Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

There is no gradient between "male" and "female".

No gradient? There are countless traits that show a gradient related to pre-natal testosterone. Both within a single gender, and between genders. Just hand-wave away hundreds of separate studies which have actual data, though, and you're sweet. Having outliers in the data doesn't make a correlation any less real.

t's also the basis almost universally used to discriminate against people, such as preventing women from serving in armed forces,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.

By the same logic we should all convert to Christianity because bible-believers are less likely to steal or murder people, and we should reject Darwinism because it is the basis for eugenics.

===

Also talking about traits that vary based on pre-natal chemistry offers a view that explains variation both within a gender and between genders, it does the opposite of forcing people into distinct categories. That's a straw man.

Here's another study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19175758

Mammals, including humans, show sex differences in juvenile play behavior. In rodents and nonhuman primates, these behavioral sex differences result, in part, from sex differences in androgens during early development. Girls exposed to high levels of androgen prenatally, because of the genetic disorder congenital adrenal hyperplasia, show increased male-typical play, suggesting similar hormonal influences on human development, at least in females. Here, we report that fetal testosterone measured from amniotic fluid relates positively to male-typical scores on a standardized questionnaire measure of sex-typical play in both boys and girls. These results show, for the first time, a link between fetal testosterone and the development of sex-typical play in children from the general population, and are the first data linking high levels of prenatal testosterone to increased male-typical play behavior in boys.

Note it's a link between "fetal testosterone" and later behavior types, not "having a dick" and those behaviors. Either girls or boys can have high "fetal testosterone" in the womb, explaining variance both within a gender, and also between genders. This is precisely moving away from the idea that you need to be in a binary category to have these traits.

True genetic determinism is "boys are like X, girls are like Y because of genetic programming", whereas social determinism is "boys are like X, girls are like Y because of social programming". Those are binary theories. The fetal testosterone theory isn't a binary theory. It can be high or low in anyone. There are definitely a spectrum of these traits, and they just happen to correlate really well with the hormone measurements from before you're born.

[Neonivek]

It is just that... what Lord Bucket said takes these, and amplifies them well beyond even that. Which is as I said turning villainy into super villainy.

I cannot think of any examples of a society that honestly believed that a woman's job is to accept terrific abuse for no reason other then it is her job to be abused... Nor many societies, other then possibly a tribal society, where a woman is expected to accept and reciprocate all advances.

I think a miscommunication has occured somewhere. I was not at all suggesting that. In fact, if youread the very next line after the statement of mine you quoted earlier:

But if you hear that and interpret it to mean "this is what LordBucket believes is the
proper role for women" then you're totally missing the point.

You were talking on a historical, geographical, and social basis. I am saying that your assessment of gender roles in other societies (whether in different locations or the past) is exaggerated far beyond reality.

...no, I think you're confusing "feminine" with "is a woman." They're not the same thing

Feminine means "pertaining to a woman", it would be a set of traits associated with being either a woman or the idealized woman or a stereotypical woman.

When a guy says he wishes his girlfriend would "be more feminine" what does he really mean? Does he means he wants to beat her? No, of course not. Does he mean he wants her to respond to every sexual advance made on her by any random guy? No, of course not. He means that he wants her her to be more receptive to him, more passive, more accepting...more willing to accept what he wants. When a woman says she wishes her boyfriend would "be more manly" does she mean she wants to be beaten?  No, of course not. Does she mean she wants to sleep around? No, of course not. She means she wants him to take charge. To not pander to her. To decide where they're going to eat dinner without trying to appease her, to stop caring so much what other people want and to do his own thing so that she can be the woman

While I'd argue against these individual points (And I really do want to). I see more clearly where you are coming from and that is important enough.

[Orange Wizard]

Oh, wow. This thread multiplied rapidly. I can't even tell what you're arguing about any more.

[Neonivek]

Oh, wow. This thread multiplied rapidly. I can't even tell what you're arguing about any more.

I can barely tell what the topic post is all about... Actually I can't.

I always thought it was a mental exercise or something.

[miauw62]

but genderless species would be too boring

what about making people be able to switch between genders at-will?

Reminds me of a short story I read recently ("Changes" by Neil Gaiman)

The problems in this story are most prominent in two areas:
Chinese families save up all their money for a "reboot" so they can change female babies into males,
And people that cannot prove they were male at birth are killed and raped (the example here is in the middle-east, but I'd expect less severe versions of this to exist elsewhere)

[Sergarr]

but genderless species would be too boring

what about making people be able to switch between genders at-will?

