gender neutral debate

[cacian]

is it inclusion to deny what gender one is?
please discuss

[Volya]

What do you mean?

[YesNo]

I wonder if there is some gender neutral debate going on in Europe at the moment? Perhaps transgender people don't like being labeled as either male or female?

[Volya]

From what I understand transgender people just want to be called either man or woman - but some people insist on calling them the opposite. Then there are some people who identify as gender neutral and don't like either.

[OrphanPip]

From what I understand transgender people just want to be called either man or woman - but some people insist on calling them the opposite. Then there are some people who identify as gender neutral and don't like either.

Essentially, yes.

Historically trans activists have worked in a two gender/two sex mindset. There is still a large segment of the trans community that holds on strongly to the idea of there being strictly two genders and that they argue that they have gender dysmorphia which requires a medical solution, i.e. sex change and hormone therapy. Classic trans activism was more about rights to medical treatment and legal standing (still relevant today where trans people are usually not covered by insurance and in the USA it can cost a small fortune for a person to transition for the good of their mental health). The rise of gender studies and queer theory in the 90s has lead to an upper middle-class sort of trans activism that views gender as an entirely social construct where the primary struggle is rather for breaking down social acceptance of rigid gender barriers. This has lead to new concepts like "genderqueer" where someone identifies as neither male or female. The latter group tends to sometimes push rather silly ideas but there are some strengths to their views as well. I generally agree with them that someone doesn't need to have a sex change per se to be recognized as genuinely trans.

Personally, I think it's basic human decency to just call someone by whatever they identify with. Although, I sometimes find certain sectors of trans activism exasperating.

[YesNo]

I think the social construction of gender concept goes back at least to the 1960's which is when I first heard about it unless my memory is confused. It predates brain scan technology.

[OrphanPip]

I think the social construction of gender concept goes back at least to the 1960's which is when I first heard about it unless my memory is confused. It predates brain scan technology.

Of course elements of social construction of gender are old ideas, and it is pretty evident that some aspects of gender are definitely the result of cultural influences. You can take the simple example of trousers, which have made the transition from a masculine form of clothing to a gender neutral one. Now a woman wearing trousers isn't at risk of having her femininity called into question.

However, the idea of social construction of gender as an articulated philosophical position has developed largely since the 80s-90s and become dominant in the current debate about trans issues in academia within the last 10 or so years. This is when groups like gay and lesbian student societies became "Queer" groups or "LGBTQII" etc.

[YesNo]

I can see how gender uses of trousers could be studied by a kind of "social construction of gender", but how does this more recent version of that idea view brain scans showing differences between males and females as well as between heterosexuals and homosexuals? I am thinking of a research survey by Brian Alexander and Larry Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".

[OrphanPip]

I can see how gender uses of trousers could be studied by a kind of "social construction of gender", but how does this more recent version of that idea view brain scans showing differences between males and females as well as between heterosexuals and homosexuals? I am thinking of a research survey by Brian Alexander and Larry Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".

The physical differences in the brains would be considered elements of biological sex rather than of gender. Gender is the way in which we as a society regulate and determine behavior in relation to sex. Some have taken the idea of neurological differences to argue that someone can be mentally sexed as a female while having male genitalia. This would be the traditional position the trans community has taken in the past, arguing that being transexual is a medical condition that deserves fair treatment and compassion.

Newer concepts of trans identity might instead argue that these scientific examinations are more just a tool of the established hegemony to regulate definition of gender as intertwined irrevocably from sex. Although, such brain scans I think do little to elucidate much about trans debates. I think most would agree our sex influences our brains, in terms of development and of hormone levels. There's no need to address them from a constructionist viewpoint because they define gender as wholly a semantic concept that can be separated from biological sex.

[cacian]

What do you mean?

what I mean is
is it a good idea to say i wont reveal my gender because one feel they are born in the wrong body?


From what I understand transgender people just want to be called either man or woman - but some people insist on calling them the opposite. Then there are some people who identify as gender neutral and don't like either.

of course but one cannot predict what tendency what one would feel or be.
is it a good idea to deny their gender of birth is my question.

[Danik 2016]

I think often transgender people don´t know at the start that they are transgender. This is a theme of a current Brazilian soap opera. The girl was born to a mother who transformed her in the fashion child of the mode magazines. But as she grows up the girl more and more rejects the feminine aspects of her identity. She starts to wear her brother´s clothes and to disguise her breasts. As a counterpoint there is a male character too, who has already discovered "the woman inside himself".
Hiding or not transgender identity depends on a lot of circunstances I think.

[YesNo]

The physical differences in the brains would be considered elements of biological sex rather than of gender. Gender is the way in which we as a society regulate and determine behavior in relation to sex. Some have taken the idea of neurological differences to argue that someone can be mentally sexed as a female while having male genitalia. This would be the traditional position the trans community has taken in the past, arguing that being transexual is a medical condition that deserves fair treatment and compassion.

Newer concepts of trans identity might instead argue that these scientific examinations are more just a tool of the established hegemony to regulate definition of gender as intertwined irrevocably from sex. Although, such brain scans I think do little to elucidate much about trans debates. I think most would agree our sex influences our brains, in terms of development and of hormone levels. There's no need to address them from a constructionist viewpoint because they define gender as wholly a semantic concept that can be separated from biological sex.

It depends on what those elements of biological sex are. For example, given those brain scans do these academics still use the term "homophobia"? As another example, given those brain scans, do these academics still use the term "patriarchy"?

Is there really an "established hegemony to regulate definition of gender"? I am a heterosexual male. Am I part of that hegemony?

[Volya]

what I mean is
is it a good idea to say i wont reveal my gender because one feel they are born in the wrong body?

I think if someone wants to be referred to as 'she' and 'her' even if she was born as a penis, then we should. Regardless of whether it's true or not it doesn't hurt anyone. I personally think gender shouldn't be thought of as categories like man or woman, it should just be how masculine or feminine you are. Your biological sex is a different matter entirely.

[OrphanPip]

It depends on what those elements of biological sex are. For example, given those brain scans do these academics still use the term "homophobia"? As another example, given those brain scans, do these academics still use the term "patriarchy"?

I'm not sure I follow. What relation does the term homophobia have with brain scan differences between men/women/straight/gay people. Homophobia is a social behaviour, it's expressed antagonism towards same-sex attracted people. Likewise, I'm not sure how these scans would effect the concept of a patriarchy.


Is there really an "established hegemony to regulate definition of gender"? I am a heterosexual male. Am I part of that hegemony?

That's simply one way of theorising it. Of course gender is probably one of the most strictly regulated aspects of social behaviour. If you act outside of the normal expectations of your gender you will quickly encounter resistance in terms of slurs, derogatory comments, discrimination, and potentially violence depending on where you are. Putting aside the critical theory, being a heterosexual male means simply not having to face those barriers and resistance in life. Additionally, it means you readily see representations of yourself as normal and accepted in media. We don't need to think of there being some large social force overseeing these sorts of injustices to appreciate that the experience of living as a heterosexual male precludes one from a lot of the pressures that trans or queer people in general have to face daily.

One common problem trans and other left-wing activists often face in getting their points across is they have habits of talking past people. They adopt the language of theory and apply it to regular people without contextualizing it properly. It's of course unfair to categorize every white male heterosexual as some sort of monstrous supporter of an oppressive regime. The vast majority of heterosexual males spend most of their time just getting on with their lives, it also doesn't mean they don't face any hardship because they are part of a privileged group. You can be part of a privileged group (like white males) while still having legitimate struggles (poverty, disability, sexuality etc.).

[Scheherazade]

That's simply one way of theorising it. Of course gender is probably one of the most strictly regulated aspects of social behaviour. If you act outside of the normal expectations of your gender you will quickly encounter resistance in terms of slurs, derogatory comments, discrimination, and potentially violence depending on where you are. Putting aside the critical theory, being a heterosexual male means simply not having to face those barriers and resistance in life. Additionally, it means you readily see representations of yourself as normal and accepted in media. We don't need to think of there being some large social force overseeing these sorts of injustices to appreciate that the experience of living as a heterosexual male precludes one from a lot of the pressures that trans or queer people in general have to face daily. I think one of the reasons the gender issues get such strong reaction is its closeness to issues around sexual behaviour. For most, it is not simply that transgender people dress/behave in ways associated with the "other" but also that behaviour includes sexual aspects as well, which is, in my view, is a matter of personal choice/desire/need.

I remember reading about an American mom posing with a rifle for a paper; apparently, that is how she would take her daughters to the public toilets if the transgender people were allowed into public toilets. What I find most upsetting and illogical is this very notion that transgender behaviour should be equated with moral "indecency"; that they are more likely to assault others than heterosexual people.

Re. heterosexual males... True that as a non-minority group, they do not face discrimination as a rule. There is also tendency almost to celebrate their "masculine" qualities in the society, striving to perpetuate them in future generations. This also results in heterosexual males wanting to oppose "others" because that is a threat to their established status in the society.

[YesNo]

I'm not sure I follow. What relation does the term homophobia have with brain scan differences between men/women/straight/gay people. Homophobia is a social behaviour, it's expressed antagonism towards same-sex attracted people. Likewise, I'm not sure how these scans would effect the concept of a patriarchy.

Regarding homophobia, what phobia or fear are we talking about? I admit there may be a homo-hatred, but there is no homo-phobia. The brain scans show that one does not "turn" between sexual orientations. Continuing use of the term is a slur and it is derogatory against heterosexuals. Given those brain scans, use of "homophobia" could be perceived as hetero-hatred. Or more simply, sexual harassment.

Regarding patriarchy, the brain scans show differences between men and women. The "patriarchal" features are the male role in pair-bonding. For more details see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".



That's simply one way of theorising it. Of course gender is probably one of the most strictly regulated aspects of social behaviour. If you act outside of the normal expectations of your gender you will quickly encounter resistance in terms of slurs, derogatory comments, discrimination, and potentially violence depending on where you are. Putting aside the critical theory, being a heterosexual male means simply not having to face those barriers and resistance in life. Additionally, it means you readily see representations of yourself as normal and accepted in media. We don't need to think of there being some large social force overseeing these sorts of injustices to appreciate that the experience of living as a heterosexual male precludes one from a lot of the pressures that trans or queer people in general have to face daily.

The problem with this "hegemony" is that it looks like a way to rationalize fighting a culture war. Continuing to use terms such as "homophobia", "patriarchy" and "social construction of gender" after evidence from those brain scans can be perceived by a larger population as injustice against heterosexuals.

As a side note: There is nothing wrong with rationalizing. We are humans beings. We are not computers. We are motivated to arrive at the truth and correct inaccuracies in the rationalizations of others. If I can come to these conclusions so quickly from my rationalizations, just about anyone will be able to do so when social mood grows more negative and people look for outsiders to blame for their problems. Homosexuals and transgender people should do everything they can to not position themselves as potential outsiders.



One common problem trans and other left-wing activists often face in getting their points across is they have habits of talking past people. They adopt the language of theory and apply it to regular people without contextualizing it properly. It's of course unfair to categorize every white male heterosexual as some sort of monstrous supporter of an oppressive regime. The vast majority of heterosexual males spend most of their time just getting on with their lives, it also doesn't mean they don't face any hardship because they are part of a privileged group. You can be part of a privileged group (like white males) while still having legitimate struggles (poverty, disability, sexuality etc.).

