Gender

[Darcy88]

Is it any longer meaningful to posit an essential difference between men and women beyond the merely anatomical? The past couple hours I've been reading Judith Butler and going over other people's interpretations of her. She basically argues that gender is non-essential, that rather than being feminine or masculine we actually only "act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman," and consequently "there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results." These gender performances are said to be the result of socially and culturally reinforced habits, rather than a reflection of any innate individual identity.

I've always taken a firm stance against such ideas before, but when I think really hard about what distinguishes men from women all the differences seem quite superficial. I can't rationally say that a man or woman ought to act in this or that particular way simply because they happen to be a man or a woman. There isn't a single psychological or behavioural generalization we can make according to gender which holds true for each and every individual, and we must ask that of those which do hold true in most cases, how many if any at all are the result of a static natural gender "essence," and which are merely the product of socially and culturally enforced norms? It shouldn't be considered some error, some mistake every time I cry at a movie, take great delight in clothes shopping, or wear the colour pink.

What do you make of this?

[JuniperWoolf]

I've always chose to completely ignore any notion of gender, I'd rather see others and myself as individuals. First of all, because this is true:


These gender performances are said to be the result of socially and culturally reinforced habits, rather than a reflection of any innate individual identity.

It would be difficult to argue against that, but I'm sure someone here will try. For now I'll just say that on a more selfish level, pigeonholing people's personalities according to socially-prescribed notions of "female" and "male" is a recipe for boredom. The people who think like that must be bored, because talking to them certainly is.

It's a self-sustaining illusion, those who heavily believe in gendered personality dichotomy are the ones that are influencing people to portray those traits. How can anyone believe that personality is dependant on a couple of minor endocrine secretions and the shape of one's genitals, as opposed to, oh I don't know, the extremely complicated and widely variable human brain? Well, say you're the type to sort humanity according to gender. You're the kind who, while talking to people, tends to make one or two gendered comments, like for example "typical woman, eh?" or "men, amiright?" or maybe you cleverly spit out a few "take my wife, please" jokes, all of that head-smashingly-boring, heard-it-a-thousand-times drivel. Even if the person you're talking to doesn't possess the stereotypical traits (according to culture and society) of their biological gender, they'll often start to act "masculine" or "feminine" because they'll want to behave according to your expectations (women are afraid of being considered butch, and men are even more afraid of looking effeminate). What's more, if you're a man talking to another man and you pull out a "women, can't live with 'em, can't live wiblahblahkillme," they'll usually go with it, because to do otherwise would be going against solidarity; the same would happen if you're a woman talking to another woman and bring out the "men are dogs" crap. You won't have many interesting conversations because all you see is just "women" and "men," not people. Your observations, which you had a large part in bringing about, have confirmed that this is the way of the world. Anyone who doesn't fit the bill must be looking for attention, or (and here's the old standby) gay.

So yeah, my primary beef against using gender to judge people's personalities is that doing so makes you, and your interactions and experiences with other people, extremely dull and blinds you to the truth of their character. I have more reasons, but I'll leave it there for now.

[qimissung]

I don't mind to continue recognizing someone as male or female, but I do so only along with lots of other information about their person and character. I think you're right, Juniper, in the points you've made. I've seen myself doing that concerning men. "Men!" But I've come to realize it's a matter of trust-that I lack trust in myself. It doesn't really have anything to do with them.

I'm all for people choosing their own gender, also. Because we just are-creatures who have a sentient existence.It's not any problem at all for a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy, or even a mixture of the two. Because we're already a mixture of the two. I don't think there's anything that defines what it is to be a woman or what it is to be a man. I do think there is something that defines us as decent or humane or otherwise, although that's largely cultural, also.

[WyattGwyon]

It is likely there are innate gender differences expressed as statistical tendencies toward certain behaviors or traits over large populations. I also think it likely these innate differences are far overshadowed by the effects of socialization, learned role playing, and the conscious choices of individuals. Most important, however, any such innate differences should have nothing to do with how we act toward individuals since any trait or behavior one chooses—perilously—to gender type, will be found with great frequency among persons of both genders. Bottom line for living in the real world: Treat people as individuals and make no assumptions about them based on gender.

[cafolini]

Gender is male or female. It's a biological thing and it could be heterosexual or gay. That's all there is to it. The problem of gender arises from the utter stupidity of assigning it to God.