Reminds me of a short story I read recently ("Changes" by Neil Gaiman)

The problems in this story are most prominent in two areas:
Chinese families save up all their money for a "reboot" so they can change female babies into males,
And people that cannot prove they were male at birth are killed and raped (the example here is in the middle-east, but I'd expect less severe versions of this to exist elsewhere)

1) The china gets depopulated in one generation
2) And the people who prove that they were female at birth... are killed and raped anyway?

[Angle]

1) Already happened about as much as it would anyway.
2) would suck, but the middle east already has a whole boatload of problems.

[GavJ]

In my opinion, gender roles certainly exist and are informative, but they are mainly useful only for describing people when they are acting poorly, not at their peaks.

The best, most mature, most civilized and sophisticated individuals? They all converge on a single set of characteristics. The ideal is the same for both/all genders.
- Compassionate
- Elegant and polite
- Trustworthy
- Tolerant
- Emotionally stable
- Educated (as in knowledgeable about the world, which could come from formal or informal education and/or life experience, and best of all, all of the above combined)
- Responsible and accountable for your actions
- Passionate about (constructive, healthy) thing(s) / having a strong purpose in life

These are characteristics I think of when conceiving of either the best of the best of alpha males OR the best of the best of alpha females. These characteristics make the best friends, parents, civic community members, etc. from either gender.

It's only when you start drifting away from the ideal and into the realm of the somewhat more petty and less ideal masses that gender roles start to diverge and become apparent. The strongest actual divergent gender stereotypes I see often have to do with the ways that different genders behave when they are at their lowest, not their highest points. Such as the ways that men versus women (identified individuals, not biological), lie, cheat steal, fight, act vain, show their intolerances, etc.

[Tiruin]

I like how pointed your post is, GavJ.

[LordBucket]

we should probably discuss whether we need particular gender roles in our modern society. What do you say?

"Need?" No. But there's nothing particularly wrong with it, either. It's valid and ok for there to be gender roles. But if people don't like them, I don't see any tremendous benefit to sticking with systems people don't like.

Thing is...some situations exist as natural consequence of more fundamental conditions. If I pour sand out of a vase onto the ground, the pile it forms will tend to resemble a cone. If I go to Mars and pour gravel out of a dumptruck...the pile it forms will tend to also resemble a cone. Different materials, different place, different tools, different components...similar result. Why? Because gravity is a constant.

Gender, I suspect...is also a thing that is probably result of basic conditions. No, it's not an absolute result. Yes, life can exist without two genders. And if you pour water instead of sand you don't get a cone. Nevertheless, it's a common, likely, probable result. As evidence I give you the majority of multi-cellular life known to our species. Two genders is the most common reproductive arrangement known to us.

If a condition like gravity tends to like to produce cones from poured material, and certain properties of life tend to life to produce gender...it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to suggest that the specific condition of human gender might tend to produce certain trends as well. It's not unreasonable to suggest that "gender roles in society" might be one of those things that tend to fall into certain patterns.

I think it would be silly to suggest that those patterns are "natural, and therefore morally correct and anything else is wrong!" But nevertheless, these trends probably exist for reasons. Being angry about those trends probably isn't especially productive. Any more than being angry about gravity would be productive. If you don't like it, then build a rocket ship. Or a ladder. Poof, you've overcome gravity. But for most people "overcoming gravity" doesn't really need to be a huge focus in their day to day life.

I think it would be healthy to view gender roles in a similar light. It's ok if there are gender roles. Fighting against them solely for the sake of fighting against them is rarely a good use of energy. But attaching too much significance to them can also result in error. Like claiming that it's "god's will" that mankind be confined to earth by gravity and that it' therefore "sinful" to build rockets to fly to other worlds. It's just as silly to say that "you are a male, therefore it is morally imperative that you ask the girl to dance, and anything else is sinful!" Don't misunderstand. It's ok, if the convention is that guys ask girls to dance. But can't we do away with all the anger and angst and guilt some people attach to these issues?

I think human morphological freedom would be a healthy situation for humanity. People who don't like their gender can change. No big deal. People who feel the other side has it better can change, no big deal. And maybe some of those people will change...and with the benefit of having seen things from the other side, they'll understand better and see that the "grass is not so much greener" and change back. And some people would change back and forth as casually as they change clothes, for aesthetics and convenience.