As I see it, the problem with such groups is that they are throwing away the gains they make with these brain scans. They can use this new technology to justify the way they experience gender to a larger group of people who experience it differently. They need to find a way to merge with this larger group rather than continue to look for ways to engage in culture war. You seem to be saying something like that, however, I don't think the lessons from those brain scans have been learned and I don't think you take the problem of negative social mood seriously. The problem is not some theoretical hegemony. The problem is social mood that will turn people against each other when it goes negative.

[Danik 2016]

Regarding homophobia, what phobia or fear are we talking about? I admit there may be a homo-hatred, but there is no homo-phobia. The brain scans show that one does not "turn" between sexual orientations. Continuing use of the term is a slur and it is derogatory against heterosexuals. Given those brain scans, use of "homophobia" could be perceived as hetero-hatred. Or more simply, sexual harassment.

Regarding patriarchy, the brain scans show differences between men and women. The "patriarchal" features are the male role in pair-bonding. For more details see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".



The problem with this "hegemony" is that it looks like a way to rationalize fighting a culture war. Continuing to use terms such as "homophobia", "patriarchy" and "social construction of gender" after evidence from those brain scans can be perceived by a larger population as injustice against heterosexuals.

As a side note: There is nothing wrong with rationalizing. We are humans beings. We are not computers. We are motivated to arrive at the truth and correct inaccuracies in the rationalizations of others. If I can come to these conclusions so quickly from my rationalizations, just about anyone will be able to do so when social mood grows more negative and people look for outsiders to blame for their problems. Homosexuals and transgender people should do everything they can to not position themselves as potential outsiders.



As I see it, the problem with such groups is that they are throwing away the gains they make with these brain scans. They can use this new technology to justify the way they experience gender to a larger group of people who experience it differently. They need to find a way to merge with this larger group rather than continue to look for ways to engage in culture war. You seem to be saying something like that, however, I don't think the lessons from those brain scans have been learned and I don't think you take the problem of negative social mood seriously. The problem is not some theoretical hegemony. The problem is social mood that will turn people against each other when it goes negative.

It would be nice, Yes/No if you could post a link about those brain scanning experiments showing the results.

[OrphanPip]

Regarding homophobia, what phobia or fear are we talking about? I admit there may be a homo-hatred, but there is no homo-phobia. The brain scans show that one does not "turn" between sexual orientations. Continuing use of the term is a slur and it is derogatory against heterosexuals. Given those brain scans, use of "homophobia" could be perceived as hetero-hatred. Or more simply, sexual harassment.

While the word shares an etymology with other phobias, it is not generally taken to mean a fear of homosexuals. The word arose from a psychological term for "homosexual panic" which psychiatrists used to define deep self-loathing by people who experience homosexual attractions. It later morphed as a term used to understand aversion to homosexuals by even those who don't experience homosexual urges. Since the 1980s the term has become a catch all for any anti-gay sentiment. Scholars sometimes use the word heterosexism because of the difficult associations with the word phobia. I don't see how the word is a slur or derogatory against heterosexuals since homophobia can be expressed by gay people.

Another secondary source of its etymology was its usefulness as a counterpoint to homophile societies which were the earliest self-identified gay rights groups in the early 20th century.

I also don't follow your point that it should be construed as sexual harassment. Is your contention that if someone is called a faggot by a stranger, then if they refer to that person as a homophobe they have somehow sexually harassed that person by use of the term homophobe?



Regarding patriarchy, the brain scans show differences between men and women. The "patriarchal" features are the male role in pair-bonding. For more details see Alexander and Young, "The Chemistry Between Us".

I would point to the concept of the naturalistic fallacy. Simply because male control and dominance can be explained by evolutionary biology does not justify its continued existence in society or its moral rightness.




The problem with this "hegemony" is that it looks like a way to rationalize fighting a culture war. Continuing to use terms such as "homophobia", "patriarchy" and "social construction of gender" after evidence from those brain scans can be perceived by a larger population as injustice against heterosexuals.

As a side note: There is nothing wrong with rationalizing. We are humans beings. We are not computers. We are motivated to arrive at the truth and correct inaccuracies in the rationalizations of others. If I can come to these conclusions so quickly from my rationalizations, just about anyone will be able to do so when social mood grows more negative and people look for outsiders to blame for their problems. Homosexuals and transgender people should do everything they can to not position themselves as potential outsiders.

Given that most people on Earth already live in countries where homosexuals have no legal rights and a good 1/3 of the planet lives in countries where it is outright illegal to be gay, I think homosexuals and transgenders are well aware of what it means to be positioned as outsiders :rolleyes5:

Quite simply, people haven't needed a "negative" social mood to justify oppression of LGBT individuals historically or in the present. The sole reason LGBT people have rights is because of their continued resistance to the status quo over the past 150-200 years.




As I see it, the problem with such groups is that they are throwing away the gains they make with these brain scans. They can use this new technology to justify the way they experience gender to a larger group of people who experience it differently. They need to find a way to merge with this larger group rather than continue to look for ways to engage in culture war. You seem to be saying something like that, however, I don't think the lessons from those brain scans have been learned and I don't think you take the problem of negative social mood seriously. The problem is not some theoretical hegemony. The problem is social mood that will turn people against each other when it goes negative.

I don't think you'll find that it's LGBT people who refuse to acknowledge that they experience the world differently at a fundamental level from heterosexuals. It is the anti-gay movement that insists that being gay is a choice made by weak-willed and sinful people.

[YesNo]

While the word shares an etymology with other phobias, it is not generally taken to mean a fear of homosexuals. The word arose from a psychological term for "homosexual panic" which psychiatrists used to define deep self-loathing by people who experience homosexual attractions. It later morphed as a term used to understand aversion to homosexuals by even those who don't experience homosexual urges. Since the 1980s the term has become a catch all for any anti-gay sentiment. Scholars sometimes use the word heterosexism because of the difficult associations with the word phobia. I don't see how the word is a slur or derogatory against heterosexuals since homophobia can be expressed by gay people.

Another secondary source of its etymology was its usefulness as a counterpoint to homophile societies which were the earliest self-identified gay rights groups in the early 20th century.

I also don't follow your point that it should be construed as sexual harassment. Is your contention that if someone is called a faggot by a stranger, then if they refer to that person as a homophobe they have somehow sexually harassed that person by use of the term homophobe?

The people who are suggesting the alternative "heterosexism" are seeing the problem with "homophobia".

My contention is that using the term "homophobia" indiscriminately sexually harasses others. Making up an excuse to do that would be called "blaming the victim".

The problem with continuing to use these old words ("homophobia", "patriarchy", "social construction of gender") is that these terms suggest that it is possible for a homosexual to socially construct his or her gender and become heterosexual.




I would point to the concept of the naturalistic fallacy. Simply because male control and dominance can be explained by evolutionary biology does not justify its continued existence in society or its moral rightness.

I think I see where we disagree. You seem to think that pair-bonding is something that can be discontinued in our species and that it is morally questionable. I don't think pair-bonding is something we can change (or "socially construct" to use the old terminology) and I don't see anything morally wrong with it.




Given that most people on Earth already live in countries where homosexuals have no legal rights and a good 1/3 of the planet lives in countries where it is outright illegal to be gay, I think homosexuals and transgenders are well aware of what it means to be positioned as outsiders :rolleyes5:

Quite simply, people haven't needed a "negative" social mood to justify oppression of LGBT individuals historically or in the present. The sole reason LGBT people have rights is because of their continued resistance to the status quo over the past 150-200 years.




I don't think you'll find that it's LGBT people who refuse to acknowledge that they experience the world differently at a fundamental level from heterosexuals. It is the anti-gay movement that insists that being gay is a choice made by weak-willed and sinful people.

If LGBT people continue to use the pre-1970, pre-brain-scan, terminology of "homophobia", "patriarchy" or "social construction of gender", then they are also implying that their gender expression is a choice just like the anti-gay people. If LGBT people want to get past this, they have to enter the 21st century.

I was thinking about the "hegemony" theory yesterday. I recently read a socionomics argument that the "pansies" between 1925 and 1935 were a sociometer of the depression and that something similar is happening today. The interesting thing about this theory is that it is trying to predict social changes, in this case, market crashes, based on cultural activity showing social mood. If you know of any hegemony theory research that makes predictions (not of trends, but of changes of trend) I would be interested in seeing it.

[YesNo]

It would be nice, Yes/No if you could post a link about those brain scanning experiments showing the results.

The only thing that I have is the survey by Larry Young and Brian Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us". I checked it out from the library yesterday and I am re-reading it because of this thread. I want to make sure I understand the argument. I'll post more links if this thread continues.

One of the problems with social construction of gender was reference to the work of John Money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money) and the "sex-reassignment" of David Reimer.

[OrphanPip]

The people who are suggesting the alternative "heterosexism" are seeing the problem with "homophobia".

My contention is that using the term "homophobia" indiscriminately sexually harasses others. Making up an excuse to do that would be called "blaming the victim".

The problem with continuing to use these old words ("homophobia", "patriarchy", "social construction of gender") is that these terms suggest that it is possible for a homosexual to socially construct his or her gender and become heterosexual.

I don't follow your reasoning of how the term homophobia constitutes sexual harassment of heterosexuals. Like I said earlier, gay people can be homophobic, the term originated from psychological assessments of self-loathing. Moreover, whatever it's origin or etymology, the term does not mean fear of gay people, it means animosity towards gay people.





I think I see where we disagree. You seem to think that pair-bonding is something that can be discontinued in our species and that it is morally questionable. I don't think pair-bonding is something we can change (or "socially construct" to use the old terminology) and I don't see anything morally wrong with it.

I said no such thing. I simply said that you cannot conclude that things should be a certain way simply because of how they are in nature. If we are to accept that human tendency towards patriarchal social structures is natural and good simply because there are biological explanations for it then we'd also have to accept that infidelity is natural and good because there are biological explanations for why it is so prevalent as well. Either way, I am legally married and in a monogamous relationship so I haven't a faintest idea where you got the idea I think pairing up is something morally questionable.



If LGBT people continue to use the pre-1970, pre-brain-scan, terminology of "homophobia", "patriarchy" or "social construction of gender", then they are also implying that their gender expression is a choice just like the anti-gay people. If LGBT people want to get past this, they have to enter the 21st century.

Again I don't follow your reasoning. Saying gender is socially constructed does not mean people consciously choose their gender identification. Some people think there is a positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance. However, this is not the same as a trans person who feels that their fundamental gender identity is masculine despite having female sex organs. Nor is the LGBT community monolithic or singular in their approach to this issue, which I addressed in my first post. Large segments of trans activism are based on a medical argument that they are ill and trans rights are in fact a matter of patients' rights and respect for difference.

[Danik 2016]

These links are all useful. As I see it gender as it is considered today and that includes also all the reactions for and against, is something relatively new. When I was young even homosexuality wasn´t openly acknowledged, and transgender people weren´t heard of, simply because the word "transgender" didn´t exist. On the other hand I read an Guardian article the other day about people who wanted to be free to act as men or women in their relationships acoording to will. So the bounds of sexuality have become extremely fluid and, yes, I think part of these fluidity is the result of social construction.