[Charles Darnay]

I don't think male and female have to be seen as the exact same, even as a category of designation. I don't think there is anything wrong wanting to embody aspects of either. Here I pause to mention that gender (cultural definition) is separate from sex (biological) - so if a biological male wants to be a (gender) female, that's fine.

Now, when you start using the distinction between male and female for your own absurd gain, such as: paying women less money for the same job, excluding women from certain positions they are extremely qualified for - then there is a problem. But these problems, and others, don't need to be fixed by eliminating the idea of male and female. Gender neutrality is not the answer.

[Volya]

I don't quite understand how if you are biologically a man you can call yourself a woman? It doesn't really make much sense to me... :s

[cafolini]

I don't quite understand how if you are biologically a man you can call yourself a woman? It doesn't really make much sense to me... :s

Biologically, a male could be heterosexual or gay, and so can a female. I don't think you understand the word "biological." You need to grow up to it.

[YesNo]

Is it any longer meaningful to posit an essential difference between men and women beyond the merely anatomical?

I don't know if anatomical includes neurological differences or not, but Larry Young and Brian Alexander's, The Chemistry Between Us (http://www.thechemistrybetweenus.com/index.html) suggests that our behavior as male or female and even our sexual orientation is constructed by our brain organization and is not a cultural product. That means one can't turn a gay man straight by cultural conditioning. It also means one can't turn a boy into a girl by giving him dolls to play with as an infant.

[Volya]

Biologically, a male could be heterosexual or gay, and so can a female. I don't think you understand the word "biological." You need to grow up to it.

...When did I say men and women can't be gay?

[OrphanPip]

Gender is the association of social expectations, roles, and behaviors that society attaches to sex. Sex is biological.

Now I'm just going to highlight a key misunderstanding of the construction of gender. Saying that gender is constructed out of a network of signification and social understandings is not to say gender is completely divorced from biology. Nor would anyone who advocates this position think that gender neutrality is the goal of understanding the social construction of gender.

I don't care to use theory to defend the rights of transgender people, the issue there is simply basic human decency and understanding of other people's autonomous right to self-identification.

[Aylinn]

Finding someone to be 'a typical woman' or 'a typical man' seems to me a sign of intellectual laziness. Such people would like to have a simple answer for something that is more complicated. They are no different from people who lived, for example, two thousands years ago and who when they saw a flash of lighting, thought that it was some god's doing. A simple answer for a complicated phenomenon.

[cafolini]

Finding someone to be 'a typical woman' or 'a typical man' seems to me a sign of intellectual laziness. Such people would like to have a simple answer for something that is more complicated. They are no different from people who lived, for example, two thousands years ago and who when they saw a flash of lighting, thought that it was some god's doing. A simple answer for a complicated phenomenon.

I don't disagree completely. However, I think it was far worse than intellectual laziness. It was a game of malice as I see it. But it's true that some were victims of intellectual laziness. It is not that complicated in the final analysis. Gender is male or female. It's a biological thing and it could be heterosexual or gay. That's all there is to it. The problem of gender arises from the utter stupidity of assigning it to God.

[Calidore]

I believe one forum poster, who's only been sporadic lately, has said she's transgender. If she sees this and cares to discuss it, I think her input on the physical and psychological aspects of before and after such a change would be fascinating.

And just to put everyone on the same page and forestall semantic disagreements, Merriam-Webster has the following:

Sex:
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Gender:
2 a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So could it safely be said that gender itself is biological, but gender roles would be cultural and psychological?

[The Atheist]

Note that I am not arguing that people should be identified by their gender status, but I will argue that there are differences beyond the genitals.


There isn't a single psychological or behavioural generalization we can make according to gender which holds true for each and every individual, and we must ask that of those which do hold true in most cases, how many if any at all are the result of a static natural gender "essence," and which are merely the product of socially and culturally enforced norms?

As Pip has already noted, just because there are no universal behaviours doesn't mean that there is no biological imperative.

One of the things which has fascinated me as a parent is the realisation that boys are generally attracted to certain behaviour/play and girls are attracted to others, and our house is and has always been highly gender-neutral. There is much more than learned behaviour.


How can anyone believe that personality is dependant on a couple of minor endocrine secretions and the shape of one's genitals, as opposed to, oh I don't know, the extremely complicated and widely variable human brain?

