Hello people,
Do you think trans women are more aggressive than genetic women?
It's an idea that came to mind while seeing how quite a few MtFs here can be quite aggressive...
Of course, so can genetic women! Just that it seems a bit frequent here to me...
And of course, this place isn't representative of all trans women either - after all, many who have moved on aren't here any more, and those people are, well, likely psychologically different from people here.
But what do you think?
Hard to say, I've been on forums where the natal women were often very aggressive and cursed like everything and were usually quite relentless.
I do know its kind of disgusting to watch some transwomen behave like chauvinists towards certain segments of the lesbian population online. They kind of help bolster a lot of claims made by that certain group.
Quote from: apple pie on April 26, 2012, 09:12:36 AM
Do you think trans women are more aggressive than genetic women?
No, I don't think so. No more and no less.
It largely depends on the context and situation. People can be passionate when their identity and self-expression is called into question. And, unfortunately, that seems largely what most of the heated debates here situate around.
Some people can be more forceful in their views than others, that's a given, but I think that's more a personality trait than anything to do with being a trans or genetic woman. Assertiveness isn't a gender thing, imo. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to make the leap that because someone is assertive, it must be because they're trans and not genetically born female.
Also keep in mind that the anonymity of online forums may afford people the opportunity to be more... shall we say forthright, than they would otherwise be. So it's not really a good indicator of the way people are outside of this environment. It could be misleading.
Personally I think this is a trolling post but anyway.
How do we explain momma bear syndrome. As Sephirah said the bulk of the 'discussions' are about identity. There is a sense of family amount some trans people. So those attacks aren't just at me, but also those I consider in a certain way as if they were my children.
Quote from: Jeneva on April 26, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
Personally I think this is a trolling post but anyway.
How do we explain momma bear syndrome. As Sephirah said the bulk of the 'discussions' are about identity. There is a sense of family amount some trans people. So those attacks aren't just at me, but also those I consider in a certain way as if they were my children.
I though the same thing. I don't think op posted this topic meaning to help and using words like aggressive have very bad connotations for fellow transwomen. :embarrassed:
Quote from: lecoeurdegrey on April 26, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
I though the same thing. I don't think op posted this topic meaning to help and using words like aggressive have very bad connotations for fellow transwomen. :embarrassed:
I apologize if you feel that way. I sincerely am only wondering if it is just true overall that trans women are more aggressive, for example, due to somewhat permanent brain changes by testosterone that may not be reversible even with HRT... Do you have a suggestion for a word that might better express what I mean than aggressive?
And it is not an attack... If anyone feels like I am attacking them, please consider my post to include myself as one of those I'm talking about, as I am a trans girl too. :) Maybe you'd like me to re-word it as,
"I wonder if I'm more aggressive than genetic women because I'm trans, because it seems that is quite possible by looking at the forum posts here, and I wonder if that's also true with trans women in general"
To answer your question:
No.
Quote from: Sephirah on April 26, 2012, 09:50:39 AM
Also keep in mind that the anonymity of online forums may afford people the opportunity to be more... shall we say forthright, than they would otherwise be. So it's not really a good indicator of the way people are outside of this environment. It could be misleading.
I tend to think that most people's behaviors on forums are likely a more true version of who they really are since they don't have to worry about real repercussions. They can drop the filters they need to get along with flesh and blood people.
Quote from: Sephirah on April 26, 2012, 09:50:39 AM
It largely depends on the context and situation. People can be passionate when their identity and self-expression is called into question. And, unfortunately, that seems largely what most of the heated debates here situate around.
Hmmm I hadn't thought of that... that's a good point! Indeed, the discussions around the issues raised here are more likely to be heated and passionate...
Thanks for your input :)
Honestly, a lot of us are kinda ->-bleeped-<-ed up from trying to survive in rather... complicated bodies and situations. That can express itself in all kinds of ways depending on the person... but it wouldn't surprise me if we had a teeny bit more rage than a random sampling of the general population.
I have oceans of rage in me.
Quote from: Jaime on April 26, 2012, 10:25:25 AM
I tend to think that most people's behaviors on forums are likely a more true version of who they really are since they don't have to worry about real repercussions. They can drop the filters they need to get along with flesh and blood people.
That's a fair point. There is that to consider. I don't know, some people I know both online and offline... well... the disparity is quite startling. I guess it depends on how much importance is given to the interactions in a real-world environment with relation to how it goes towards shaping who we are. I suppose you can bridge the gap if you appreciate that people online are actually flesh-and-blood individuals, with emotions and distinct views that often differ from your own.