[YesNo]

These links are all useful. As I see it gender as it is considered today and that includes also all the reactions for and against, is something relatively new. When I was young even homosexuality wasn´t openly acknowledged, and transgender people weren´t heard of, simply because the word "transgender" didn´t exist. On the other hand I read an Guardian article the other day about people who wanted to be free to act as men or women in their relationships acoording to will. So the bounds of sexuality have become extremely fluid and, yes, I think part of these fluidity is the result of social construction.

According to Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us", the transgender brain was discovered by Dick Swaab "in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)". (page 30) That means it was not socially constructed. It also means the heterosexual brain (including sex differences) was not socially constructed either.

I agree with you that the way people express their sexuality changes over time. We are not determined by these organized brain states. One could view that as "social construction", but I prefer making sense out of cultural trends in terms of "social mood". Here is an article about transgender and the Brazilian market from the socionomics institute. I am not a member, so I only see the introduction to this article, but I think these people are on the right track, they do not restrict themselves to gender and they try to predict cultural trend changes: http://www.socionomics.net/2015/04/article-negative-mood-drives-transgender-expressions-in-brazil/ I think social mood provides us with more constraints and opportunities than do the constraints our brains provide for gender, but gender is not one of them.

According to Young and Alexander, it took 17 years for Money's research claims about Reimer to be discredited even when there was contradictory evidence from the start. One of those bringing it to an end was Milton Diamond in 1997. Earlier I was wondering if OrphanPip's view was a minority position, however, after reading the following, I think he may be expressing a position that is more generally believed: "Even today [2012 published date of "The Chemistry Between Us"], Diamond tells us, Money has adherents in the United States as well as around the world. His views are still reflected in some university gender studies programs that use cliches like 'the social construction of gender.'" (Page 15) I think the point of Young and Alexander is that the people holding back this science are liberals believing in social construction.

[YesNo]

I don't follow your reasoning of how the term homophobia constitutes sexual harassment of heterosexuals. Like I said earlier, gay people can be homophobic, the term originated from psychological assessments of self-loathing. Moreover, whatever it's origin or etymology, the term does not mean fear of gay people, it means animosity towards gay people.

Use of the word to describe gay people who are afraid to admit they are gay is not sexual harassment. It is just a diagnosis.

If the term refers to heterosexual people who express animosity toward gay people, then use an appropriate term like "heterosexism".

Use of the term homophobia (say on placards or in marches) directed at heterosexual people in general is sexual harassment.




I said no such thing. I simply said that you cannot conclude that things should be a certain way simply because of how they are in nature. If we are to accept that human tendency towards patriarchal social structures is natural and good simply because there are biological explanations for it then we'd also have to accept that infidelity is natural and good because there are biological explanations for why it is so prevalent as well. Either way, I am legally married and in a monogamous relationship so I haven't a faintest idea where you got the idea I think pairing up is something morally questionable.


Admittedly the way heterosexual, homosexual or transgender people behave is something one can discuss from a moral perspective, however, the fact that they are heterosexual, homosexual or transgender is how their brains are organized.

It might be more useful to discuss moral issues by looking at Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". He is a liberal and an atheist (so his cultural beliefs should not be an obstacle to accepting his views). He reports research he participated in that finds six innate ("organized prior to experience") moral foundations upon which our free choices operate. Some of us balance these conflicting moral foundations better than others.



Again I don't follow your reasoning. Saying gender is socially constructed does not mean people consciously choose their gender identification. Some people think there is a positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance. However, this is not the same as a trans person who feels that their fundamental gender identity is masculine despite having female sex organs. Nor is the LGBT community monolithic or singular in their approach to this issue, which I addressed in my first post. Large segments of trans activism are based on a medical argument that they are ill and trans rights are in fact a matter of patients' rights and respect for difference.

There is no need to call transgender people "ill". However, using the medical argument is the way to go because being transgender is not a social construction. What does that imply? It implies that heterosexuality is not a social construction either. The "positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance" could well have negative social impact and lead to claims of sexual harassment.

[OrphanPip]

Use of the word to describe gay people who are afraid to admit they are gay is not sexual harassment. It is just a diagnosis.

If the term refers to heterosexual people who express animosity toward gay people, then use an appropriate term like "heterosexism".

Use of the term homophobia (say on placards or in marches) directed at heterosexual people in general is sexual harassment.

Again, that seems an odd use of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is generally used to describe unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate sexual behavior. Also, I don't believe that someone carrying a placard saying "Stop Homophobia" is harassing anyone.



Admittedly the way heterosexual, homosexual or transgender people behave is something one can discuss from a moral perspective, however, the fact that they are heterosexual, homosexual or transgender is how their brains are organized.

It might be more useful to discuss moral issues by looking at Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". He is a liberal and an atheist (so his cultural beliefs should not be an obstacle to accepting his views). He reports research he participated in that finds six innate ("organized prior to experience") moral foundations upon which our free choices operate. Some of us balance these conflicting moral foundations better than others.

There is no need to call transgender people "ill". However, using the medical argument is the way to go because being transgender is not a social construction. What does that imply? It implies that heterosexuality is not a social construction either. The "positive social impact of deliberately challenging gender norms as a form of resistance" could well have negative social impact and lead to claims of sexual harassment.

I think you're struggling with a fundamental misunderstanding what social construction of concepts like gender implies. It does not imply that people's behavior are not influenced and determined by biology. It simply argues that concepts like gender are products of language and social construction, they are intertwined with how we understand our biology but they are not the same as our biology.

What does it mean to be a man?

Is it being born with a penis?

Is someone born with a vagina but with the brain patterns of a man still a woman?

Is someone with the brain patterns of a woman but who still feels a strong affinity for masculinity and identifies as masculine still a woman?

Reasonable people could differ in their answers to those questions. Defining gender is not simple and simply pointing to brain scans of trans people as different from those of non-trans people doesn't really add much of anything to the debate.

Fundamentally, people do not experience the world through brain scans, they experience it through their social interactions and development of their self. Personal identity arises out of how we understand ourselves in contrast to others. In a world of only white people there would be no white people, but simply people.

Understanding that there is a biological basis for trans identity doesn't eliminate the questions of how we define gender. It simply doesn't matter to most people that trans people may be born that way. To them gender is a fixed matter of being aligned with your biological sex, they consider trans people not to be real men or women. The reason trans people have to argue for an expansion of the definitions of gender is precisely because most of society will refuse to admit a place for them within the common definition of gender.

Also, frankly, your pre-occupation with such banalities as bewildering imagined claims of sexual harassment reflects a deep lack of appreciation of what trans people go through. Just limiting the discussion to the USA: trans people can be legally fired for being trans, can be denied housing, can once again be denied health insurance coverage, cannot travel internationally because of passport issues, are the most likely group to be murdered by a stranger, have the highest suicide rate of any minority group, and are routinely subjected to ridicule in the media.

[YesNo]

Again, that seems an odd use of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is generally used to describe unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate sexual behavior. Also, I don't believe that someone carrying a placard saying "Stop Homophobia" is harassing anyone.

In looking up the word in Wikipedia, I see the original definition being the following:


Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s, the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech. The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay

My original understanding of the term is that one could "turn" gay. Although people may engage in all sorts of sexual activities, that "turning" can't happen because gender is not socially constructed. Continued use of the term directed at heterosexuals suggests that it can be so constructed and, based on my reading of Young and Alexander, I suspect that is a deliberate distortion of reality. I am sticking with my original interpretation of that term as a slur and derogatory comment toward heterosexuals and a form of sexual harassment especially in light of recent research.

Another problem with the term is that it originated in the 1960s already loaded with "patriarchy", "social construction of gender" and sexual politics. These have been discredited according to my understanding of Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us". Why is any university gender studies program still using these terms? Continuing to use these terms appears to me to be a refusal to accept modern science.



I think you're struggling with a fundamental misunderstanding what social construction of concepts like gender implies. It does not imply that people's behavior are not influenced and determined by biology. It simply argues that concepts like gender are products of language and social construction, they are intertwined with how we understand our biology but they are not the same as our biology.

What does it mean to be a man?

Is it being born with a penis?

Is someone born with a vagina but with the brain patterns of a man still a woman?

Is someone with the brain patterns of a woman but who still feels a strong affinity for masculinity and identifies as masculine still a woman?

Reasonable people could differ in their answers to those questions. Defining gender is not simple and simply pointing to brain scans of trans people as different from those of non-trans people doesn't really add much of anything to the debate.

I agree that the problem is defining gender. If there is any doubt about an individual's gender that should be able to be resolved with a brain scan. I don't know if there exists a "gender neutral" brain, but that question is in the back of my mind while I'm re-reading the book.



Fundamentally, people do not experience the world through brain scans, they experience it through their social interactions and development of their self. Personal identity arises out of how we understand ourselves in contrast to others. In a world of only white people there would be no white people, but simply people.

Brain scans tell us about individuals. We are in communities and so we are not isolated individuals. That means there is more than brain scans to consider. There are at least two other places to look: (1) Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations which have an innate component and (2) social mood as studied by socionomists.



Understanding that there is a biological basis for trans identity doesn't eliminate the questions of how we define gender. It simply doesn't matter to most people that trans people may be born that way. To them gender is a fixed matter of being aligned with your biological sex, they consider trans people not to be real men or women. The reason trans people have to argue for an expansion of the definitions of gender is precisely because most of society will refuse to admit a place for them within the common definition of gender.

Also, frankly, your pre-occupation with such banalities as bewildering imagined claims of sexual harassment reflects a deep lack of appreciation of what trans people go through. Just limiting the discussion to the USA: trans people can be legally fired for being trans, can be denied housing, can once again be denied health insurance coverage, cannot travel internationally because of passport issues, are the most likely group to be murdered by a stranger, have the highest suicide rate of any minority group, and are routinely subjected to ridicule in the media.

All of that is all the more reason to stop talking about the social construction of gender and start looking at what 21st century science and not 20th century radical chic has to offer.

[Volya]

Your understanding of the term 'homophobia' is wrong.

[OrphanPip]

My original understanding of the term is that one could "turn" gay. Although people may engage in all sorts of sexual activities, that "turning" can't happen because gender is not socially constructed. Continued use of the term directed at heterosexuals suggests that it can be so constructed and, based on my reading of Young and Alexander, I suspect that is a deliberate distortion of reality. I am sticking with my original interpretation of that term as a slur and derogatory comment toward heterosexuals and a form of sexual harassment especially in light of recent research.

Another problem with the term is that it originated in the 1960s already loaded with "patriarchy", "social construction of gender" and sexual politics. These have been discredited according to my understanding of Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us". Why is any university gender studies program still using these terms? Continuing to use these terms appears to me to be a refusal to accept modern science.

Nothing about the term homophobia implies people can be turned gay. Neither does a discussion of social construction of gender imply that gender identity or sexuality are matters of choice.



I agree that the problem is defining gender. If there is any doubt about an individual's gender that should be able to be resolved with a brain scan. I don't know if there exists a "gender neutral" brain, but that question is in the back of my mind while I'm re-reading the book.