It would be fairly disingenuous to claim that there are "a couple of minor endocrine secretions" when we know that there are some huge differences in those secretions.


I'm all for people choosing their own gender, also.

That's a dangerous statement, because people don't choose their genders, they are chosen for them, and it's a quirk of fate that some of the time their chromosomes don't match their gender. One of the first tenets of LGBT life is that you cannot pick your gender.

[OrphanPip]

I believe one forum poster, who's only been sporadic lately, has said she's transgender. If she sees this and cares to discuss it, I think her input on the physical and psychological aspects of before and after such a change would be fascinating.

And just to put everyone on the same page and forestall semantic disagreements, Merriam-Webster has the following:

Sex:
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Gender:
2 a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So could it safely be said that gender itself is biological, but gender roles would be cultural and psychological?

It's a tricky word to work with because it has undergone a major shift in meaning in the last 40 years. Prior to the 1950s gender was entirely a grammatical term, e.g. feminine, masculine, and neuter nouns in German. Gender as synonymous with sex has slipped into general usage since the 1980s, but the social sciences still try to maintain a distinction between sex and gender. An important distinction to keep in mind is that only people have gender, we don't normally describe animals as masculine or feminine in appearance (and when we do we don't usually mean that in association with their sex, just as nouns have genders in some languages).

[JuniperWoolf]

It would be fairly disingenuous to claim that there are "a couple of minor endocrine secretions" when we know that there are some huge differences in those secretions.

To use the word "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. Women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen and progesterone, and the amount of each hormone varies depending on the individual you're looking at. What's more, out of all of the hormones in the human body, the variation in three hormones seems pretty minor to me.

Also, you can tell how important something is to a system by messing with it. If you inhibit or assist testosterone, progesterone or estrogen in a man or woman the affects on the individual's personality aren't extraordinarily pronounced. On the other hand if you mess with a person's frontal cortex, even if their cognative ability remains intact their personality often changes dramatically. I'm used to dealing with people (even on litnet) who say things like "women are different from us because they don't have testosterone [sic]," while completely ignoring the role of the vastly complex human brain, which varies from person to person regardless of biological sex in unimaginable ways. Taking this into consideration, how could sex be the overriding influence in determining personality (as it's often considered)?


Gender neutrality is not the answer.

If the question is something specifically regarding gender, like "how does gender within a social context influence one's mental health," then obviously you'd have to acknowledge gender to have this discussion, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to approach our daily interactions from a gender neutral position.

[Charles Darnay]

I feel that the unintentional consequence of this approach would be the grand compromising of anything overly "masculine" or overly "feminism" in order to maintain harmony. The "second wave feminists" desired to achieve gender equality by "being men" - which acknowledges some inferiority in women. You don't need to eliminate the qualities of masculine or feminine to embrace both equally.



I don't see why we shouldn't try to approach our daily interactions from a gender neutral position


I agree that gender doesn't have to underscore everything we do and everyone we meet. If I go to get a coffee every morning I don't care if the barista is male or female - this has no bearing at all on this part of my day. I think it is an infinitesimal minority who will go into a coffee shop and refuse to be served by a man/woman.

My argument against gender neutrality is not how we see/treat others, but how we see/treat ourselves. There is nothing wrong we being masculine/feminine and we should not have to sacrifice it because of intolerant *******s.

[hypatia_]

I feel that the unintentional consequence of this approach would be the grand compromising of anything overly "masculine" or overly "feminism" in order to maintain harmony. The "second wave feminists" desired to achieve gender equality by "being men" - which acknowledges some inferiority in women. You don't need to eliminate the qualities of masculine or feminine to embrace both equally.



I agree that gender doesn't have to underscore everything we do and everyone we meet. If I go to get a coffee every morning I don't care if the barista is male or female - this has no bearing at all on this part of my day. I think it is an infinitesimal minority who will go into a coffee shop and refuse to be served by a man/woman.

My argument against gender neutrality is not how we see/treat others, but how we see/treat ourselves. There is nothing wrong we being masculine/feminine and we should not have to sacrifice it because of intolerant *******s.

Agreed. I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between masculinity and femininity (which are not synonymous with male and female), but at the same time respect a person's basic rights regardless (in that sense you treat them as gender neutral).