And that would be ok.

[penguinofhonor]

Man, I'm reading up on the origin of sex and one of the theories is that organisms could have evolved sex to become more resistant to parasites. Sexual reproduction causes much more varied offspring than asexual reproduction (which makes near-clones of you), so a parasite would be less likely to infect as many of them. Wouldn't that be lame? I hope the truth is something cooler than that.

[Neonivek]

Man, I'm reading up on the origin of sex and one of the theories is that organisms could have evolved sex to become more resistant to parasites. Sexual reproduction causes much more varied offspring than asexual reproduction (which makes near-clones of you), so a parasite would be less likely to infect as many of them. Wouldn't that be lame? I hope the truth is something cooler than that.

No it is rather accurate.

[Putnam]

I always figured it was due to that. Look at bananas. I'm pretty sure at least one cultivated species has gone extinct entirely just in the last 200 years or so due to rampant cloning and subsequent parasite emergence.

[GavJ]

Man, I'm reading up on the origin of sex and one of the theories is that organisms could have evolved sex to become more resistant to parasites. Sexual reproduction causes much more varied offspring than asexual reproduction (which makes near-clones of you), so a parasite would be less likely to infect as many of them. Wouldn't that be lame? I hope the truth is something cooler than that.

Not only parasites, although that's a big one. Also things like congenital defects.

If you have a homogenous gene pool, and it happens to include weak hearts, then no matter what you do, the community is going to keep having weak hearts until somebody mutates a less weak one, which could take tens of thousands of years, or never.

If you have a heterogenous gene pool, then some of you might have weak heart genes but good livers, whereas other of you might have strong hearts and bad livers, and your population is able to change its ratios of genes much more quickly than via mutation, as the risks change from fatty foods to poisonous water and back again. MUCH MUCH more quickly. ...not the best example. For a better and more classic one, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution Basically, one wing color of the same species was better for blending into healthy trees, and another was better for blending into sooty, polluted trees. Then later when ecology got better in industry, peppered moths were back in favor. It was important to the species to have that variability in their gene pool all along, just in different ratios.


OR if you have a defect that requires two matching alleles to show up, then your chances of exhibiting the defect go up if there are more nearly identical people in your community. Whereas even the same number of bad alleles is safer if they are a mixed bag that don't all line up.  So let's say, in our very overly simplistic genetic model below, randomly chosen sperm and eggs look like this, where X = bad, O = good alleles:

XOOOXOXOXOXOOOOX
XOOOXOOOXXXOOOOX
XOOOXOOOXXXOOOOX
XOXOXOOOXXXOOOOO
In this population, the bad ones all line up mostly, so you're very likely to get lots of crippling or deadly pairs at once and die.

XOOOXOOOXXXOOOOX
OOXXOXOOXOOXOOXO
XOOXOOXOOXOOOOXX
OXOOXOOXOOOOXXOX
In this population, there are the same number of X's, but they're more widely distributed and thus you're much less likely to get as many matching pairs from any two parents, thus you have fewer defects despite just as many "flaws" in the gene pool.

[Reelya]

In computing terms: sexual reproduction gives parallel processing. The rate at which a sexual species explores the "search space" of possible genomes is massively faster.

Think of teams of scientists around the world, all trying to invent the same thing, but never communicating. That's like asexual reproduction. Then, think of the same scientists but constantly swapping data back and forth, that's like sexual reproduction.

There's also data recovery - in an asexual species, you need a really large population to ensure the best genome survives. Over time, genetic drift pretty much ensures a lot of "bad" genes mutate and propagate - thus lowering the overall population survivability and pushing the average genome away from the "optimal" one. This is called Mullers Rachet. If the population is small, the chance of keeping the "best" current genome is very low, and there's a general drift away from "good" genes.

Sexual reproduction though allows two flawed organisms to give birth to a better one: basically by cutting and pasting different genes together, you can end up back at the "perfect" genome far more often than asexual organisms with genetic drift. Sexual species predictably converge on the perfect genome: asexual ones do not (Mullers Rachet).

Because of recombination, sexual species can bounce back from very large disasters / population drops and "recreate" lost information: even if only genetically flawed individuals survived, by exchanging genes around it only takes a few generations to rebuild the "database" of genomes. Asexual ones have a big problem with this scenario.