Why should people have to subject themselves to a brain scan. Also your grasp of this science is rather superficial as well. The brain is not fixed from birth it develops just as our bodies do and changes due to our experiences in ways that are not fully understood. There is some evidence of different brain structures of certain parts of the brains of trans people prior to transitioning, which are different from those of trans people who are undergoing hormone treatments. However, there are still cases of identical twins where one twin is not trans and the other is. There is evidence of biological and genetic influences on trans identity but there is no way as of yet to determine someone will be trans simply from a brain scan. And none of this really has any relevance on whether gender is socially constructed or not.



All of that is all the more reason to stop talking about the social construction of gender and start looking at what 21st century science and not 20th century radical chic has to offer.

All that does is sidestep the pressing issue of what it means to accept people as trans and as the gender they identify with. Most of society will have to undergo a radical redefinition of gender even to accept that it should be based around brain chemistry (an old argument anyway) rather than genitalia.

Most Western societies on a legal level define gender based on genitalia. To change your gender you must undergo a sex change operation.

Some more liberal Western democracies have defined gender as whatever identity one authentically presents, thus allowing gender changes without sex reassignment surgery.

Most other countries in the world define gender as strictly the biological sex you are born with and do not allow sex changes or for someone to change their gender legally.

This question of brain scans is not relevant to either the debate about gender identity or to the current struggles of trans people internationally. No nation on Earth is using brain scans to determine gender, so the question is moot.

Even if we changed the criteria to be the size of a structure in the brain. We would have to arbitrarily pick a demarcation that separates the male from the female brain, it's not so obvious an answer and it doesn't solve the issue of how we define gender as a society.

[Danik 2016]

According to Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us", the transgender brain was discovered by Dick Swaab "in a structure called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST)". (page 30) That means it was not socially constructed. It also means the heterosexual brain (including sex differences) was not socially constructed either.

I agree with you that the way people express their sexuality changes over time. We are not determined by these organized brain states. One could view that as "social construction", but I prefer making sense out of cultural trends in terms of "social mood". Here is an article about transgender and the Brazilian market from the socionomics institute. I am not a member, so I only see the introduction to this article, but I think these people are on the right track, they do not restrict themselves to gender and they try to predict cultural trend changes: http://www.socionomics.net/2015/04/article-negative-mood-drives-transgender-expressions-in-brazil/ I think social mood provides us with more constraints and opportunities than do the constraints our brains provide for gender, but gender is not one of them.

According to Young and Alexander, it took 17 years for Money's research claims about Reimer to be discredited even when there was contradictory evidence from the start. One of those bringing it to an end was Milton Diamond in 1997. Earlier I was wondering if OrphanPip's view was a minority position, however, after reading the following, I think he may be expressing a position that is more generally believed: "Even today [2012 published date of "The Chemistry Between Us"], Diamond tells us, Money has adherents in the United States as well as around the world. His views are still reflected in some university gender studies programs that use cliches like 'the social construction of gender.'" (Page 15) I think the point of Young and Alexander is that the people holding back this science are liberals believing in social construction.
Sorry for answering only now Yes/No. I was also bewilderd by your use of the term
"homophobic".
I didn´t know about these brain scans, but I agree with Pip that it only reduces everything to a biological basis. And the danger of this kind of reduction is that from there the reduction from LGBT to an illness is just a step.
When I talk about social construction (maybe I´m not using the correct expression In English) I mean the influence of the social and cultural environment on sexual trends.
For example, just now we live in a time which somehow permits sexually diversity
to emerge more freely than bevor, even with the negative reactions and problems that are related to it.

[YesNo]

Sorry for answering only now Yes/No. I was also bewilderd by your use of the term
"homophobic".
I didn´t know about these brain scans, but I agree with Pip that it only reduces everything to a biological basis. And the danger of this kind of reduction is that from there the reduction from LGBT to an illness is just a step.
When I talk about social construction (maybe I´m not using the correct expression In English) I mean the influence of the social and cultural environment on sexual trends.
For example, just now we live in a time which somehow permits sexually diversity
to emerge more freely than bevor, even with the negative reactions and problems that are related to it.

I am traveling at the moment and not able to discuss this because of time and internet issues. I don't think looking at brain scans to obtain gender information implies diagnosing illness. It simply is another way to identify gender. One doesn't need to actually have any brain scan if gender identification is clear.

I was thinking about the issues in this thread while traveling and I think there is a solution that involves three components with scientific data, not radical chic politics, to back them:

1) Alexander and Young's "The Chemistry Between Us" to identifying gender differences in individuals without resorting to social construction of gender.
2) Jonathan Haidt's "The Righeous Mind" where six moral foundations are identified providing the social context missing from Alexander and Young's survey. This data shows that liberals are not as well balanced on Haidt's moral foundations as conservatives causing issues with conservative acceptance of LGBT individuals when those individuals' gender concerns are packaged with liberal moral rhetoric.
3) Socionomics for understanding why liberals shifted so far to the individual rights' side over the past two hundred years on Haidt's moral foundations and where that might lead in the future.

[YesNo]

All that does is sidestep the pressing issue of what it means to accept people as trans and as the gender they identify with. Most of society will have to undergo a radical redefinition of gender even to accept that it should be based around brain chemistry (an old argument anyway) rather than genitalia.


What part of Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us" do you disagree with?

I don't think conservatives will have any problem with gender definition extended by neuroscience as long as it is not wrapped in liberal moral rhetoric.

[Danik 2016]

I am traveling at the moment and not able to discuss this because of time and internet issues. I don't think looking at brain scans to obtain gender information implies diagnosing illness. It simply is another way to identify gender. One doesn't need to actually have any brain scan if gender identification is clear.

I was thinking about the issues in this thread while traveling and I think there is a solution that involves three components with scientific data, not radical chic politics, to back them:

1) Alexander and Young's "The Chemistry Between Us" to identifying gender differences in individuals without resorting to social construction of gender.
2) Jonathan Haidt's "The Righeous Mind" where six moral foundations are identified providing the social context missing from Alexander and Young's survey. This data shows that liberals are not as well balanced on Haidt's moral foundations as conservatives causing issues with conservative acceptance of LGBT individuals when those individuals' gender concerns are packaged with liberal moral rhetoric.
3) Socionomics for understanding why liberals shifted so far to the individual rights' side over the past two hundred years on Haidt's moral foundations and where that might lead in the future.
I haven´t read yet the authors you suggest, as I am finishing my paper. What I understand is that you want to base the discussion on scientific data.That´s quite ok with me one has to have objective data.
I don´t know how far this kind of data will contribute to a better acceptance of the LGBT group, which I think is the main issue at the moment.Brazil figures in the statistics as being the country where most people of that group are killed, not to speak of persecutions, beatings and other sorts of harassments. The problem has become so acute that soap opera authors (Soap operas have become opinion makers in this country where very few people read books)systematically introduce LGBT themes and personages in its stories in an atempt to contribute to the diminution of prejudice.

Enjoy your trip, Yes/No!

[OrphanPip]

What part of Young and Alexander's "The Chemistry Between Us" do you disagree with?

I don't think conservatives will have any problem with gender definition extended by neuroscience as long as it is not wrapped in liberal moral rhetoric.

Of course they have a problem with it, what fantasy world do you live in. Gay people have been arguing they are born gay for well on close to 100 years and still the religious right insists it is a choice, otherwise they can't justify their religion's opposition to it.

Also, I never disputed that biology influences gender identity. The point that you fail to understand is that brain scans are not simple and gender identity is a matter of consciousness, it has to do with how people view themselves relative to others. The idea that trans people have brain structures more similar to the opposite sex than to their biological sex is extremely old. There is flimsy science with small correlations that supports the idea, again that doesn't stop the fact that most people will insist your gender should be determined by your sex chromosomes and should correspond directly to your biological sex.

Your solutions are, frankly, stupid and divorced from political reality. What has been effective in improving the conditions for trans people so far? It's been Liberal politics, the majority of Canadians support trans rights, trans people are protected by the Charter of Rights, and trans people have free access to medical care. Teaching tolerance and acceptance of difference has improved how they can integrate into society and their sense of being able to live productive lives.

Why would people follow some path that clearly leads to a dead end, does nothing to address their actual concerns as individuals, and completely ignores social reality?

[desiresjab]

As a heterosexual incubus I feel mightlily slandered whenever I pass a protest with Stop Homophobia signs displayed. Thanks, Yes/No, for pointing this out.

Brain scans are the best thing yet for making clear there is a difference. In other words, something went askew, something has gone awry in this brain that looks down and sees its penis and desires larger breasts. Of course, it could also be an invisible long term survival mechanism, but I don't see how that might work at present.

Fear not, it is just ourselves redefining what humanity is. What is happening today may seem ludicrous, and it is, but it is necessary to get plenty of practice for the coming decades. Implants are coming that will integrate with consciousness. There may be a creature two doors down that is harder to define than anything we have tried yet, and is more queer than any mere queer.

I am convinced we will be in much need of redefining. Or perhaps we should adopt the favorite slogan "Inclusion," of many, and call any old partially human calculator human.

We are going to be able to perform tricks on our brains that make gender identity issues trivial.

[desiresjab]

The implant technology to transform lisping gays into burly men is just a couple of generations around the corner. The implant will tease their brain structures back to sexual normalcy in a matter of days or even hours, so that for the first time they awake with erections and a desire to plough womankind. The errancy of nature shall be corrected at last.

I would, however, advise not to tamper genetically with this abberration, lest it actually be a hidden survival mechanism we durst not destroy.

[YesNo]

I haven´t read yet the authors you suggest, as I am finishing my paper. What I understand is that you want to base the discussion on scientific data.That´s quite ok with me one has to have objective data.
I don´t know how far this kind of data will contribute to a better acceptance of the LGBT group, which I think is the main issue at the moment.Brazil figures in the statistics as being the country where most people of that group are killed, not to speak of persecutions, beatings and other sorts of harassments. The problem has become so acute that soap opera authors (Soap operas have become opinion makers in this country where very few people read books)systematically introduce LGBT themes and personages in its stories in an atempt to contribute to the diminution of prejudice.

Enjoy your trip, Yes/No!

If the 1925-1935 rise and fall of "pansies" surrounding a market top and depression is what we are seeing replaying now at a larger degree of market topping pattern then interest in LGBT groups may be unintentionally setting them up for a fall.

Although I used transgender groups to think through that three part theory I outlined above, I am more interested in heterosexuals. They fit the pattern as well.

[YesNo]

Of course they have a problem with it, what fantasy world do you live in. Gay people have been arguing they are born gay for well on close to 100 years and still the religious right insists it is a choice, otherwise they can't justify their religion's opposition to it.

Which are you more interested in doing: (1) make life safe and meaningful for LGBT people, or (2) eliminate religion? I suggest reading Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". He describes a different moral balance for liberals as for conservatives. Liberals have an unbalanced approach to moral foundations emphasizing the three individual rights foundations and de-emphasizing the three communal service foundations. Conservatives are more balanced.