[mona amon]

Completely agree with Charles. Of course there's maleness and femaleness, and the two are pretty different. It's nothing to do with intelligence, ability, behavior or personality. It is something much more basic and innate than that, and difficult to actually put your finger on. The difference is obviously biological - physical, hormonal etc, but it is a difference all the same, and a difference that is silly to ignore. Why on earth do transgender people have such problems with gender identity if there's no difference between the two?


"there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results." - Judith Butler quoted in the OP

Balderdash. What if these 'expressions of gender' are really the important and only difference? She seems to have tried so hard to confuse others that she ended up confusing herself.

[cafolini]

To use the word "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. Women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen and progesterone, and the amount of each hormone varies depending on the individual you're looking at. What's more, out of all of the hormones in the human body, the variation in three hormones seems pretty minor to me.

Also, you can tell how important something is to a system by messing with it. If you inhibit or assist testosterone, progesterone or estrogen in a man or woman the affects on the individual's personality aren't extraordinarily pronounced. On the other hand if you mess with a person's frontal cortex, even if their cognative ability remains intact their personality often changes dramatically. I'm used to dealing with people (even on litnet) who say things like "women are different from us because they don't have testosterone [sic]," while completely ignoring the role of the vastly complex human brain, which varies from person to person regardless of biological sex in unimaginable ways. Taking this into consideration, how could sex be the overriding influence in determining personality (as it's often considered)?



If the question is something specifically regarding gender, like "how does gender within a social context influence one's mental health," then obviously you'd have to acknowledge gender to have this discussion, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to approach our daily interactions from a gender neutral position.

There is no sustainable gender neutral position. It is a ridiculous proposition, no matter how many complications you throw into the subject. Don't waste your time and that of others. Discussions are not necessary beyond what is possible to discuss, no matter how many times they run in the show.

[Darcy88]

Completely agree with Charles. Of course there's maleness and femaleness, and the two are pretty different. It's nothing to do with intelligence, ability, behavior or personality. It is something much more basic and innate than that, and difficult to actually put your finger on. The difference is obviously biological - physical, hormonal etc, but it is a difference all the same, and a difference that is silly to ignore. Why on earth do transgender people have such problems with gender identity if there's no difference between the two?



Balderdash. What if these 'expressions of gender' are really the important and only difference? She seems to have tried so hard to confuse others that she ended up confusing herself.

What is this difference though? I think that if you want to argue that there's a substantial and meaningful non-superficial difference between men and women you ought to be able to "put your finger on it." "Gentleness" and "sensitivity" are words I often hear in connection to femininity. That is bogus if you ask me. Men are often no less sensitive or gentle, its just not socially acceptable to appear as such. For much of our species' history it was the man's role to hunt and make war. The conditions required men to be hard-hearted. They no longer required that of us and we've seen the so-called feminine ideals of compassion and sensitivity being embraced by men everywhere.

[The Atheist]

To use the word "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. Women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen and progesterone, and the amount of each hormone varies depending on the individual you're looking at. What's more, out of all of the hormones in the human body, the variation in three hormones seems pretty minor to me.

That would be three of the many endocrine glands in the human body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system), many of which have different responses and length of response depending on the chromosomal gender of the person. Many of those differences are health issues that won't go away.


Also, you can tell how important something is to a system by messing with it. If you inhibit or assist testosterone, progesterone or estrogen in a man or woman the affects on the individual's personality aren't extraordinarily pronounced.

You can't mean that?

Estrogen therapy is what M->F transexuals take to become more female and grow breasts, is what killed Alan Turing and it stops women getting pregnant. I can't think of many things that are more mind-altering.


...I don't see why we shouldn't try to approach our daily interactions from a gender neutral position.

I've already said that, but you can't sweep the subject under the mat.

[Calidore]

Have studies ever been done on physical differences in male and female brains and what they mean? And while this may be a political hot potato, have the brains of transgendered people ever been studied to determine whether there is a physical reason for their feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, or whether it is more likely purely psychological?

[YesNo]

The Chemistry Between Us does provide a summary of research showing that there are physical reasons for much of our sexual behavior and preferences. Most of this research occurred within the last 30 years. Some of it is based on case studies and others on experiments done on prairie voles who recently were found to be monogamous.

I vaguely remember one case study of a transgendered boy. He was turned into a physical female after an infant circumcision accident. By that time his brain was already organized as male. Initially he was used as a case study showing that gender was culturally determined. As he grew older this had to be rejected according to the authors.