Every time my mother used to visit, who knew absolutely nothing about computers or the internet whatsoever, she would roll her eyes and say stuff like "don't you get bored talking to robots?". That's genuinely what she thought it was, that online was this sort of make-believe world where AI was all there was. I'm not sure that there aren't a few people who view it as the same, even when participating in that environment. It can remove some of the... humanity from the experience, for lack of a better word.
Quote from: Sarah7 on April 26, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
Honestly, a lot of us are kinda ->-bleeped-<-ed up from trying to survive in rather... complicated bodies and situations. That can express itself in all kinds of ways depending on the person... but it wouldn't surprise me if we had a teeny bit more rage than a random sampling of the general population.
I have oceans of rage in me.
Relax lil sis because most people have oceans of rage in them. However, be smart and let it just flow away and know your not alone hugs Danielle
Quote from: Sarah7 on April 26, 2012, 10:37:24 AM
Honestly, a lot of us are kinda ->-bleeped-<-ed up from trying to survive in rather... complicated bodies and situations. That can express itself in all kinds of ways depending on the person... but it wouldn't surprise me if we had a teeny bit more rage than a random sampling of the general population.
I have oceans of rage in me.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frogerlima.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F07%2Frage-woman.jpg&hash=b3294245b7a5b7bf9ad63602970a0eb458c40252)
Well, to be honest, for whatever reason, in terms of averages, MTFs as a group are noticeably more masculine than cis women on basically every count so... there ya go.
(And I'm not trying to convey some message here I'm just stating a fact in response to OP)
Quote from: pretty on April 26, 2012, 01:01:45 PM
Well, to be honest, for whatever reason, in terms of averages, MTFs as a group are noticeably more masculine than cis women on basically every count so... there ya go.
(And I'm not trying to convey some message here I'm just stating a fact in response to OP)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets1.thirddrawerdown.com%2Fstatic%2Ffiles%2Fassets%2Ff09a3796%2FArtistBrush_medium.jpg&hash=3e1ae69eb213e2ed1a8ebb95837fde9544f78dc0)
Just sayin'...
-Miki
I would tend to say that it's likely that in average, a trans woman is probably more aggressive than a genetic woman.
-They have probably received a male education (both from parents and conditioning from peers) impossible to entirely get rid of, which promotes more aggressivity than a female one, in general.
-They probably went through a lot, which is a factor promoting aggressivity.
-They have been exposed to testosterone for a long while, which creates aggressivity. It could very well have long-term effects on character, even after starting HRT.
-They have probably been forced to adopt "aggressive" (assertive?) comportments in order to either be allowed transition by professionals or be accepted by peers or family.
-They could have developed a reflex of aggressivity to keep people away, since relationships as male hurt them.
-They might have overcompensated their dysphoria, whilst in denial by adopting very masculine behaviours, including aggressivity, and kept the habit.
-They might feel they have a "trans identity" and pride to protect and bare teeth whenever it is menaced; in a similar fashion that some Blacks with a sad history could almost look for racist comments and jump the gun with every harmless comment that mentions Blacks.
-They might, in the contrary, want to absolutely not be trans, and react violently as soon as they feel they are not treated exactly like other females.
-They might have embraced a fiercely feminist attitude, which pushes women to "fight for their rights", so they tend to fight a whole lot, in a way that can remind of some feminists of the 70's (or 60's?) who went very extreme by accusing every man of willingly imprisoning them, burning the "evil symbol of submission" that was the bra, etc. In short, the attitude that many people have in front of adversity: they have been having crap, and when it goes too far, they either want the weight of that crap in gold, or ten times the amount of crap on who they (rightfully or not) blame for their hardships.
There are plenty of factors, many of which I probably haven't thought of, that makes our group prone to aggressive comportments.
Despite all that, I don't think that fundamentally, a transsexual tends to be more aggressive. The "illness" just happens to be likely to come with a package of related "risk factors".
Miki: What?
Quote from: A on April 26, 2012, 02:09:46 PM
Miki: What?
Sorry, that didn't translate the way it did in my head.
Personal opinion stated as established fact is baffling to me. It paints with the largest possible brush and fails any standard you could possibly apply to "facts."
It's this kind of off-the-cuff "conventional wisdom" that creates an environment where labels and blanket statements are accepted.