Also, I never disputed that biology influences gender identity. The point that you fail to understand is that brain scans are not simple and gender identity is a matter of consciousness, it has to do with how people view themselves relative to others. The idea that trans people have brain structures more similar to the opposite sex than to their biological sex is extremely old. There is flimsy science with small correlations that supports the idea, again that doesn't stop the fact that most people will insist your gender should be determined by your sex chromosomes and should correspond directly to your biological sex.

I don't think the idea is very old. Even the idea of having different male and female brains comes after 1970 based on memory of what I read in Alexander and Young's survey. This idea goes against the "social construction of gender" which assumes that brains are the same at birth, blank slates, upon which gender is socially constructed.



Your solutions are, frankly, stupid and divorced from political reality. What has been effective in improving the conditions for trans people so far? It's been Liberal politics, the majority of Canadians support trans rights, trans people are protected by the Charter of Rights, and trans people have free access to medical care. Teaching tolerance and acceptance of difference has improved how they can integrate into society and their sense of being able to live productive lives.

Why would people follow some path that clearly leads to a dead end, does nothing to address their actual concerns as individuals, and completely ignores social reality?

The interest in LGBT may be part of a topping process that is close to an end. Then a corrective wave starts. Looking at Haidt's differences in liberals and conservatives, are you teaching individual rights tolerance at the expense of communal service?

[Danik 2016]

If the 1925-1935 rise and fall of "pansies" surrounding a market top and depression is what we are seeing replaying now at a larger degree of market topping pattern then interest in LGBT groups may be unintentionally setting them up for a fall.

Although I used transgender groups to think through that three part theory I outlined above, I am more interested in heterosexuals. They fit the pattern as well.

I don´t understand anything about markets, but to my mind it´s the quantity of investements people have that would make a difference in market behaviour, not gender.

[Ecurb]

Liberals have an unbalanced approach to moral foundations emphasizing the three individual rights foundations and de-emphasizing the three communal service foundations. Conservatives are more balanced.

?

Huh? Since when? Individual right to property (as one example) is a conservative position; the notion that goods, the means of production, etc. may be communal is a liberal one.

[OrphanPip]

Which are you more interested in doing: (1) make life safe and meaningful for LGBT people, or (2) eliminate religion?

I haven't any interest in eliminating religion, what a bizarre question.



I don't think the idea is very old. Even the idea of having different male and female brains comes after 1970 based on memory of what I read in Alexander and Young's survey. This idea goes against the "social construction of gender" which assumes that brains are the same at birth, blank slates, upon which gender is socially constructed.

Social construction of gender does not imply brains are blank slates, which I've repeated to you numerous times.




The interest in LGBT may be part of a topping process that is close to an end. Then a corrective wave starts. Looking at Haidt's differences in liberals and conservatives, are you teaching individual rights tolerance at the expense of communal service?

Your inability to conceive of these issues in terms of their impact on real lives suggests you have a striking lack of empathy for other human beings.

[desiresjab]

Let me be clear. I am not for denying transgenders any basic human rights. But I am against awarding them free sex change operations.

Where should they go to the bathroom?

A small bathroom kit slung over the shoulder consisting of a portable toilet and related accessories, could be the answer. Then I suppose they would find it necessary to pack a tent for setting the apparatus up in, enabling them to use the head almost anywhere. Imagine going to the finest restaurant in the city only to notice small tents beside several of the tables and another being erected. Now that's wining and dining.

[desiresjab]

Let me be clear, lest it be thought I am insensitive. I am not for denying transgenders any basic human rights. But I am against awarding them free sex change operations.

But where should they go to the bathroom?

A small bathroom kit slung over the shoulder consisting of portable toilet and related accessories, could be the practical answer. Then it would be necessary to pack a tent for setting the apparatus up in, enabling them to use the head almost anywhere. Imagine going to the finest restaurant in the city only to notice small tents beside several of the tables and another being erected. Now that's wining and dining. That's social awareness in action. That's caring--when you solve the problems.

In case most public bathrooms of the future will require attendants, I would discriminate openly, and hire only transgenders for these positions, solving two problems at once. Give an adult transgender the responsibility of watching out for the children at a playground restroom, and you would have a tiger on your side eager to protect the reputation of his ilk, and nothing to worry about.

If the transgender is an incubus or a succubus, they should not be considered for these positions. I once knew a succubus hired as a restroom attendant who had the entire male faculty of the university lined up outside her door at lunchtime for the blumpkin specials. Education took a real dump while she was there.

More to the point, we have wheelchair ramps for the handicapped, we can find a way for transgenders to relieve themselves comfortably. I tout the portable bathroom kit, but there may be even better solutions. I would like to hear them , now that I am deeply engaged with the problem.

[YesNo]

I don´t understand anything about markets, but to my mind it´s the quantity of investements people have that would make a difference in market behaviour, not gender.

These are all meters of something larger called "social mood". So one could look at the behavior of the "pansies" in 1925-1935 to understand something about the markets and vice-verse. Social mood drives them both. So you don't have to understand anything about markets. Or anything about LGBT behavior. Market charts however provide a detailed measurement of social mood, something one won't get from looking at how gender behavior illustrates social mood.

[YesNo]

Huh? Since when? Individual right to property (as one example) is a conservative position; the notion that goods, the means of production, etc. may be communal is a liberal one.

A community of selfish individuals is a liberal dystopia. Individuals need the means (property rights) to be altruistic toward the various groups they belong to: family, local community, religious organizations and even language groups. That is where property rights come in. Communities of altruistic individuals is a more balanced approach to Haidt's moral foundations and it is a non-liberal view of humanity which includes political conservatives.

Haidt actually measured liberal and conservative views on those moral foundations. I may not be representing him correctly, but his perspective fits my common sense of their differences.

[Dreamwoven]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT. I know it is meant to avoid any gaps, but I've never understood it as more than this. In Sweden HTBQ is the usual way to describe this.

[YesNo]

I haven't any interest in eliminating religion, what a bizarre question.

Then don't bring up the religious right. The question still stands. What are you really interested in? My suspicion is that you are using LGBT people to advance a radical chic social agenda.



Social construction of gender does not imply brains are blank slates, which I've repeated to you numerous times.

Social construction of gender is all about the brain being a blank slate. People may be trying to repurpose it today, but I think that leads to confusion. Haidt recommended Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" because his view also describes morality as having innate moral foundations, something that goes against the blank slate concept of moral values. Although I picked up Pinker's book, I have not read it yet.



Your inability to conceive of these issues in terms of their impact on real lives suggests you have a striking lack of empathy for other human beings.

I do not conceive of these issues from the perspective of 60's radical chic. That's true. However, my empathy is all there and it goes beyond LGBT people because it affects everyone.

[YesNo]

The implant technology to transform lisping gays into burly men is just a couple of generations around the corner. The implant will tease their brain structures back to sexual normalcy in a matter of days or even hours, so that for the first time they awake with erections and a desire to plough womankind. The errancy of nature shall be corrected at last.

I would, however, advise not to tamper genetically with this abberration, lest it actually be a hidden survival mechanism we durst not destroy.

I don't know if this technology is possible or not. It does assume the brain is not a blank slate, but could be chemically manipulated. So far that has not worked to my knowledge. It is also not deterministic. So I don't expect an AI robot, built on silicon and deterministic-random programming to ever be conscious.

[Ecurb]

Social construction of gender is all about the brain being a blank slate. People may be trying to repurpose it today, but I think that leads to confusion. Haidt recommended Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" because his view also describes morality as having innate moral foundations, something that goes against the blank slate concept of moral values. Although I picked up Pinker's book, I have not read it yet.

.

Everyone knows that human brains have the (innate) capacity for learning language. Nonetheless, if they are not exposed to language, they will not learn it. If they are exposed exclusively to English, they will not be able to speak or understand Chinese. This is so obvious, and the parallel between language and other cultural acquisitions like morality so clear, that YesNo's seeming proclivity for ignoring it is a mystery. Perhaps we cannot blame him, because his inability to think rationally on the subject is "innate", and neither argument nor education can enlighten him.

We are all influenced by genetic factors and by our environments (which include our cultures). Clearly, our brains can be "chemically manipulated" -- when we take morphine, we feel less pain. So what?

[DieterM]

Let me throw in my twenty cents of wisdom (might be even less), and come back to the gender question.

First, I'm surprised that no one has brought up a clear definition of the discussed term yet. Let's have a look at this gender. In its precise, historical acception "gender" determines the grammatical gender, which is the assignment of nouns to categories such as masculine, feminine and neuter. For an English-speaking person, this gender assignment only "enters the game" where men and women (and, very strangely, ships) are concerned. Moreover, this gender assignment is not openly stated when you use an article (because you only have "the" and "a/an"); you only have to ask yourself the question "which gender" when you use a pronoun (he, she, with the pronoun it being the "market leader"). This leads perhaps to the misconception that gender and gender identity are the same thing. In other languages, things are a bit more complex, and the question of gender arises for each and every noun—because they have a gender! And judge by yourself how natural these gender assignments are: In French, we have two genders, so that the sun is masculine, for instance (le soleil), and the moon feminine (la lune)—why, oh why? In German, we have the three genders, with a masculine moon (der Mond), a feminine sun (die Sonne), and a neuter child (das Kind), but also a neuter girl (das Mädchen)—again, one is tempted to ask "why, oh why"? Especially where the girl is concerned… How is it natural, or even logical, to assign a neuter gender to a person which seems to be so clearly identified as a female in terms of (common) gender identity? And, as gender is a term used for grammar purposes (and thus for purposes linked to language), I wonder how gender could be considered NOT to be a cultural construction (I said gender, here, not gender identity, which is something different)…

Second little thought of mine: I don't know (but I'm sure YesNo can give me an answer to this) at which age the brain scans have been started, meaning: is there statistically relevant data for babies (between 0-1 year, say)? Because surveys and studies have shown that the influence on the human brain starts at that age where gender identity is concerned. And it does not even matter that much if kids are brought up by what YesNo calls "conservatives" or by what he terms "liberals"—there are patterns of behavior that even the most liberally inclined parents (or those parents who like to think of themselves as being perfectly non-sexist) seem to reproduce when dealing with baby girls or baby boys; for instance, when the baby makes a little noise in order to communicate, a very high percentage of parents will use existing words for their interaction with a baby boy, but baby onomatopoeia when dealing with a baby girl.

Third little thought: as a gay guy who would not change his way of being for anything in the world, despite his greater difficulties as a kid, teenager and young adult, I find it quite amusing to see that as soon as a debate about gender/gender identity is started, we end up discussing LGBT agendas. I mean, the gender and gender identity debate is not only relevant for gays, lesbians, bisexuals or the trans community. Why do so many people link these two things? I'm gay, and I feel very much a man, thanks a lot (even if I would be tempted to be a woman, just for one day, to know if there's really such a difference between the two of us, but that's another discussion altogether). Of course, trans persons are more overtly concerned by this question, but why only them? It's quite funny to remember that the term "feminist" meant… only men when it was invented in the 19th century (this just as an anecdotical afterthought).