[JuniperWoolf]

My argument against gender neutrality is not how we see/treat others, but how we see/treat ourselves. There is nothing wrong we being masculine/feminine and we should not have to sacrifice it because of intolerant *******s.

I'll think about that. I still don't think that gender-based personality differences are primarily due to biology though, not only because that doesn't make sense but also if it were then that would mean that me and people like me who are both or neither genders, or the gender they weren't born with, are exactly as people say: we're written-in-stone hardwired to be a certain way but somehow became "psychologically confused," and are acting against our "true nature." I don't think they're right at all, I don't feel that way, and as far as I can tell any man can be influenced to act "feminine" and women to act "masculine," so in my opinion the gender clichés that one embodies must be variable despite sex.

So, I've exposed myself as a person with a personal stake in this topic, but that's not the only place I'm coming from: this topic is straight-up unknown right now, so making solid statements about it isn't right. Any discussion on personality and what influences and shapes it would be tentative and based on imperfect observation, because personality is a new and very tricky branch of science. Trying to understand personality is like trying to grasp water. How can we identify the cause of traits if they're constantly shifting depending on the situation the individual finds themselves in? Making solid statements about what shapes personality when we can't even peg personality down is just not possible, and we can't even really define gender either for that matter. It's mostly just opinion at this stage in the game.


Estrogen therapy is what M->F transexuals take to become more female and grow breasts, is what killed Alan Turing and it stops women getting pregnant. I can't think of many things that are more mind-altering.

Death, body shape, and the ability to have children are physical differences, and they also influence the human mind on their own, so it's not really possible to say that the cause of any observed differences is the hormone. I can think of several things that more overtly influence human behaviour, including drugs, witnessing or experiencing a traumatic or life-altering event (which would include a sex change - complex topic, eh?), and brain damage especially.

[YesNo]

Have studies ever been done on physical differences in male and female brains and what they mean? And while this may be a political hot potato, have the brains of transgendered people ever been studied to determine whether there is a physical reason for their feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, or whether it is more likely purely psychological?

I got Young and Alexander's The Chemistry Between Us from the library. Dick Swaab has a lab that maintains the Netherlands Brain Bank founded in 1985. Here's something from pages 30-31:


Swaab has also found the transgender brain. After years of searching his lab discovered differences in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)....When Swaab's lab looked at the BNSTs of male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals, and at those of male-to-female transsexuals, it found that the transgender BNST was the same size as the BNST of women.

This seems to be confirmed by the Wikipedia article on "causes of transsexualism" although other causes are also mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism

[Charles Darnay]

I'll think about that. I still don't think that gender-based personality differences are primarily due to biology though, not only because that doesn't make sense but also if it were then that would mean that me and people like me who are both or neither genders, or the gender they weren't born with, are exactly as people say: we're written-in-stone hardwired to be a certain way but somehow became "psychologically confused," and are acting against our "true nature." I don't think they're right at all, I don't feel that way, and as far as I can tell any man can be influenced to act "feminine" and women to act "masculine," so in my opinion the gender clichés that one embodies must be variable despite sex.

So, I've exposed myself as a person with a personal stake in this topic, but that's not the only place I'm coming from: this topic is straight-up unknown right now, so making solid statements about it isn't right. Any discussion on personality and what influences and shapes it would be tentative and based on imperfect observation, because personality is a new and very tricky branch of science. Trying to understand personality is like trying to grasp water. How can we identify the cause of traits if they're constantly shifting depending on the situation the individual finds themselves in? Making solid statements about what shapes personality when we can't even peg personality down is just not possible, and we can't even really define gender either for that matter. It's mostly just opinion at this stage in the game.



Death, body shape, and the ability to have children are physical differences, and they also influence the human mind on their own, so it's not really possible to say that the cause of any observed differences is the hormone. I can think of several things that more overtly influence human behaviour, including drugs, witnessing or experiencing a traumatic or life-altering event (which would include a sex change - complex topic, eh?), and brain damage especially.

You are right that everything that can be said in the matter is very tentative and inconclusive - such is the fun and frustration of the topic. There are plenty who have done more in depth research than myself into this matter, so anything that I write is only my opinion - as always, unless I am quoting.

