What is Gender? It is a 2006 topic but I am passionate about it.

The definition of gender varies widely although most agree that gender is
largely socially and culturally determined. This means that people are given a
social and cultural gender that usually corresponds to their biological sex. In
my place, Tanzania (Zanzibar) gender can be expressed in physical
appearance, dress, mannerisms, speech patterns, and social behaviors and
interactions. People are expected to behave in accordance with gender roles
as defined by what is considered the norm in social and cultural context.
Women are usually characterized by delicacy, sensitivity; innocence,
compassion, and care for others while male are characterized by strength,
aggressiveness, independence, intelligence, and hard work. It is evident that
the society in which we live plays an enormous role in shaping the different
attitudes and behavior of all those who are a part of it. On one hand, I am
confused do we learn to appreciate who we are, where we are, what we
have? But On the other, I am positive that it is about the opportunity. It does
not matter (A GIRL? A BOY?)It is about giving them equal opportunity, lets
keep our hooks hanging, and we will see.
Maryam J.Ismail

Gender is simply saying that we are all the same thing. because, if we were
looking at the weak points of the gender, we would say men are weak in this
and that, and women too, in this and that, and that would be endless, the
reason why I say, lets not spend time here, the only thing is that we have
been thinking about the bibles position and always think woman came from
man. Yes, we can believe as a bible, but lets update our minds men, women
are all like men. There are men weaker than women. So, the only thing i
would say is that we are all equal in the world, no matter how you feel
wherever you are, I am like you and you are like me. Gender equality is
natural, so, lets have this good intent here: who does not appreciate men,
and women?!
The world is a small thing like this: we are all the same human beings! And
you, what makes you feel stronger than a woman? Or than a man?

0TheSwerve0
Oct6-05, 08:33 PM
Everyone knows (or does now) that gender is another socially constructed
category. It is based on biological differences (which are real) such as
differences in DNA, hormones, genitalia, sexual orientation, and overall
appearance. Even the idea of what sex a person is not always certain. A
person could have the sex chromosomes yet not develop the genitalia
associated with this sex because their receptors are insensitive to certain sex
hormones.

*Before somebody says this, I know that we could say this is sign of
defectively. I would like to point out that this view is a Western view. Many
cultures see this as a normal way to be. And yes, we could use science (as
Western culture does) to prove how defectively is tied to normalcy. But there
is a difference between using the scientific method to gain knowledge and
using scientistic thinking to prove a truth that is socially constructed. For, the
people who have the power to ask the questions frame the question and the
study in such a way (which entails a bias) that they unavoidably come to the
answer they seek.

EG why are some people gay (which assume this is unnatural)? What are the
abnormalities associated with homosexuality? Such as how the male
homosexual is emasculated. There is no question there as to what
abnormalities and negatives come from heterosexuality.
EG why are whites better than blacks? This question presupposes that whites
are better and is in fact seeking to prove how whites can be proved to be
better than blacks in order to prove why they are indeed better.

This is a common use of science, to find proofs for what we want to believe,
to highlight key points rather than simply trying to gain knowledge and truth.
Every question is biased and is usually asked in hopes of reinforcing our own
cultural perspectives/ways of knowing. So keeping in mind our own cultural
biases (and science is a part of our culture and both the scientific method and
scientistic thinking do reveal things about our Western culture), please
consider my question from what we actually know and not what we think we
know. *

That said, I do believe science is a great tool and does tell help us in
understanding things...which in turn leads to ways in which we can use that
knowledge to improve our lives.

So, seeing intersexes 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?

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 intersexes
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 (though 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.
TheSwerve0
Oct7-05, 01:09 PM
In that case, we define linked femininity with "female" sex hormones. Thus,
any male or female who had more estrogen (was it?) would have more equal
2nd and 4th digits, as is the case with a male friend of mine. So would we
define him as feminine? Plus, I do also navigate by map. But in this thread, I
would like to question whether femininity/masculinity is always tied to such
things as you have brought up - navigational style, hormones....Plus society
does have a role in shaping how you act and what you believe you can do so
perhaps if I had a father that plastered maps on my wall, I may be more
inclined to use maps. I did just go on vacation in Boston and did successfully
use maps to get around since I didn't know any of the landmarks: smile:

I do have more to post on this, but it'll have to wait till later today.
Why should we not use the biological definitions? (That being, which type of
reproductive organs)

if you read my initial post, you'll see why. I did post a few definitions of what it
is to be female, and not all of those biological definitions coincide. EG if a
person has female sex chromosomes, but does not have female genitalia. I
think the prime definition is actually who has the larger gamete. But sex has
more meaning than who carries the baby, does it not? Do we not ascribe
certain qualities to each sex? Beyond that, where does gender fit in (the
social role one plays, in our culture this is based on sex). If I am
chromosomally female, heterosexual, and masculine in personality, what
gender am I?