And why do so many people seem to think it's dangerous to question the debatable normativity of gender or gender identity (by normativity, I mean the preconception that a boy is born feeling a masculine gender identity, a girl feeling a feminine gender identity)? What world- and even universe-destroying thing could happen if gender and gender identity really were social constructs? People have been burned some centuries ago because they claimed that the earth, contrarily to what the human eye beholds, revolves around the sun. When it was proven that they were right, has anything more important happened than that those who had burned those others (above all the Catholic Church) looked pretty stupid?

And last but not least, a little story. I happened to talk to my neighbour three days ago, and she said that her little boy was getting better and better in expressing himself. True enough, he's almost two now, and in the evening when his nanny leaves, I can hear him shout, amongst other enthusiastic babbles, "Au revoir! Au revoir!" in the staircase (he was a bit reluctant to Good-byes some weeks back, but has grown exceedingly fond of it by now because he seems to associate it with other people smiling back at him and, most importantly, answering him). So I told the neighbour how cute her boy was, and how well he spoke French by now. And she said, "The only problem is that he doesn't seem to grab gender yet. He's wont to say 'I've played with little Suzy this afternoon, and he took away my toy'. Each time, I correct him by saying, 'Darling, Suzy is a girl, so she took away your toy', but he doesn't get it…" — "He will, eventually," was my smiling answer. This story doesn't prove anything, but I found it a funny coincidence to read this thread and to remember that story.

[OrphanPip]

Then don't bring up the religious right. The question still stands. What are you really interested in? My suspicion is that you are using LGBT people to advance a radical chic social agenda.

Because the religious right is a major opponent to LGBT rights globally. As opposed to say members of the religious left like the United Church of Canada which supports gay marriage and gay rights, or the Anglican Church of Canada which will bless gay unions. The religious right is not a representative of all religion. Nor does my opposition to one aspect of a religious belief imply my desire to eliminate all religion. I also disagree with Islam's prohibitions on the rights and freedoms of women. When American evangelical churches use their wealth to push for death penalties for gays in Africa I think one has a right to complain about the religious right.

It is not a radical chic social agenda. Gay rights are vital to my life and wellbeing. I live with my husband in a country where religious police barge into hotel rooms to catch people committing sexual crimes. A short flight away in neighbouring Indonesia a mob broke into a gay couple's home two weeks ago and then proceeded to have them whipped in the town square. The former leader of the opposition was jailed for sodomy because of a consensual relationship with a political aid that was blackmailed into testifying. There is nothing radical or chic about my agenda, it's the difference between palpable human suffering and some semblance of dignity and happiness. Any day the wrong person could find out something about me that could end up with me deported and my husband in jail/whipped.




Social construction of gender is all about the brain being a blank slate. People may be trying to repurpose it today, but I think that leads to confusion. Haidt recommended Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate" because his view also describes morality as having innate moral foundations, something that goes against the blank slate concept of moral values. Although I picked up Pinker's book, I have not read it yet.

It is not all about the brain being a blank slate, simply because you say it does doesn't make that a true statement.



I do not conceive of these issues from the perspective of 60's radical chic. That's true. However, my empathy is all there and it goes beyond LGBT people because it affects everyone.

Sure it does.

[YesNo]

Second little thought of mine: I don't know (but I'm sure YesNo can give me an answer to this) at which age the brain scans have been started, meaning: is there statistically relevant data for babies (between 0-1 year, say)? Because surveys and studies have shown that the influence on the human brain starts at that age where gender identity is concerned. And it does not even matter that much if kids are brought up by what YesNo calls "conservatives" or by what he terms "liberals"—there are patterns of behavior that even the most liberally inclined parents (or those parents who like to think of themselves as being perfectly non-sexist) seem to reproduce when dealing with baby girls or baby boys; for instance, when the baby makes a little noise in order to communicate, a very high percentage of parents will use existing words for their interaction with a baby boy, but baby onomatopoeia when dealing with a baby girl.

See Young and Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us" for the details. As I understand it gender identity is set prior to birth, that is prior to social construction.



Third little thought: as a gay guy who would not change his way of being for anything in the world, despite his greater difficulties as a kid, teenager and young adult, I find it quite amusing to see that as soon as a debate about gender/gender identity is started, we end up discussing LGBT agendas. I mean, the gender and gender identity debate is not only relevant for gays, lesbians, bisexuals or the trans community. Why do so many people link these two things? I'm gay, and I feel very much a man, thanks a lot (even if I would be tempted to be a woman, just for one day, to know if there's really such a difference between the two of us, but that's another discussion altogether). Of course, trans persons are more overtly concerned by this question, but why only them? It's quite funny to remember that the term "feminist" meant… only men when it was invented in the 19th century (this just as an anecdotical afterthought).

This debate is relevant especially for heterosexuals. What LGBT people provide are challenges (that I understood have been met) to the discovery of gender differences in brains. One needs to find brain differences for LGBT people as well. Finding those brain correlates means that the gender identity of these people is not socially constructed either. It is not their choice and it is not something that one can alter with social construction after birth.



And why do so many people seem to think it's dangerous to question the debatable normativity of gender or gender identity (by normativity, I mean the preconception that a boy is born feeling a masculine gender identity, a girl feeling a feminine gender identity)? What world- and even universe-destroying thing could happen if gender and gender identity really were social constructs? People have been burned some centuries ago because they claimed that the earth, contrarily to what the human eye beholds, revolves around the sun. When it was proven that they were right, has anything more important happened than that those who had burned those others (above all the Catholic Church) looked pretty stupid?


If these gender identities were socially constructed then one could praise or blame society for gender differences including the variations illustrated by LGBT people. It would mean a gay man could become straight with the proper social construction. It would mean a boy could be turned into a girl by surgical procedure, hormone treatment and social conditioning. This didn't work for John Money and his patient David Reimer.

[Danik 2016]

These are all meters of something larger called "social mood". So one could look at the behavior of the "pansies" in 1925-1935 to understand something about the markets and vice-verse. Social mood drives them both. So you don't have to understand anything about markets. Or anything about LGBT behavior. Market charts however provide a detailed measurement of social mood, something one won't get from looking at how gender behavior illustrates social mood.
I love the concept of "negative social mood" because I think it qualifies our current
social disposition very accurately.
But again when I think of the markets I distinguis between rich and poor people, those that invest in the market and those that don´t. The markets influence the economy of a country and so directly or indirectly people´s lives but I still don´t see how group characteristics like gender, colour or race would influence the markets.

[YesNo]

Because the religious right is a major opponent to LGBT rights globally. As opposed to say members of the religious left like the United Church of Canada which supports gay marriage and gay rights, or the Anglican Church of Canada which will bless gay unions. The religious right is not a representative of all religion. Nor does my opposition to one aspect of a religious belief imply my desire to eliminate all religion. I also disagree with Islam's prohibitions on the rights and freedoms of women. When American evangelical churches use their wealth to push for death penalties for gays in Africa I think one has a right to complain about the religious right.

It is not a radical chic social agenda. Gay rights are vital to my life and wellbeing. I live with my husband in a country where religious police barge into hotel rooms to catch people committing sexual crimes. A short flight away in neighbouring Indonesia a mob broke into a gay couple's home two weeks ago and then proceeded to have them whipped in the town square. The former leader of the opposition was jailed for sodomy because of a consensual relationship with a political aid that was blackmailed into testifying. There is nothing radical or chic about my agenda, it's the difference between palpable human suffering and some semblance of dignity and happiness. Any day the wrong person could find out something about me that could end up with me deported and my husband in jail/whipped.


For some reason the people who are harassing gays (and other LGBT people) think they have made a choice in their gender identity. People who promote the social construction of gender are agreeing with the harassers. I don't see how this social construction view works in your favor at all so I have to ask why are you promoting it?

Another reason they could be harassing these people is that LGBT concerns are wrapped in liberal radical chic and they are rejecting that moral position. I can't see why LGBT people would want to support either radical chic or social construction of gender.

[Danik 2016]

Originally Posted by DieterM
In German, we have the three genders, with a masculine moon (der Mond), a feminine sun (die Sonne), and a neuter child (das Kind), but also a neuter girl (das Mädchen)—again, one is tempted to ask "why, oh why"? Especially where the girl is concerned…

I used to tell my Brazilian students (in Portuguese we have only masculin and femining) that a girl only becomes "die" when it becomes a woman. Puppies from all kind are usually "das". So, "der" and "die" with people and animals would be a sign of adulthood.But then why is "the boy" masculin and not neutral? One would have to ask the first grammaticians who were probably all men...

[OrphanPip]

See Young and Alexander, "The Chemistry Between Us" for the details. As I understand it gender identity is set prior to birth, that is prior to social construction.


Twin studies have shown that not all identical twins will both be trans or gay or lesbian, though there is greater correlation than between non-identical twins and with other siblings. This suggests a strong genetic component combined with an environmental component before and after birth. Also, as has been pointed out to you by ecurb a strong genetic component doesn't erase the fact that environment is still involved. Gender identity is wrapped up in gender expression and how a culture identifies gender. A number of cultures in the Indian subcontinent have a long history of recognizing "Hirja" as a third gender between male and female, different cultures conceive of gender differently.

Again I'll repeat the social construction of gender does not mean your gender identity is determined by society, but rather that the language and conditioned modes of expression available to people are socially constructed.

Also I haven't a clue what radical chic entails. From a Canadian perspective LGBT rights are thoroughly a centrist position with supporters on both sides of the aisle.

[DieterM]

@YesNo: Young and Alexander—will surely read their book asap. For the time being, though, I still have some serious doubts about your point of view. I cannot shake off the impression that the problem mainly arises because of shoddily defined terms. In my eyes, you cannot claim sex = gender. That’s perfectly nonsensical because sex is a biological notion (innate indeed) where we have either a subject with a penis, a subject with a vagina, or a subject with indeterminate sexual organs. And then, there’s gender, which, as I have pointed out, is a linguistic notion and therefore depends on the language you’re talking. As such, it is, of course, dependent of a given cultural environment, as OrphanPip strained already (cf. the Hirja role he was referring to, which is only one of many examples for diferent gender roles). I understand that you’re not the only one to not use clearly defined terms—had a first look at the Young & Alexander-book and saw that they were talking in one place of “gender assignment surgery” for babies born with indeterminate sexual organs; I have to say that for authors claiming to be scientific, this very shoddy and muddled use of the term «gender» is surprising—it’s not a gender that is assigned by such a surgery, but a sex. But still, I promise I will read the book nonetheless, if only to make up my mind by myself.

Now, without having read it yet, I still have some doubts about those famous brain scans you were talking about. What was the method used? The population surveyed? The only way one could determine a survey of brain scans that show the difference between innate «heterosexual brains» and «gay brains» would be to check newborn babies, note the differences without telling the parents (because telling them about the results could lead to them modifying their behavior, thus altering socialization patterns), wait some sixteen to eighteen years and then check whether those babies are heterosexual or gay. A method that is ethically dubious, to say the least… Another point is that there may be differences between male and female brains (thus a biological, innate differentiation), as there are differences between male and female sexual organs. But we’re still talking «sex» here, and not gender. Gender means that one feels male or female, or none of both (which is the case for some inter-sexed persons, but not for all of them). The question is really underlined and brought into broad daylight by inter-sex persons (i.e. persons with no determinate sex), because some feel a male identity, some a female, and some neither-nor—if gender identity were indeed innate, wouldn’t a 100% need to feel neither-nor?