There is a huge difference between, "This is my take based on my experience..."
and
"I'm just stating a fact."
One is sharing while the other, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
-Miki
I will say this because I see it a lot. Traits that would to the observer make a cis woman strong, assertive, etc. while pretty much the same trait in a trans woman is often going to be seen as masculine just because they are trans. Goes to show much birth sex is going to always impact our perceptions whether we want it to or not.
Just the way I see it, not mean to be construed as factual information and no studies were done outside of general observation that is likely coloured by my own issues and misconceptions.
So there!
Well I will only speak for my experience...
When my little sister gets angry she will kick holes in walls, destroy anything in her path, throw knives, ram your car with hers, punch you when youre not looking, deface property, and curse up a typhoon...
Most I ever done was lock myself in my room....
Plus for the record I date an FTM and I' ve never been with someone so agressive and angry...and he's not even started T.
So it really just depends on the individual!!
Hmm, I always assume transwomen are less aggressive because I think they have less testosterone, lolz. I know that's prolly BS, but I still assume it. >.< I never thought of transwomen as more aggressive, lolz.
Quote from: MiaOhMya! on April 26, 2012, 02:50:08 PM
Well I will only speak for my experience...
When my little sister gets angry she will kick holes in walls, destroy anything in her path, throw knives, ram your car with hers, punch you when youre not looking, deface property, and curse up a typhoon...
Most I ever done was lock myself in my room....
Plus for the record I date an FTM and I' ve never been with someone so agressive and angry...and he's not even started T.
So it really just depends on the individual!!
I think your sister is just a scary person. o.o
Quote from: Miki on April 26, 2012, 02:17:19 PM
Sorry, that didn't translate the way it did in my head.
Personal opinion stated as established fact is baffling to me. It paints with the largest possible brush and fails any standard you could possibly apply to "facts."
It's this kind of off-the-cuff "conventional wisdom" that creates an environment where labels and blanket statements are accepted.
There is a huge difference between, "This is my take based on my experience..."
and
"I'm just stating a fact."
One is sharing while the other, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
-Miki
Lol well let me know if ya find info that cis women have a lesbian majority, mostly masculine jobs in male industries, a high percentage butch or dyke, with not much interest in fashion and beauty etc...
I'm just saying, if you look at the trend for everything else it is not a surprise that MTFs tend to be more aggressive and dominant.
Quote from: pretty on April 26, 2012, 07:21:37 PM
Lol well let me know if ya find info that cis women have a lesbian majority, mostly masculine jobs in male industries, a high percentage butch or dyke, with not much interest in fashion and beauty etc...
I'm just saying, if you look at the trend for everything else it is not a surprise that MTFs tend to be more aggressive and dominant.
Even if we are more masculine whyis that bad? Does that make us less than anything? No and this is coming from someone who is un-aggressive to a fault and was always femmininein behavior. This line of argument serves no purpose but to make others feel bad. :embarrassed:
...and from where are these stastistics coming?
A lack of interest in fashion can hardly be correlated with increased aggression...nor can ones job. Just sayin...
Quote from: A on April 26, 2012, 02:09:46 PM
-They might feel they have a "trans identity" and pride to protect and bare teeth whenever it is menaced; in a similar fashion that some Blacks with a sad history could almost look for racist comments and jump the gun with every harmless comment that mentions Blacks.
I think that fits me very well. Now that I think about it, my aggressive behavior seems to focus mostly on defense of my trans identity as well as defense of my race.
I think cis women and men express hostility in very different ways. Men punch each other, then get over it and grab a beer. Women, on the other hand, build up deep resentment and destroy each other with dirty looks and gossip -- I *really* noticed that when I went full-time.
But that's just generalizing.
Seems to me that trans people adopt these roles as they transition. True, they've been socialized from birth with the other gender's type of aggression, but I think that goes away pretty quickly.
Hormones definitely play a role. My reactions to conflict have changed *drastically* due to HRT. I'm much more prone to flee than fight, now. And I know exactly why -- it's the damn crying! A conflict happens, and I can't stop myself from bursting out in tears. So, I flee to get away from the person making me cry. As a guy, my reaction to conflict was anger. And the anger could only be addressed with confrontation.
I'm not sure that the fight-or-flee thing explains the different ways men and women express agression; but, it definitely plays a role in how they react to others.
-anna
A >>
Thank you so much for your detailed suggestions!