Btw, what is the trait sex to you? And why should we define it that way? (Not
that I don't see you're point, I was indoctrinated into this culture as well).
Female. There is no confusion. If you have a vagina, you are a female. If you
have a penis, you are a male. If you have both you are those other words that
I can't remember right now. If you have none then your bladder will burst and
you will die before your first birthday.... unless doctors decide to cut you open
and you live on life support from day one of your life. In that case, we need a
new word - or maybe there is one already I just don't know it. If you reproduce
without a partner you are asexual. It's very clear. Though this looks like a
scientific view, it is actually a religious view in disguise. Western culture is
based on Plato, was carried on by Christian dogma/mythology, and is now
carried on by science. Notice how similar your argument (thinking
scientistically) sounds to a religious one -

the male is the begetter/creator/seed, the female is the soil/field=males

inseminate (from the word seed) the female who bears the child

sex is for reproduction= sex is for reproduction (there are other ways of
seeing sex)

And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him:
male and female he created them. God is all-knowing, all-powerful.=there are
two sexes, males use seen as rational and good at "rational" subjects, eg
math, spatial abilities, logic studies

....also has consequences for kinship, though I know there is debate about
where a female's place is, it is use assumed we know where a male's place
is.
Also, seems that male scientists (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=5734)
have female-like levels of hormones, so how does that fit in with what is
traditionally thought?

Homosexuality is unnatural, and a sin=homosexuality is unnatural and a case

of deviation from "normal" sexuality
....I've written a paper on this topic if you'd like me to post it.

If a person is female, but is asexual (has no sex drive) then she still has
female gametes, chromosomes, and genitalia. Yes. But, what is her sexuality
if she prefers not to have sex at all, yet prefers the company of women
mentally/emotionally?

If a person has male XY chromosomes, but develops into a female, E.G.

Androgen Insensitivity
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Androgen_Insensitivity_Syndrome)
Chromosomally male, but have more feminine features:
The testes make male amounts of testosterone and DHT but no androgenic
sexual differentiation occurs. Most of the prostate and other internal male
genital ducts fail to form because of lack of testosterone. A shallow vagina
forms, surrounded by normally-formed labia. Phallic tissue remains small and
becomes a clitoris. At birth, a child with CAIS appears to be a normal girl, with
no reason to suspect an incongruous cerotype, male testosterone level, and
lack of uterus.

They have male chromosomes, female appearance, and female looking

genitalia with underdeveloped testes that do not descend, no sperm or eggs,
and produce normal amounts of testosterone. So do we use gametes,
chromosomes, appearance, or hormone levels to determine what sex this
person is?

Also, females exposed to large amounts of testosterone have a masculinized

brain and tend to do better at spatial abilities. Though, too much testosterone
ruins this spatial ability. Similarly, a female with Turner's syndrome
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner%27s_syndrome) produces no
testosterone and is sterile and severe lack in spatial skills and even
traditionally "female" skills. So they have only one X chromosome, no
gametes, no "male" hormones, lack skills in both divisive categories...so what
are they?

Gender is biologically defined. The only confusion I can think of is if someone

gets a sex change. Part of them (externally) is one gender, the other part
(internal organs that cannot be changed as of yet) are another part. Maybe
we can use that other word I can't think of to describe these people. Possibly
with an "Artificial" prefix on it, although I doubt they'd approve - they obviously
want to be referred to as their new gender.

Merely because you do not want to follow the culturally prescribed gender
roles does not mean you are of a different gender. One mine as well ask "If I
disagree with all culturally prescribed roles, does that make me non-human?
The answer is obviously no.

Trait sex? How do you mean? I'm male. My personality is probably

considered to be rather feminine in my current culture, although it would be
considered perfectly masculine in Sweden.

Gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genders) is a social construction. I know

it's hard to see it any other way, indoctrination is hard to break. In other
cultures, there are 3rd genders, and even then people see themselves as a
mix of both. Gender can be anything we want it to be. Just as race is socially
constructed, really it is just a melanoma index that ascribes personality traits
as if they were inherent. We can assign any traits to gender and think of it in
any way, i.e. as based in sex, astrology, occupation (Native Americans do
this), on and on.

I am not questioning my sex as we define it; it is female in all aspects. I am

questioning the reach of our concept of sex. Does it reach to mental abilities,
personalities, and social roles?

Smurf
Oct7-05, 05:32 PM
Gender is a biological trait. It is determined at the point of insemination and
can not be changed. Ever, the classifying difference between the genders is
their sexual organs. If a person does or used to at any point, produce sperm,
then they are male. If a person does or did at any point, produce ovum, they
are female. This is biological classification - it is a method. It is not a
statement capable of declaring truth or falsity. It is neither correct nor false,
and never can be. It is not indoctrination.

I do not know what you are trying to say, no idea what so ever in fact. All I can
gather is that you are attempting to classify personality types in a dualistic
viewpoint with Perfect Masculinity and Femininity being the extremes. You are
suggesting what characteristics should be included in this classification. You
are also suggesting that these characteristics differ from culture to culture - to
what end I'm not sure. I doubt much of this is a correct interpretation, please
clarify.

You also seem to have something against scientific definitions, with no

discernable reason.
I would be disagreeing that personality types should not be either put into a
dualistic viewpoint, or related to a person's gender what so ever.
Gender is a biological trait. It is determined at the point of insemination and
can not be changed. Ever, the classifying difference between the genders is
their sexual organs. If a person does or used to at any point, produce sperm,
then they are male. If a person does or did at any point, produce ovums, they
are female. This is biological classification - it is a method. It is not a
statemend capable of declaring truth or falsity. It is neither correct or false,
and never can be. It is not indoctrination.
Sex may be a biological fact, but gender is not. Gender is a constructed
concept that is not synonymous with sex, but may be determined by it. It does
not have to be determined by it, but it is in this culture. Please use correct
usage:
Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical
categories of masculine, feminine, and neuter, but in recent years the
word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories,
as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is
supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for
reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or
cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of
the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but
In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly
defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely
observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.
-From dictionary.com

I do not know what you are trying to say, no idea what so ever in fact. All I can
gather is that you are attempting to classify personality types in a dualistic
viewpoint with Perfect Masculinity and Femininity being the extremes. You are
suggesting what characteristics should be included in this classification. You
are also suggesting that these characteristics differ from culture to culture - to
what end I'm not sure. I doubt much of this is a correct interpretation, please
clarify.

You also seem to have something against scientific definitions, with no

discernable reason.

I would disagree that personality types should not be either put into a dualistic
viewpoint, or related to a person's gender what so ever.

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. In fact, I stated in my first post that we should discuss the
merit of doing so. I figured I wasn't getting through to you, so I would move on
to discussing what types of qualities go with which sex (because it is what
you accept). I did in fact ask which qualities are neuter, but you seemed to
pass that part over. I thought you would see my first post as a series of
interconnected questions from which to gain understanding from our
reification of our world.

I can give examples of differences in conceptions of gender roles in other

cultures (http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?
p=gender+roles+in+other+cultures+males+are+taught+to+be+submissive+nu
rturing&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.unc.edu/
%7Elorelei/sexroles.html&w=gender+roles+other+cultures+males+taught+su
bmissive+nurturing&d=NC3QzWFULkrJ&icp=1&.intl=us):
Perhaps one of the most telling studies of the phenomenon of gender roles is
that done by Margaret Mead, who studied three tribes of people, all living
within a twenty-mile radius of each other. One tribe, the Arapesh, socialized
both their males and their females to exhibit qualities considered in our
society to be "feminine": they were warm, cooperative, and nurturing, and
according to their histories had always been so. The Mundugamor tribe, on
the other hand, raised their children to be what we consider "masculine":
competitive, aggressive, and oppositional. Once more, according to their
stories, they had always been this way. The third tribe, the Tchambuli,
displayed gender roles the reverse of those prevalent in our society. The
women were dominant and controlling, the sexual aggressors, the principle
workers, and in control. The men were emotionally dependent on the women,
vain about their appearance, and reported by both themselves and the
women to be irresponsible (A. S. Walters, personal communication, February
9, 1993).