I’m not convinced by your idea that to say gender identity is a cultural construct means we advocate the idea that gays could be changed into straights by a change of education. By claiming this you assume we have a hidden, let’s say «heterosexist» agenda. But the same could be said about the idea of innate straight or gay brains! Someone who hates gay people to the point of wanting to erase their existence could as easily claim that gay brain = brain damage, and with a little bit of surgery, the problem could be solved. I do not assume you have such a hidden agenda, so I would kindly request you do not assume the same about me or OrphanPip.

To come back to the muddled definition of terms, I still think that gender identity is a social construct. Gender being a linguistic notion, thus linked to language, thus linked to a learning process—I think we can agree that we are not born with complete language skills—, the self-assignment of one gender rather than the other (identity = assignment of certain realities or categories to a given Self) can only be a constructed notion in my eyes. The whole identity process of kids is a learning process; most psychologists concur with saying that we are not born with the feeling of a determined, exact, clear self. Why then one part of that shady, unclear identity, i.e. the gender identity, would be innate? Again, note the difference between «sex» and «gender». I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a «sex identity» (meaning the knowing of one having a penis or a vagina), but even that would kick in at a later stage, not at age 0, because it would mean a clear differentiation in one’s brain at that age. And we shall never know if that exists, because brain scans cannot show whether a subject has a conscious notion about one thing or another. The only way to find that out would mean we would have to question a 0-year-old, and as newborns don’t have language skills…

@Danik, the (neuter) word “Mädchen” is a diminutive of the (female) word “die Magd” (female servant). As such, it can be viewed as a sexist approach to the female sex (not invented by grammarians, but grown over centuries, because that’s what languages do—they grow and evolve), because indeed the words for young boys are all male (der Knabe, der Junge, der Bub). Interesting detail, in German we call the neuter gender “sächlich” (as opposed to “männlich”, male, and “weiblich”, female), which one could translate by “referring to things, to objects”. It's a notion that is really felt by German-speakers (language is often a question of feeling things)—if you want to insult a man or a woman, you assign a word to them that is neuter (i.e. "thing-like"); you objectify the person. Gender is often used as a "weapon"; take for instance the German word for a gay man, which would be "der Schwule" (male gender), but which can be altered to the insult "die Schwuchtel" (female gender). I insist that maybe English-speaking persons lack that strong feeling of the "genderization" of the reality that surrounds us because there's not "felt" gender to most words, whereas there is in other languages. Another interesting detail is that as soon as you use a diminutive in German (mostly formed by adding the suffix “-chen” or “-lein”), the noun becomes neuter. That explains why the word “Mädchen” is neuter; a “Knäblein” (diminutive of "Knabe") would be neuter too. But note that you have to alter one of the different words for “boy” in order to assign the neuter gender, whereas for a “girl”—we only have this one, neuter word in German!

[YesNo]

@YesNo: Young and Alexander—will surely read their book asap. For the time being, though, I still have some serious doubts about your point of view. I cannot shake off the impression that the problem mainly arises because of shoddily defined terms. In my eyes, you cannot claim sex = gender. That’s perfectly nonsensical because sex is a biological notion (innate indeed) where we have either a subject with a penis, a subject with a vagina, or a subject with indeterminate sexual organs. And then, there’s gender, which, as I have pointed out, is a linguistic notion and therefore depends on the language you’re talking. As such, it is, of course, dependent of a given cultural environment, as OrphanPip strained already (cf. the Hirja role he was referring to, which is only one of many examples for diferent gender roles). I understand that you’re not the only one to not use clearly defined terms—had a first look at the Young & Alexander-book and saw that they were talking in one place of “gender assignment surgery” for babies born with indeterminate sexual organs; I have to say that for authors claiming to be scientific, this very shoddy and muddled use of the term «gender» is surprising—it’s not a gender that is assigned by such a surgery, but a sex. But still, I promise I will read the book nonetheless, if only to make up my mind by myself.

I am glad you are going to read the book. I don't think anyone else is here.

I agree sex does not equal gender. They are formed in the child at different windows of gestation. Sex occurs about 8 weeks into the pregnancy and gender later. This allows for the variety that is observed. Gender is not linguistic as I see it, but the ability to have a subjective experience of being male or female.



Now, without having read it yet, I still have some doubts about those famous brain scans you were talking about. What was the method used? The population surveyed? The only way one could determine a survey of brain scans that show the difference between innate «heterosexual brains» and «gay brains» would be to check newborn babies, note the differences without telling the parents (because telling them about the results could lead to them modifying their behavior, thus altering socialization patterns), wait some sixteen to eighteen years and then check whether those babies are heterosexual or gay. A method that is ethically dubious, to say the least… Another point is that there may be differences between male and female brains (thus a biological, innate differentiation), as there are differences between male and female sexual organs. But we’re still talking «sex» here, and not gender. Gender means that one feels male or female, or none of both (which is the case for some inter-sexed persons, but not for all of them). The question is really underlined and brought into broad daylight by inter-sex persons (i.e. persons with no determinate sex), because some feel a male identity, some a female, and some neither-nor—if gender identity were indeed innate, wouldn’t a 100% need to feel neither-nor?

It is not just brain scans, but observing differences in the brains of animals and observing how animals behave using human toys, among other things. If one can see the differences in the brain or see those differences in animals who do not have language, social construction is not what causes those differences. Also if you read the book, pay attention to the first chapter's discussion of the "machihembra" who were raised as girls (socially constructed) until puberty, but when their penises finally developed switched over to behaving like boys. If social construction was responsible for this, they should have remained girls.

As I understand the agenda of radical chic, the goal is to reduce people to selfish individuals, no more than homo economicus. The goal is attempted either by arguing for a blank slate in the brain upon which social construction operates or to argue for gender fluidity. Neither of these alternatives work. Furthermore selfish individualism is not satisfying because people are inherently altruistic, not selfish.



I’m not convinced by your idea that to say gender identity is a cultural construct means we advocate the idea that gays could be changed into straights by a change of education. By claiming this you assume we have a hidden, let’s say «heterosexist» agenda. But the same could be said about the idea of innate straight or gay brains! Someone who hates gay people to the point of wanting to erase their existence could as easily claim that gay brain = brain damage, and with a little bit of surgery, the problem could be solved. I do not assume you have such a hidden agenda, so I would kindly request you do not assume the same about me or OrphanPip.

What I am saying is, if you believe in social construction of gender you should be able to turn straights into gays and vice versa through social interaction--not that this is something worth doing if it were possible, which it isn't.

What I want to make sure from anyone accepting the notions of social construction of gender, patriarchy or homophobia is that they are not arguing for a radical chic agenda which includes abortion rights, breaking monogamy pair-bonds and atheism. Why are these problems? They attempt to generate a society of selfish individuals by discrediting altruistic groups based on family and belief. To see this problem from a moral perspective, check out Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind".



To come back to the muddled definition of terms, I still think that gender identity is a social construct. Gender being a linguistic notion, thus linked to language, thus linked to a learning process—I think we can agree that we are not born with complete language skills—, the self-assignment of one gender rather than the other (identity = assignment of certain realities or categories to a given Self) can only be a constructed notion in my eyes. The whole identity process of kids is a learning process; most psychologists concur with saying that we are not born with the feeling of a determined, exact, clear self. Why then one part of that shady, unclear identity, i.e. the gender identity, would be innate? Again, note the difference between «sex» and «gender». I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a «sex identity» (meaning the knowing of one having a penis or a vagina), but even that would kick in at a later stage, not at age 0, because it would mean a clear differentiation in one’s brain at that age. And we shall never know if that exists, because brain scans cannot show whether a subject has a conscious notion about one thing or another. The only way to find that out would mean we would have to question a 0-year-old, and as newborns don’t have language skills…


Gender is not linked to language. You will have to examine the book yourself to get the details. Also, don't forget Haidt's book which goes the next step into morality.

[YesNo]

Twin studies have shown that not all identical twins will both be trans or gay or lesbian, though there is greater correlation than between non-identical twins and with other siblings. This suggests a strong genetic component combined with an environmental component before and after birth. Also, as has been pointed out to you by ecurb a strong genetic component doesn't erase the fact that environment is still involved. Gender identity is wrapped up in gender expression and how a culture identifies gender. A number of cultures in the Indian subcontinent have a long history of recognizing "Hirja" as a third gender between male and female, different cultures conceive of gender differently.

I don't see why twins matter in this context since sex is formed about 8 weeks into gestation and gender much later. Sex should be more affected by being twins than gender.



Again I'll repeat the social construction of gender does not mean your gender identity is determined by society, but rather that the language and conditioned modes of expression available to people are socially constructed.

I am not saying that social construction does not exist, only that social construction of gender does not exist. However, I would prefer not to use "social construction" because of its association with radical chic. I prefer "social mood". There is more going on besides a person's individual gender. There is also morality, which has an innate component in our species and there is also social mood which is not innate at all to my knowledge.



Also I haven't a clue what radical chic entails. From a Canadian perspective LGBT rights are thoroughly a centrist position with supporters on both sides of the aisle.

If you favor abortion rights, or the rights of consenting adults to engage in extra-marital sexual activity even if married or in atheism then you are probably part of a radical chic. Why are these problematic? They attempt to generate a society (socially construct a society?) of selfish individuals out of people who are inherently altruistic and need family and belief groups to serve to feel they are living meaningful lives.

[YesNo]

I love the concept of "negative social mood" because I think it qualifies our current
social disposition very accurately.
But again when I think of the markets I distinguis between rich and poor people, those that invest in the market and those that don´t. The markets influence the economy of a country and so directly or indirectly people´s lives but I still don´t see how group characteristics like gender, colour or race would influence the markets.

They are all effects of social mood. They do not affect each other. So I would agree: they don't influence the markets. What influences the markets is social mood. That is also what influences these cultural phenomena.

I think we are in a period of negative social mood although the worse (or best) is yet to come. What is involved is a correction of a large trend that both Haidt and socionomics sees starting around 1780. Haidt however is concerned more narrowly with the period of about 1780 to now as one of reason over Hume's intuitionism which he thinks needs to be corrected returning to Hume's ideas. Socionomics see it as one large cycle in a massive spiral that is completing and ready to enter a period of correction.

[YesNo]

Everyone knows that human brains have the (innate) capacity for learning language. Nonetheless, if they are not exposed to language, they will not learn it. If they are exposed exclusively to English, they will not be able to speak or understand Chinese. This is so obvious, and the parallel between language and other cultural acquisitions like morality so clear, that YesNo's seeming proclivity for ignoring it is a mystery. Perhaps we cannot blame him, because his inability to think rationally on the subject is "innate", and neither argument nor education can enlighten him.

We are all influenced by genetic factors and by our environments (which include our cultures). Clearly, our brains can be "chemically manipulated" -- when we take morphine, we feel less pain. So what? (my emphasis)

I don't think rationally. I am not like Spock in Star Trek and neither is anyone else except for those who might be psychpathic. We all rationalize. That is, we are motivated reasoners guided by our prior choices which we try to justify.