Quote from: A on April 26, 2012, 02:09:46 PM
Despite all that, I don't think that fundamentally, a transsexual tends to be more aggressive. The "illness" just happens to be likely to come with a package of related "risk factors".
That's another good point. Being trans may not directly lead to aggression, but the circumstances that being trans puts us in may make us more likely to be aggressive...
pretty >>
I hesitate to state that there's a lesbian majority amongst MtFs when I think about how very many hidden MtFs are actually out there that people don't know about. Still, I do think it's valid to comment that MtFs do seem more masculine than other women. I probably wouldn't state it strongly as fact unless I can find reputable sources to back that up, but as a general feeling, it does seem that way to me as well.
lecoeurdegrey >>
I'm glad to see that you suggest being more masculine not a bad thing! But if it's not a bad thing, can't we / why can't we talk about this possibility?
Like you I'd describe myself as quite girly too, yet, I'm definitely more "masculine" in some ways as well. Just that people don't tend to know it until they know me better, because, well, I don't usually say stuff like "well this handbag looks nice but this two-dimensional sub-manifold over here doesn't look very differentiable"... :P
I know from first hand they can be. My wife is a MTF and well when it is closer for her to take her hormones yes she can become very very hormonal and moody!!! I always make her take her hormone injections a day early that way she isn't as moody!!!
Quote from: lecoeurdegrey on April 26, 2012, 07:31:30 PM
Even if we are more masculine whyis that bad? Does that make us less than anything? No and this is coming from someone who is un-aggressive to a fault and was always femmininein behavior. This line of argument serves no purpose but to make others feel bad. :embarrassed:
Well, I didn't comment on whether it was good or bad, I was just offering it as an explanation to answer OP's question :)
Hi friends
It's rather simple really :) People are people
All the various personalities are going to be found among every grouping whether it be Trans, Cis, every combination of race you could dream of etc.
There will be more aggressive types and more timid types in varying degrees in every group
:police: Lets all make sure that this discussion stays on a discussion level and doesn't become argumentative
Quote from: V M on April 26, 2012, 08:55:07 PM
Hi friends
It's rather simple really :) People are people
All the various personalities are going to be found among every grouping whether it be Trans, Cis, every combination of race you could dream of etc.
There will be more aggressive types and more timid types in varying degrees in every group
:police: Lets all make sure that this discussion stays on a discussion level and doesn't become argumentative
Yes. If we don't, we'll prove ourselves more argumentative.
But yeah, I think MTF's are more argumentative than cis-women. At least lately, on this forum. No clue why. Just seems that way to me.
Perhaps because I have been on many other forums.
The rules here would work... if the posters would agree to the rules. Lately, many posters just seem to want to cut people down.
Forums are supposed to be a place for debate or at the very least, discussion. Yet this particular forum is not a place for argument, this forum is for support. A support forum is a noble idea yet... this idea is an oxymoron. A fatal flaw.
If you have a forum, you host debate. The rules here are not congruous with being a forum. Very few understand how to navigate this forum while sharing their personal opinions. Anybody here can be responsible for somebody else's suicide. And their "negative" comments will be left for others to read and blame.
But we are so affraid of suicide here... so we try to play by the rules... to keep others alive... yet we also wish to debate because this is a forum (read the definition of forum of you doubt me).
And good members are leaving...
Wonder why?
Aloha,
Tori
Quote from: apple pie on April 26, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
I'm glad to see that you suggest being more masculine not a bad thing! But if it's not a bad thing, can't we / why can't we talk about this possibility?
From a purely observational point of view, that is one of those things which naturally puts people on the defensive. If you look around this site, some of the most ferocious arguments have been over this exact thing. I suppose because, however isolated or innocuous people try to make discussion of this aspect, one of two things seem to inevitably happen:
1. People with a bug up their butt about something, who strongly believe that it
doesn't apply to them, use it as a stick to beat others over the head with by asserting the notion that
because it doesn't apply to them, that makes them somehow more genuine and everyone else fraudulent. Which leads to all kinds of assumptions being made and spurious conclusions being reached, causing people to take things personally or as an assault on their core identity, and the whole thing degrading into everyone trying to assert the legitimacy of their own sense of self with the initial discussion totally lost amid a sea of ad hominem attacks and petty bickering.
or
2. It makes people uneasy. Knowing that something is the case doesn't mean folks necessarily want to revel in it. And a lot of folks spend their time trying to get away from such things, or change their behavioural patterns. Acknowledging that some aspects of nature or nurture have led to some, perhaps innately undesired masculine traits within a person may trigger destructive thoughts of a life no longer lived, or wanted, and seen as something else that must be changed during an individual's transition... as a result of which, being reminded of it is bitterly uncomfortable.