Since I read your post this morning, I have been thinking of the subject of gender identity as analogous to sexual preference (these are two very different matters, I know.) However, in the broadest sense, there are 4 types of sexual attractions: you are attracted to men, to women, to both, to neither. So why can't gender self-identification work in the same way (again, in the broadest sense). That is, I find nothing wrong with those who ascribe to male or female traits - the grand archetype of what it means to be a man and a woman (as antiquated and artificially constructed as it may be). But I can fully acknowledge that some self identify as both or neither.

As for what these distinctions are beyond the physical - I too have a hard time pinning them down. Again, how you perceive yourself shouldn't define what role you play in society, what jobs you do, or what activities you do - but how you see your gender (male/female/both/neither) does underscore many aspects of your life, even if you are not giving conscience thought to it.

[mona amon]

What is this difference though? I think that if you want to argue that there's a substantial and meaningful non-superficial difference between men and women you ought to be able to "put your finger on it." "Gentleness" and "sensitivity" are words I often hear in connection to femininity. That is bogus if you ask me. Men are often no less sensitive or gentle, its just not socially acceptable to appear as such. For much of our species' history it was the man's role to hunt and make war. The conditions required men to be hard-hearted. They no longer required that of us and we've seen the so-called feminine ideals of compassion and sensitivity being embraced by men everywhere.

When I argue that differences between women and men are too obvious to be ignored, I am talking mainly about biological differences. Most of the posters here feel these biological differences are superficial and do not matter in the least, but that just sounds like something impractical and idealistic to me. Like it or not, at this stage in human evolution, whether we are born with a Y chromosome or not is going to influence the way we behave, the way we see ourselves, and the way others see us. I haven't looked into the matter much, but I think most studies show that there are physiological and anatomical differences in male and female brains, resulting in psychological differences, but it's very difficult to determine whether these differences are genetic or whether the brain changes due to learned behavior. Most likely differences in male and female behavior are partly genetic and hormonal, partly learned, so where does that leave us? The differences are still here to stay.

As you say, deviation from gender role stereotypes is often frowned upon, but this is true of any sort of atypical behavior, not just gender-atypical behavior. It is this tendency to penalize atypical behavior that has to be addressed, rather than trying to iron out gender differences that most people are quite comfortable with.

[Adolescent09]

Is it any longer meaningful to posit an essential difference between men and women beyond the merely anatomical? The past couple hours I've been reading Judith Butler and going over other people's interpretations of her. She basically argues that gender is non-essential, that rather than being feminine or masculine we actually only "act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman," and consequently "there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results." These gender performances are said to be the result of socially and culturally reinforced habits, rather than a reflection of any innate individual identity.

I've always taken a firm stance against such ideas before, but when I think really hard about what distinguishes men from women all the differences seem quite superficial. I can't rationally say that a man or woman ought to act in this or that particular way simply because they happen to be a man or a woman. There isn't a single psychological or behavioural generalization we can make according to gender which holds true for each and every individual, and we must ask that of those which do hold true in most cases, how many if any at all are the result of a static natural gender "essence," and which are merely the product of socially and culturally enforced norms? It shouldn't be considered some error, some mistake every time I cry at a movie, take great delight in clothes shopping, or wear the colour pink.

What do you make of this?

Your initial dismissal of Butler's ideas and subsequent reevaluation of your own belief-system regarding the issue is admirable. I agree 100% that when we investigate gender characteristics outside the confines of a biological framework, the only differences we see are the ones we choose to improvise. This leads to warped generalizations as to what constitutes gender "norms" (i.e. toy trucks for boys, barbie dolls for girls). My mother turned the stereotype on its head when she gave me a doll to play with at the age of 3. I am quite possibly the straightest man you will ever see (it actually gets quite annoying in class when I pitch a tent because the girl next to me is wearing attire that liberally displays her knockers), but at the time I received that doll I thought it was the most fascinating/fun toy in the world. The concepts of "freedom", "self-expression/individuality", and "independence" are universally considered laudable descriptions to be used for any person. One of the many reasons for this, is that it requires audacity and unconventional thinking along with the willingness to face ostracism/ridicule for doing what you truly believe. As a society, the closer we get to blanking out the "cultural" differences between men and women, the faster we can make true progress in gender relations.