I cite these differences to question what is a more correct way of assigning

qualities to genders, since we do it already. Further, I'd like to get to a point
where I can bring up whether or not we should use sex to determine a part of
a person's identity, ie being of the female sex, I am of the female gender, and
am therefore "fill in gender-specific quality." I am merely trying to point out
that perhaps we are products of culture and vice versa. If this is true, then we
may being looking from a perspective that is limiting, eg racists who are
indoctrinated into their way of thinking often have a hard time seeing the point
that race is socially constructed and incorrectly organizes their worldview.

Again with the dualism which is a part of Western culture........which I've

challenged over and over. Please be more attentive.

In my first post, I also stated why I think science should not be the end all be
all of knowledge as it is a product of culture and is therefore created within a
framework of Western culture and also works to reinforce that framework. I
would like to use a more unbiased source, ie simple logic. That is why I have
questioned at every step why we should accept culturally ingrained concepts
as ultimate truths.

0TheSwerve0
Oct8-05, 03:18 AM
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 prefered 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:smile:). 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 "Science in American Life
(http://www.aip.org/history/newsletter/spr95/smiths.htm)" exhibit at the
Smithsonian. They tried to show science in context and were accused of
demonizing science. Science is an institution
(http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/focus/focus.9702.html)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.
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.
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 G (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
Oct9-05, 01:25 PM
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:smile:

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. :grumpy:

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.
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
Oct10-05, 12:28 AM
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
Oct10-05, 12:37 AM
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 seperation 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?
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:smile:
Hello and welcom Joel! I swear there are Finns on every messageboard I
find, esp Tolkien Online. There are even Finnish threads
(http://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
(http://www.math.ubc.ca/~doebeli/reprints/Doe42.pdf#search='origin%20of
%20Anisogamy')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 crop milk
(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:smile:

Hello and welcom Joel! I swear there are Finns on every messageboard I
find, esp Tolkien Online. There's are even Finnish threads
(http://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
(http://www.math.ubc.ca/~doebeli/reprints/Doe42.pdf#search='origin%20of
%20Anisogamy')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 crop milk
(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. :smile:

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. :smile:

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
Oct10-05, 06:43 PM
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
Oct10-05, 06:44 PM
The last thing we need is more sports....
0TheSwerve0
Oct10-05, 06:53 PM
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. :biggrin:

lol, okie dokiez.

Quite wrong, actually. You will never, barring certain feats of engineering, be
able to pee 2 meters standing up! :biggrin:
smart@ss:rolleyes:
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:wink:

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

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

loseyourname
Oct10-05, 06:55 PM
Perhaps we also need more sports/games that are less violent.

I think we should have whatever sports a person wants to play. Some people
are fine with shuffleboard and squash, but I happen to enjoy contact sports.
You don't get the same adrenaline rush without them.

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.

There are plenty of sports in our in which women can comfortable compete
with men. In the sports in which they cannot, however, do you or do you not
agree that it is a good idea to segregate according to sex? For that matter, we
actually segregate further than that, according to age-level and ability within
that sex-group/age-level. This is all done with the enjoyment and safety of the
participants in mind.

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.

If you want to call them "masculine" attributes. I thought we were trying to get
away from that. Actually, in the elite-level of athletic competition, pretty much
everyone is equally matched physically. The team, or individual, that wins is
the one with the best strategy, or the best coaching, or simply the most
mental strength or ability to concentrate. I hope you aren't insinuating that the
ability to strategize smartly and execute are masculine traits.

Where are the sports that are tailored to females? Gymnasitcs? Where are
the sex-neutral sports?

Females are free to invent sports that they are better suited for, just as males
invented most of the sports we currently have.*

Card games might be considred a good sport that is sex-neutral, as it doesn't

rely whatsoever on physical ability. A lot of people will tell you that card games
are not sport, but they are covered by ESPN. Let's face it, though - sport
pretty much means physical ability. A large part of the point is to get out and
exercise, to feel good in a way that purely mental activities cannot bring
about. Whenever we engage in physical activity, elite-level men are almost
always going to have an advantage over elite-level women.

*Actually, I should mention that all of my sisters have been involved in sports
at one time or another, and they enjoyed them very much. To imply that our
current sports are not tailored to females might be a little insulting to the
average female athlete. Who are you to tell her that she isn't suited to run
around and kick a ball into a goal?