One might think there is something wrong with that, but it is an optimal way to arrive at truth. The best and hopefully most convincing rationalization is likely to be the one closest to the truth. I am getting some of this from my reading of Haidt's "The Righteous Mind".

[OrphanPip]

After some reading, I'm also now convinced that you've misunderstood Haidt's argument as well. Haidt states that there are innate moral foundations that arise from evolution: a concentration of traits that promote in-group cohesion, and a concentration of traits that promote unity to outside forces. His contention is that modern Liberals are more inclined to base decisions on elements of the first packet than on the latter packet, while conservatives favour the latter packet. He also identifies libertarians as evenly distributed in the weight they give to different foundations.

Strikingly, I've discovered that Haidt argues that moral matrixes are socially constructed and build on these innate factors based on culture. This is why genetically similar people can have wildly different political and moral beliefs. Moreover, at no point can I find him implying that liberals are "unbalanced" anymore than conservatives are. Moreover, you seem to be under the belief that liberals lack any concern for the moral foundations emphasized by conservatives and vice-versa. This isn't stated by Haidt. For example two people can each highly value fairness in their moral matrix. However, a liberal person might emphasize fairness in terms of equality and freedom from oppression, while a conservative person might emphasize fairness as personal responsibility and financial independence (not expecting others to pay for things for you).

Your contention that liberals lack altruism seems to come from nowhere since I can't find any such argument made by Haidt.

Also, again you seem to imply I have some interest in promoting atheism. This is nonsense. My husband is in a band with a pastor, one of our best friends is a devout Muslim woman, my mother is religious. My personal atheism is nothing more than my personal lack of belief.

Your contention about abortion is absurd. Prohibitions on abortion objectively cause great social harm, and it is not radical to support abortions where I come from. The vast majority of Canadians support the right to an abortion, and Canada is a more collectivist and socially cohesive country than the USA. Scandinavian countries also are liberal on social issues and have low rates of crime and strong social cohesion and support. The extra-marital sex thing is just out of left field anyway. It's better for people to consent to extra-marital sex if they want to than to cheat on each other behind their backs (which statistically is far more common than people consenting to it). Either way I've rarely seen any people going around promoting extra-marital sex. On top of all of this your willingness to condemn one position because of an imagine correlation with some bogeyman beliefs of yours is frankly ridiculous.

[Danik 2016]

They are all effects of social mood. They do not affect each other. So I would agree: they don't influence the markets. What influences the markets is social mood. That is also what influences these cultural phenomena.

I think we are in a period of negative social mood although the worse (or best) is yet to come. What is involved is a correction of a large trend that both Haidt and socionomics sees starting around 1780. Haidt however is concerned more narrowly with the period of about 1780 to now as one of reason over Hume's intuitionism which he thinks needs to be corrected returning to Hume's ideas. Socionomics see it as one large cycle in a massive spiral that is completing and ready to enter a period of correction.

Unfortunately I won´t be able to read Haidt just now. I think it very important to clarify concepts. I feel somewhat lost in this discussion.
Also I think it is important to bear in mind that a theme can have a different weigh with different people.

[YesNo]

After some reading, I'm also now convinced that you've misunderstood Haidt's argument as well. Haidt states that there are innate moral foundations that arise from evolution: a concentration of traits that promote in-group cohesion, and a concentration of traits that promote unity to outside forces. His contention is that modern Liberals are more inclined to base decisions on elements of the first packet than on the latter packet, while conservatives favour the latter packet. He also identifies libertarians as evenly distributed in the weight they give to different foundations.

I am glad you are reading Haidt. There are also YouTube videos if the book is unavailable for others.

I don't have the book with me to quote him, but I think Haidt said that political conservatives (people voting Republican) are more balanced across all of these foundations. Liberals (people voting Democrat in the USA) are lop-sided toward the individual rights set. Note that these moral foundations conflict with each other. I don't remember what he said about Libertarians. Everyone responds to all six of these foundations, but not everyone does so in a balanced way.



Strikingly, I've discovered that Haidt argues that moral matrixes are socially constructed and build on these innate factors based on culture. This is why genetically similar people can have wildly different political and moral beliefs. Moreover, at no point can I find him implying that liberals are "unbalanced" anymore than conservatives are. Moreover, you seem to be under the belief that liberals lack any concern for the moral foundations emphasized by conservatives and vice-versa. This isn't stated by Haidt. For example two people can each highly value fairness in their moral matrix. However, a liberal person might emphasize fairness in terms of equality and freedom from oppression, while a conservative person might emphasize fairness as personal responsibility and financial independence (not expecting others to pay for things for you).

These moral matrices are "socially contructed" from the innate foundations "organized prior to experience". I think you have misread him about conservatives, but I think you got correct how liberals differ from conservatives with regard to fairness.



Your contention that liberals lack altruism seems to come from nowhere since I can't find any such argument made by Haidt.

My contention on selfish individuals and altruistic individuals differs from what Haidt proposes. He sees two levels of evolution based on Durkheim. I don't think two levels are necessary. If one assumes all individuals are altruistic, but toward different groups, I think one gets the same result.

Liberals don't lack altruism. Everyone operates on it (based on my perspective, not necessarily Haidt's). However, the liberal emphasis on individual rights leads to societies where selfish individuals are believed to exist. The very fact that liberals promote their position implies their altruism.



Also, again you seem to imply I have some interest in promoting atheism. This is nonsense. My husband is in a band with a pastor, one of our best friends is a devout Muslim woman, my mother is religious. My personal atheism is nothing more than my personal lack of belief.

I don't know what your beliefs are nor your personal life. I was simply describing radical chic as I perceived the term. It would involve anything that emphasized individual rights to the point that a person is unable to serve some group or community.



Your contention about abortion is absurd. Prohibitions on abortion objectively cause great social harm, and it is not radical to support abortions where I come from. The vast majority of Canadians support the right to an abortion, and Canada is a more collectivist and socially cohesive country than the USA. Scandinavian countries also are liberal on social issues and have low rates of crime and strong social cohesion and support. The extra-marital sex thing is just out of left field anyway. It's better for people to consent to extra-marital sex if they want to than to cheat on each other behind their backs (which statistically is far more common than people consenting to it). Either way I've rarely seen any people going around promoting extra-marital sex. On top of all of this your willingness to condemn one position because of an imagine correlation with some bogeyman beliefs of yours is frankly ridiculous.

I picked abortion and extra-marital sex to emphasize individual rights rather than service on the family level. I know these are hot button topics. That's why I mentioned them (along with atheism above).

[Ecurb]

If you favor ...the rights of consenting adults to engage ... in atheism then you are probably part of a radical chic. .

Then Torquemada and the other Inquisitors are the only people who aren't part of a radical chic. The notion that "belief" can be construed as a "right" is bizarre. Rights are social and cultural phenomena; they confer obligations on the part of other people. Property rights oblige non-owners to refrain from entering the owner's house without permission, under penalty of law. Beliefs are functions of our individual consciousness. We believe what we believe, and while torture or imprisonment may change our statements about what we believe, I doubt they are very effective at changing our actual beliefs.

If believing we should refrain from prying into what other people believe and then torturing or imprisoning them if it fails to conform to our standards is a form of "radical chic", count me in. If YesNo thinks he has a "right" to forcibly interfere in other people's beliefs, then he is an Inquisitor, endangers human liberty, and should be descried and despised. If, on the other hand, he thinks he can use gentler means of changing the beliefs of others (like rational argument, which, of course, includes rationalization) then he should adopt methods superior to those he is practicing in this thread. He isn't persuading anyone here.

[desiresjab]

Yes, 60's liberal radical chic nails a widespread phenomenon accurately, or at least poetically.

It seems to be humanity 101 that people generally believe they know what is best for everyone, if others could just see. To promote any social agenda tacitly binds every promotor to this contract.

If I am a promoter of childrens' rights (of course I am), then I am saying it is best for the world, not only children, that they have every protection against abuses of even a subtle nature.

The whole world is a better place that way, this is what every promotion of any social agenda is saying. It is going to affect everyone, not just those the movement is named after.

I am reading this discussion with interest, though I am not sure it knows what it is about. Count me among the unsure. All discussions are actually about whatever someone has to say. This one is no different. But I will go back and read the OP, to see if I can tell what this one was intended to be about. Not that digressions and desultory fancies are to be eschewed at all, for they are always how discussions organically proceed.

[desiresjab]

Casey's OP calls for a very general discussion, which is what we have.

In at least some states of the U.S., prison convicts are entitled to free sex change operations, courteosy of the taxpayer. That is a point for discussion. Are there countries in the world where a sex change operation is available free to any citizen who qualifies? If so, my guess is Sweden or Denmark, at minimum.

You tell me the advantage of being a woman in a population of male prisoners, unless it be for the sake of transfer to a female prison. What is so urgent that I had to pay for this? It is flat not as urgent as children being exploited for prostitution or slavery. Or am I missing something? Am I supposed to give the same urgency to one as the other because they both involve human rights? Aren't some human rights more urgent than others?

Now, of course, if a transgender or gay resides in a country where the morals police can break into your hotel room in the middle of the night and cart you off to the whipping post or the execution block, then those rights which can seem mere quibbling in a country like the U.S., have suddenly become very urgent elsewhere. Tell a transgender facing a mob of average IQ 70 he has been quibbling.

However, here where certain rights are already well-secured, it seems socially blundersome to go the extra step to give a free sex change operation to a murderer so he can have a sunnier disposition behind bars as a she.

People got a new toy--themselves.

[desiresjab]

Casey's OP calls for a very general discussion, which is what we have.

In at least some states of the U.S., prison convicts are entitled to free sex change operations, courteosy of the taxpayer. That is a point for discussion. Are there countries in the world where a sex change operation is available free to any citizen who qualifies? If so, my guess is Sweden or Denmark, at minimum.

You tell me the advantage of being a woman in a population of male prisoners, unless it be for the sake of transfer to a female prison. What is so urgent that I had to pay for this? It is flat not as urgent as chilfren being exploited for prostitution. Or am I missing something? Am I supposed to give the same urgency to one as the other because they both involve human rights? Aren't some human rights more urgent than others?

Now, of course, if a transgender or gay resides in a country where the morals police can break into your hotel room in the middle of the night and cart you off to the whipping post or the execution block, then those rights which can seem mere quibbling in a country like the U.S., have suddenly become very urgent elsewhere. Tell a transgender facing a mob of average IQ 70 he has been quibbling.

However, here where certain rights are already well-secured, it seems socially blundersome to go the extra step to give a free sex change operation to a murderer so he can have a sunnier disposition behind bars as a she.

People got a new toy--themselves.

[desiresjab]

I have stated that I am against free sex change operations for citizens of the US. This is not quite true. There are instances where I would actually demand someone undergo a sex change, for instance violent male gang members in prison under my regime would undergo cumpulsory sex changes. That'll fix 'em. Don't tell me these boys aren't fixed! No solution for violent women yet.

[YesNo]

In at least some states of the U.S., prison convicts are entitled to free sex change operations, courteosy of the taxpayer.

If one doesn't associate LGBT or heterosexuality with a socially constructed gender, one could still ask if having some specific brain organizations regarding gender could be a disability requiring intervention. I don't think these are disabilities, but I wonder if that is how some people view them.