but the point is if they don't make em then I can't watch em. Luckily, they do I'm sure there is something that isn't available due to cultural norms that I would like, not that it's really that important to me.

Personally I think both sports and movies are stupid...

you're a regular Shakespeare...

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Because people who play sports and people who watch sports have decided that that is what they want. Sports have two purposes for players: they are fun and they are exercise (edit: and for a few, they are profitable). Sports have one purpose for fans: they are entertaining to watch.

Yes, people have decided, but their decisions are influenced by culture. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be this way (it only matters if it's limiting someone, even then we have to specify what kinds of limitations we want or don't want), I'm saying that it is an example of how cultural norms and ideas about social aspects (eg gender, kinship, economic practices, religions/ideologies/cosmologies) get reinforced through institutions - in this case sport can be considered a social institution:

institution

1. The act of instituting.

A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.

One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.

An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.

I'm not saying that sports don't have other uses, like simply having fun or getting exercise. Not every person thinks of survival when they surf the net, but ultimately that behavior can be considered useful for survival. In the same way, sports reinforce values that keep our society on top. Perhaps people even enjoy watching or participating because they do hold that this is the way things should be. I'm not making a moral judgment (though I can if you want me to).

Why shouldn't they favor strength? Why does that, alone, make sports sexist?

Again, I'm not saying should or shouldn't, I'm saying that if we want to have more opportunities for all members of society, we should design things accordingly. If we don't care, then leave things the way they are.

That alone doesn't make it sexist. It is designed so that only men can play, or at least that only males can play males. It's centered on male competition. That alone isn't sexist, since women can play against women if they want. I was pointing out, however, that sports in general are tailored so that men will succeed. This is expected when we see that our culture (once again) is concerned with "maleness" and male competition. So, if most of our sports are tailored for male participation, then our sports are biased (and I'm not saying a negative or positive way). Or perhaps partial, or whatever word is appropriate here. They are designed indirectly, then, to exclude women. If we want to give women more opportunities to play sports (and everyone the opportunity to play together), then we can develop sports that are not so biased.

And don't say that that means that women can't enjoy sports the way men do, because it simply isn't true. Women who play physical sports get as much enjoyment out of them as men do. It seems you want to convince women that they shouldn't even play games like soccer because they are unable to play at the same level as men. How awful! That's backwards - and even sexist against women!

I never said women couldn't get enjoyment out of it, but I think because we could all be missing out on something because of this bias. That's pretty much true in every realm, so we have to choose where we want to not have these limitations. I see for you that you are perfectly content the way things are, while I am not (not to a great degree tho). Is this not where this whole argument springs from?

Soccer is by far the world's most popular sport or game (in terms of time spent doing it or dollars spent on it).

yes, the world. I was talking about America, however.

That's not a point. Of course we've made it this way and of course it can be changed. But so what? Why should it be changed?

If it's important enough to people to have other opportunities available for them. If not, then it probably won't be changed. Personally, I'd like to have a wider variety of sports available to me.

What you are suggesting would mean telling my sister, "I'm sorry, Karen, but since you will never be able to compete on an even keel with men in lacrosse or track, you cannot compete in either sport." How fair is that?

When did I suggest that? If a person enjoys what they're doing, they are welcome to do it. It doesn't have to be either/or (another Western foundation - false dichotomies).

Something is sexist only if it is designed to exclude a specific gender and sports are not.To echo what someone else said, people design sports to make them fun and interesting and that means the way a woman designs a sport and a way a man designs a sport may be different. There is nothing wrong with that, and...if women want to design sports for women, they are welcome to. Go ahead! But as it turns out, most sports that men find enjoyable are also enjoyable for women. I doubt most women are bothered by that fact. It turns out, making a sport equally "winnable" by a man and a woman is not a very important feature for most people - including women.

As I said before, it's pretty much by default that they are sexist. I don't think the people who developed the games did so with the primary intention of excluding females, but it did happen. Yep, we are welcome to change things, but because it goes against the status quo, it won't be as easy as it is to get male sports off the ground. Again, I'm not saying the current sports aren't available, I'm proposing that we could increase our enjoyment and fun if we had a wider variety (is this not true with a lot of things? or is sports not one of those things?).

Absolutely not! What have we been talking about here?: My entire point has been that sports have been created the way they are because that's what people want. If you want to do/create something else, go ahead! I suspect, though, that you won't have much success convincing my sister that she shouldn't be a marathon runner or Michelle Wie that she shouldn't be a golfer because they can't compete on an even keel with men. They'd probably both call you sexist.

Again, false dichotomies...
I didn't say we should tell females they shouldn't play sports simply because men will do better at them. I'm saying having a wider variety would be better.

