I've little time to post ;~; And my post may be totally messy because I've been running on 4-ish hours of sleep lately! Stress time due to thesis!
Vector's posts are insightful here--they're in no way advocating for an incomplete viewpoint, but for a more wholesome one. Going to forward that with studies on my part, from the historical viewpoint in psychology. I'm pulling these out from my notes, so anyone can look it up.
@DL: This thread requires notes
You're moving with a thread that discusses gender and other related things,
the most important point here is that this is also an international forum, so you'll be getting viewpoints from many, different cultures.
It is important for deviation to be accepted.
This is a good point, a good
contextual point that shouldn't be taken out of what's being discussed right now.
In many areas, there's a stricter idea of what gender is in contrast to what tradition or how the 'general norm' seemed to view it--this general norm is mostly a construct, based from observations of our ancestors who worked with the ideas of their time. In historical studies, this gender difference began relatively when societies branched out and developed--beginning as an idea stemming mostly from a
biological perspective (ie Males and females were characterized by biological traits as well as observed characteristics, which if I've to reference someone in the thread,
BillyTheKid has mentioned. He has a point, but it is an incomplete point), however these ideas were not meant to be the construct of
how societies should be run. This period of diversification is also relative towards the society and country, which is also able to be
reinforced as a belief. For example the Philippines,
in several areas, have upheld the idea of one's idea of the self as well as their gender being personal and internal towards a person's being, and in contrast to some areas which have experienced colonization which hold differing ideas (ie Spanish colonized areas).
A good point here is to take in several key points:
> While there may be a biological difference between males and females; this does not segregate people into gender roles for
efficiency--the perceived gap between these areas is not of significant value, that while there are notable differences, these differences do not
prove any significant conclusion that this gap should be upheld.
> Deviation as Vector mentions pertains to when certain societal constructs/ideas become too rigid--that they may lose the underlying open-mindedness, wisdom, and critical thinking that creates these ideas: Their application, their context, and their roots in human nature. While the term of human nature may be misplaced at times, like concluding that 'this is
inherent to human nature because this happens' (eg when people make sweeping generalizations and make stereotypes, which is but only a basic idea of constructing a concept or idea), it is important to notice that societal ideas stem from observations made in earlier times. In talking about the application of gender
[...]
Despite the difficulties of communication across cultures and subgroups, saying "diversity enriches" or "diversity is dangerous" is too simplistic (factually speaking). Passing to a Judith-Butler style argument, we really can't make that kind of statement, because whether diversity enriches or threatens is a matter of individual interactions and individual times. What we can do is teach future generations more skills for managing their differences--assuming, perhaps, a more-or-less homogeneous culture to which one belongs, but a non-homogeneous outside environment that one would do well to learn how to navigate for, if nothing else, commercial and trade purposes.
One should also put great notice to the values that's being used. At times, societies have experienced and observed certain happenings that do not fit their current understanding; how they follow up expanding their understanding creates an underlying process of thinking for meeting ideas in the future.
> The notion of a stereotype, in a cognitive context, is the creation or categorization of ideas to fit a
general understanding. From these constructs further ideas are added or modified until it becomes a form of deconstruction--from general to specific. When discussing the whole theme of this thread, stereotypes are not the endpoint, because this covers aspects of one's life from societal, to cultural, to personal, to familial and otherwise.
Edoot: Ohai Caz!
Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.
I wonder if he's seen male gynmasts, ballet dancers etc. That shit is graceful. Riverdance anyone?
I've recalled people thinking about how 'prevalent' BillyTheKid's ideas are. In a wholesome context--it's as prevalent as the culture that promotes it. It isn't a predominating idea in many areas, taking in a worldwide context, and it is predominating in many areas; the general sense of that begins in the culture of the society, community, or family as the smallest part.
But prevalence does denote the scope of ideas being spread there. It is misleading to say what he's saying, in a holistic sense, because of how rigid it is in hindsight, and in foresight of its non-applicability in reality.
Also I do recall other people speaking about genetic traits. Reudh brings up very good points on these notes.
There is already a word for that, which is sex (and intersex people for those that have rarer mix like XXY). Gender usually refers to the social implication and expectations of the stuff, although they do get mixed up sometime.
Klinefelter males are not "intersex". They are still male, they do not possess any characteristics of females, besides reduced (compared to XY males) testosterone production.
Especially when descriptions are used like these.