[Calidore]

I got Young and Alexander's The Chemistry Between Us from the library. Dick Swaab has a lab that maintains the Netherlands Brain Bank founded in 1985. Here's something from pages 30-31:


Swaab has also found the transgender brain. After years of searching his lab discovered differences in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)....When Swaab's lab looked at the BNSTs of male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals, and at those of male-to-female transsexuals, it found that the transgender BNST was the same size as the BNST of women.

This seems to be confirmed by the Wikipedia article on "causes of transsexualism" although other causes are also mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism

That's very interesting. Though I think I'd rather a book confirm a Wikipedia article than be confirmed by one. :)

So, different sizes. Which is bigger, and how does the size of this structure affect our perception of our gender? Especially to the point where someone can feel so trapped in the wrong body that they feel the need to undergo a (I assume, traumatic) total body transformation to try to bring their "actual" self in line with their perception of self.

I'm kind of still trying to wrap my head around "Netherlands Brain Bank" also. I suppose it's too much to hope for that they've tried to connect all the brains and restart them. :devil:

[JuniperWoolf]

Since I read your post this morning, I have been thinking of the subject of gender identity as analogous to sexual preference (these are two very different matters, I know.) However, in the broadest sense, there are 4 types of sexual attractions: you are attracted to men, to women, to both, to neither. So why can't gender self-identification work in the same way (again, in the broadest sense). That is, I find nothing wrong with those who ascribe to male or female traits - the grand archetype of what it means to be a man and a woman (as antiquated and artificially constructed as it may be). But I can fully acknowledge that some self identify as both or neither.

Not bad, I could get behind that. It's unfortunate that most people don't think that way though. Maybe they will after a few more generations.

[YesNo]

That's very interesting. Though I think I'd rather a book confirm a Wikipedia article than be confirmed by one. :)

So, different sizes. Which is bigger, and how does the size of this structure affect our perception of our gender? Especially to the point where someone can feel so trapped in the wrong body that they feel the need to undergo a (I assume, traumatic) total body transformation to try to bring their "actual" self in line with their perception of self.

I'm kind of still trying to wrap my head around "Netherlands Brain Bank" also. I suppose it's too much to hope for that they've tried to connect all the brains and restart them. :devil:

The Netherlands Brain Bank is a collection of brains from dead people to be used for experimentation.

I started re-reading The Chemistry Between Us keeping gender identity in mind. It seems that the views Darcy88 originally presented were standard up until about 1997 when John Money's research on Bruce-Brenda-David Reimer was discredited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

There was earlier evidence from 5-alpha-reductase deficient children, presented between 1974 and 1979, that also discredited Money's research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha-reductase_deficiency

If you think about it, if prairie voles have gender identity and even pair-bonding similar to humans without cultural construction, there must be some non-cultural ground for this. To find this in the brain should not be surprising.

[*Classic*Charm*]

To use the word "huge" is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. Women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen and progesterone, and the amount of each hormone varies depending on the individual you're looking at. What's more, out of all of the hormones in the human body, the variation in three hormones seems pretty minor to me.

Also, you can tell how important something is to a system by messing with it. If you inhibit or assist testosterone, progesterone or estrogen in a man or woman the affects on the individual's personality aren't extraordinarily pronounced. On the other hand if you mess with a person's frontal cortex, even if their cognative ability remains intact their personality often changes dramatically. I'm used to dealing with people (even on litnet) who say things like "women are different from us because they don't have testosterone [sic]," while completely ignoring the role of the vastly complex human brain, which varies from person to person regardless of biological sex in unimaginable ways. Taking this into consideration, how could sex be the overriding influence in determining personality (as it's often considered)?



If the question is something specifically regarding gender, like "how does gender within a social context influence one's mental health," then obviously you'd have to acknowledge gender to have this discussion, but I don't see why we shouldn't try to approach our daily interactions from a gender neutral position.

Those three hormones are highly potent potent chemicals, both endogenously and exogenously. It's why we're concerned about giving hormones to food animals, and the use of estrogen analogs in other drugs. They function in a system which relies on balance, and have the ability to disrupt whole body systems and interact with the neurotransmitters that control brain function. The brain only functions as well as its neurotransmitter hormones, and they are not independent of the sex hormones. Do you have experience with oral contraceptives? I have never met a single female who has not experienced significant emotional, call them personality, changes when dealing with the pill.

Underestimating the influence of the sex hormones on emotion and personality is akin to suggesting that serotonin and dopamine aren' t heavily involved with happiness, depression, or anxiety.