Wow. You have such a one-track mind. Did you happen to notice the demographics of the fans at the Women's World Cup when it was in the US 6 (?) years ago? I doubt that sex was what was on the minds of the predominantly young, female crowd.

Nope, but are cheerleaders and soccer/football players dress differently. I doubt the latter's uniforms are designed to titillate.

And gymnastics and figure skating - do you know any men who (voluntarily) watch either of those? Even the men's competitions?

Have you noticed a lot of guys feel their masculinity is questioned if they watch those? Why aren't they threatened by watching cheerleaders, however?

And again - so what if men watch women's beach volleyball to look at the pretty women? Why does that bother you?

It does not bother me. But if my only choices were to play sports that are designed for men or to play sports tailored to titillate men, I'd find myself wishing for a third option. Again, I find what's out there to be limiting. I'm not pushing to abolish those sports, I enjoy swimming and volleyball myself, but I am pointing out that even there, we have the masculine in mind.

It doesn't bother me that my female friends watched men's swimming for the same reason. And have a look into what Kerri Walsh said about the condition of her sport (she's a top female volleyball player) in SI recently. Looking good in a swim suit means money in her pocket. And I'm sure that Michael Jordan's appearances in underwear commercials didn't make him wish people appreciated his talent more.

yep, appearance and material oriented culture. Of course this makes sense. I'm an American too, therefore I'm also concerned with what I look like and how many toys I have.

Your posts very strongly imply that you are distressed about the state of current sports as a result of people being more physically fit than you. Isn't that your entire point here? That there is something wrong with physical fitness being important for success in sports?

Nope, I actually bask in my unfitness.
And, people can be physically fit in other ways. I'm thinking of the Darwinian use of the term fit. It doesn't have to mean strength or health. Whatever helps you win in a game can be called a state fitness. EG video games, I'm pretty good at those, but I'm not "physically fit" in the sense we normally think of.

why do you think that is? [sports having biases]
Everything has a bias. Basketball has a bias toward tall people. Gymnastics has a bias toward short and skinny people. Engineering has a bias toward smart and mathematically inclined people. That is a fact of life and there isn't anything wrong with it - indeed, it is not possible, nor is it desirable, to eliminate such biases.

yep, I addressed that above somewhere. I also think that biases aren't necessarily negative. Even limitations are needed in some cases. I'm not sure they're needed in this case, however, since we're talking about having fun.

What, you never heard of mixed-doubles? On a local recreational level, most sports are mixed and there isn't any problem with that. In professional sports, however, most male sports are actually open to women while female sports are not open to men. Female sports are segregated, and then only for the benefit of the women in them.

I have, and I do enjoy those. But, it'd be interesting to see what kinds of sports we could develop aren't sex biased. Someone mentioned RPG, which is a pretty awesome game. I'm sure there are sports we could develop which would just as exciting.

Listen, if you don't like the fact that sports require physical fitness/activity, don't play them. There is nothing wrong with you not linking sports, but you not liking sports does not mean there is something wrong with sports.

Again with the assumption that I find what we already have negative and not fun. And, the false dichotomies! I'm being imaginative here, and I imagine all sorts of things that could be fun that we don't already have. Why don't we have them? Because of the status quo. Why does the status quo not want them? Because of culture.

Please try to read what I say more carefully, I'm not attaching rightness or wrongness to sports.

 

[Smurf]

No there isn't, but the point is if they don't make em then I can't watch em. Luckily, they do I'm sure there is something that isn't available due to cultural norms that I would like, not that it's really that important to me.

Possibly. I don't think there's anything unavailable that I would enjoy too much. Aside from a healthy society to live in.. unfortunately so few of those exist and they have such short life spans.

you're a regular Shakespeare...

Whatever that means.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Billiards is a sport that doesn't really favour either sex as far as I can tell. The only way in which it is generally considered a males game is due to billiards at one time becoming associated with the unsavoury and proper ladies weren't supposed to be hanging out in pool halls.
The womens billiards tournemants here in America are just as popular as mens tournaments as far as I know. The womens league players tend to be more popular such as "The Black Widow" lol. For some reason they don't mix so it could be that men tend to do better at it then women but I'm not sure about that. When I see amatuer leagues though they tend to be mixed.

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say just because, I said because I'd enjoy it. I like playing sports and games, hence I'd like to develop some more that would be tailored for me. Like movies or music or anything enjoyable. I'd like to see more movies that are scifi or fantasy. That doesn't mean I care about getting rid of crappy movies, I'd just like to have some choice. I don't want to do it just on principle, where'd you get that idea?

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.

 

[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