Print

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

[smjjames]

#notallbeans

(Also that conversation on gender is only toxic because no one seem to know that "gender fluidity" doesn't means there are more than two genders so we argue for or against something that was never seriously defended, and as a post-modernist this is a bit frustrating, but I also understand it's a tired topic so I won't push that)

I only made the mention on fungi because I thought it'd just be a funny answer to that sort of question, and yeah, there doesn't seem to me like any discrete number on 'gender identities', more of a spectrum, but even a spectrum seems too simplified.

I think part of the issue is people confusing the term “gender” with the term “sex”.

That too.

[wierd]

No, the problem is confusing gender with sexuality.

A person can have any number of forms of sexuality, but there are only 3 proper genders. (Male, female, and neuter/indeterminate)

For example, my sexuality is "asexual", but my gender is "male".

[smjjames]

The terms 'gender fluidity' and 'gender identity' kind of muddles it up though... Otherwise you're correct.

[hector13]

Well... no.

From your gender link:

Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and fema

Sexuality* has nothing to do with it. Sex is physical - what you do or do not have between your legs -while gender is a social/psychological construct.

*meaning the concept of sexuality.

[smjjames]

In biology though, gender is used, and yeah, they tend to be used interchangeably. It's more that some people don't care the term used and just go 'There. Are. Only. Two. Sexes. P.E.R.I.O.D. . ! No decimal give, nothing! Not even a 0.00000001^10^2 deviancy!'

Anyways, the semantic argument is just going to go in circles because they really are used interchangeably in some settings while in others having specific definitions.

[Reelya]

Well... no.

From your gender link:

Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and fema

Sexuality* has nothing to do with it. Sex is physical - what you do or do not have between your legs -while gender is a social/psychological construct.

*meaning the concept of sexuality.

"sex is biological, gender is social" is fair enough - that's just "dictionary defining" the terminology you're using.

However, problems can come in when someone uses that definition to jump to logical conclusions that aren't actually warranted: "and therefore, all psychological differences between males and females are also a social construct". The logical fallacy is that even though you've defined sex as "physical" and gender as "social", just making that definition doesn't actually give you any information about the extent to which different psychological traits are determined by physical vs social causes.

So, "sex is biological, gender is social" can in fact be a smokescreen for people who believe in a hardcore ideological behavioralist model of human development (which is a thoroughly debunked scientific viewpoint the same as 100% biological determinism). But they get to hide their pseudoscience behind a veneer of social justice outrage if you disagree with them.

[wierd]

IIRC, there were some psychological development studies (of dubious ethical standing) performed on children in the 1970s, concerning biological sex, social programming, and toy selection.

There was a strong bias, totally overpowering attempts at socialization controls, concerning toy selection choices in the studied children.

While NOT the study I mention, I believe this meta-evaluation study does reference it.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

[WealthyRadish]

My opinion is that at their root, not all the genders floating around are necessarily real, and many might have an imaginary component. Source

[smjjames]

My opinion is that at their root, not all the genders floating around are necessarily real, and many might have an imaginary component. Source

I can see you’re making a math joke, but that’s getting a LITTLE too close to the sun, if you catch my drift.

[Reelya]

IIRC, there were some psychological development studies (of dubious ethical standing) performed on children in the 1970s, concerning biological sex, social programming, and toy selection.

There was a strong bias, totally overpowering attempts at socialization controls, concerning toy selection choices in the studied children.

While NOT the study I mention, I believe this meta-evaluation study does reference it.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

How about the one with baby monkeys as well? Boy monkeys like playing with toy cars much more than girl monkeys.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

Which all fits much better with my experience of women I've known. Women tend not to like "guy stuff" not because society has hammered it into them to only like things women like, but because they find the "guy stuff" incredibly boring. To tell them otherwise is patronizing: saying they've just been "socialized" to like specifically what they like is to say they have no preferences or control whatsoever. It's the ultimate slap in the face to female agency.

Outliers are much better explained by ideas about variations in pre-natal hormones than by the "socialization is all powerful" theory. Neither "socialization is all powerful" or "everything is determined by your X or Y chromosome" manage to explain the outliers at all. However, if you consider that pre-natal hormones are the proxy for gender-related things then variations in the hormone levels (for a multitude of reasons) can mean you get a mix of traits. There is quite a bit of empirical evidence being collected that supports this idea.

[smjjames]

They should have tried it with a much larger sample of monkeys, and possibly tested with wild monkeys to minimize human influence. There’s a crapload of variables they’d have to shake out.

[wierd]

The more the merrier I guess...


It is a pretty consistent finding, that has held up under several variations on testing methodologies, suggesting very strongly that it is a very real phenomenon. That it also appears in non-human primates as well is just more on the pile.


That there is such a strong bias does not indicate that there is 100% association though, which could explain some of the "social gender" thing.  EG, "What of the male children that DID like playing with dolls, but are not gay?"  Such outliers could explain things like social 3rd gender.

There could be a biological basis for that as well, which we are just not capturing in the "broad strokes" studies conducted so far.  If there is, I am pretty confident that there will be both great joy and great gnashing of teeth at the discovery by all groups involved. (EG, there will be "social gender" advocates that are enraged by the idea that their alt-genders might be biologically produced, and there will be others that will wax in their jubilation/vindication that it is "not all in people's heads" as well. This would be true of both the conservative and liberal demographic bents)

[Reelya]

They should have tried it with a much larger sample of monkeys, and possibly tested with wild monkeys to minimize human influence. There’s a crapload of variables they’d have to shake out.

According to this BBC video (which itself replicated the results) the original study was replicated by two other groups. So that makes at least four experiments finding similar results.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-29418230/monkey-test-shows-gender-choices

[SalmonGod]

While this stuff is interesting, the core of the issue is people caring far too much about other people's innocent behaviors.  I personally don't care how someone chooses to identify themselves.  So long as they can function reasonably in society without harming anyone, it doesn't matter.  Anyone who can't accept this is overstepping their bounds by any metric.

[smjjames]

Aren’t action figures just dolls for boys? I mean, there’s not a huge difference when you get down to it, just different uses of the same sort of thing.

They should have tried it with a much larger sample of monkeys, and possibly tested with wild monkeys to minimize human influence. There’s a crapload of variables they’d have to shake out.

According to this BBC video (which itself replicated the results) the original study was replicated by two other groups. So that makes at least four experiments finding similar results.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-29418230/monkey-test-shows-gender-choices

I’m just saying that there could have been a deeper look into variables. I agree that there is a strong biological component.

And salmongod hits it on the head here, humans are the only ones who make a fuss over the sexual/gender identities of others. There is no sign that other animals, even non-human primates, give a damn about it, except when it comes time to mate anyway. Pretending to be female is even a mating strategy for some species.