I think sex must be a (A, not THE) determining factor for "personality" because of how the whole system develops. The prenatal hormone profiles of the developing XX and XY conceptus are very different, given that the structures form in a sort of template and are then mutated by the presence of certain and different hormones. For example, Anti-Mullerian hormone is produced in the XY conceptus but not the XX conceptus to ensure that reproductive development occurs in a particular way. I think its possible that the presence of this hormone could somehow influence/ interact with other hormones within the axis resulting in "personality traits" such as gender association. I don't know exactly when neurotransmitters start to function prenatally but I would think interaction is likely.

I guess what I think is that gender/personality/affiliation is the result of prenatal hormone patterns and interactions, and variations within those. So sex is not the determining factor, but is closely associated because of the hormones associated with sex.

[Lykren]

I wonder if part of the difficulty with this issue is that we are trying to determine what causes our behavior - and even to admit a physical basis for our behavior implies a deterministic viewpoint.

Another difficulty, which the above post illustrates, are the boundaries between 'emotion', 'behavior', and 'personality'. I don't think it is appropriate to say they are all the same, but then, how are they different?

I need to gather my thoughts, but anyhoo, this is a fascinating thread, and I wish I'd joined in earlier.

[Lykren]

I've had an idea: what if gender is essential for some people but not for others?

Take me for instance. I'm a heterosexual male, yet I'm slightly gender-atypical; but most significantly, I've never thought to myself, I'm really glad I'm a guy, or, I'm glad I'm not a girl. My maleness does not factor into my self-identification. In fact, if I imagine myself as the same person, living in a female body, I don't have any reaction one way or another; I suspect I could live with it, apart from the difficulties of having to live as a homosexual due to my desire for women. This has made me suspicious of those who claim gender is an essential construct; I just can't relate to that idea.

But not too long ago, I met a woman who worked as a performer at Disneyland. In one of her costumed roles, she had to act slightly aggressive; her character was a male one. But sometimes, she got to wear a Minnie mouse costume. At those times, she said, she felt not just comfortable, but relieved to be a woman again, declaring that she loved the feeling of twirling her skirt and generally acting coquettish. So for her, perhaps, gender is an essential part of personality. Since she was completely costumed, she could have felt no external pressures to 'act female'; her desire to do so, therefore, must have been completely endogenous.

Is it not then a possibility that gender exists for some and not for others? I'd love to hear what you guys think.

[Darcy88]

I've had an idea: what if gender is essential for some people but not for others?

Take me for instance. I'm a heterosexual male, yet I'm slightly gender-atypical; but most significantly, I've never thought to myself, I'm really glad I'm a guy, or, I'm glad I'm not a girl. My maleness does not factor into my self-identification. In fact, if I imagine myself as the same person, living in a female body, I don't have any reaction one way or another; I suspect I could live with it, apart from the difficulties of having to live as a homosexual due to my desire for women. This has made me suspicious of those who claim gender is an essential construct; I just can't relate to that idea.

But not too long ago, I met a woman who worked as a performer at Disneyland. In one of her costumed roles, she had to act slightly aggressive; her character was a male one. But sometimes, she got to wear a Minnie mouse costume. At those times, she said, she felt not just comfortable, but relieved to be a woman again, declaring that she loved the feeling of twirling her skirt and generally acting coquettish. So for her, perhaps, gender is an essential part of personality. Since she was completely costumed, she could have felt no external pressures to 'act female'; her desire to do so, therefore, must have been completely endogenous.

Is it not then a possibility that gender exists for some and not for others? I'd love to hear what you guys think.

I can relate to what you're saying here. The whole idea of gender as a static psychological and behavioural reality makes little sense to me. Occasionally I indulge in a little testosterone-induced hyper-masculinity, but usually I'm more androgynous than anything. I've been called both "really manly" and a "sissy" numerous times. I understand and support transgendered people, but in my own personal life it seems that what makes me a man is nothing more than my anatomy and my clothing. If I were to list the nouns which apply to me in order of significance "man" would not be near the top. I only feel deeply the fact of my gender before and during sex, or in the extremely rare occasions when I'm called upon to physically protect someone who is weak.

That said, I am very much proud and appreciative of being a man, even if this pride and appreciation only arises in the midst of the physicality of sex or violence.