Quote from: apple pie on April 26, 2012, 09:12:36 AM
Hello people,
Do you think trans women are more aggressive than genetic women?
It's an idea that came to mind while seeing how quite a few MtFs here can be quite aggressive...
Of course, so can genetic women! Just that it seems a bit frequent here to me...
And of course, this place isn't representative of all trans women either - after all, many who have moved on aren't here any more, and those people are, well, likely psychologically different from people here.
But what do you think?
Oh come on, surely we're past the demure, passive woman stereotype? The whole concept of this thread is silly and sexist.
Quote from: Sephirah on April 26, 2012, 09:29:07 PM
From a purely observational point of view, that is one of those things which naturally puts people on the defensive. If you look around this site, some of the most ferocious arguments have been over this exact thing. I suppose because, however isolated or innocuous people try to make discussion of this aspect, one of two things seem to inevitably happen:
1. People with a bug up their butt about something, who strongly believe that it doesn't apply to them, use it as a stick to beat others over the head with by asserting the notion that because it doesn't apply to them, that makes them somehow more genuine and everyone else fraudulent. Which leads to all kinds of assumptions being made and spurious conclusions being reached, causing people to take things personally or as an assault on their core identity, and the whole thing degrading into everyone trying to assert the legitimacy of their own sense of self with the initial discussion totally lost amid a sea of ad hominem attacks and petty bickering.
or
2. It makes people uneasy. Knowing that something is the case doesn't mean folks necessarily want to revel in it. And a lot of folks spend their time trying to get away from such things, or change their behavioural patterns. Acknowledging that some aspects of nature or nurture have led to some, perhaps innately undesired masculine traits within a person may trigger destructive thoughts of a life no longer lived, or wanted, and seen as something else that must be changed during an individual's transition... as a result of which, being reminded of it is bitterly uncomfortable.
Sephirah you make really well thought out comments! It is a pleasure to read them. :)
Yes, it's probably uncomfortable for many of us to be reminded that we are still masculine in some ways.
It seems that I am starting to forget how difficult transitioning and being a trans can be so hard for so many trans women... I should remember it and be more considerate accordingly.
Thank you so much for your input! :)
Quote from: Skyanne on April 27, 2012, 05:41:50 AM
Oh come on, surely we're past the demure, passive woman stereotype? The whole concept of this thread is silly and sexist.
I'm past thinking too simply that we are "equal" without qualification. I like to think that we are equal but different.
To me, men and women are equal in that we are all able to do the same things freely.
But men and women are not completely equal. After all, if they really were completely equal, then
- you and I would be men, because men = women
- we wouldn't need to change how we look at all, since looking like a man = looking like a woman
- we wouldn't need to change our voice, because men's voice = women's voice
- actually, we wouldn't need to be MtF or FtM, because M = F
Clearly, these are not true. Men and women ARE different. Their brains are different. I don't see why we must assume their aggression levels must be the same, unless we are obscured by ideals of equality.
Similarly, cis women and trans women are different (otherwise we wouldn't need the two different labels etc. etc.), and there is no automatic reason to assume their aggression levels are the same either...
We even had a TV program on a government TV channel here a while ago about whether white people are smarter than black people (and other races as well).
As an objective and well-presented program, there was no uproar or anything over its broadcast... but I imagine you would say it's racist :P
Interesting study applepie. Now you have me curious if trans people are smarter than regular people! ;D
Sephirah: that really was quite eloquent, and you aswell applepie...ya really bring up great points.
There are things I did as a male thay were stereotypically "masculine" dominated areas, like for example I love flying planes, and I know lots about cars...but does that make me masculine?
No, it doesn't...no more than a man who likes baking cupcakes is suddenly "feminine." They are just stereotypes...
Quote from: apple pie on April 27, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
I'm past thinking too simply that we are "equal" without qualification. I like to think that we are equal but different.
To me, men and women are equal in that we are all able to do the same things freely.
But men and women are not completely equal. After all, if they really were completely equal, then
- you and I would be men, because men = women
- we wouldn't need to change how we look at all, since looking like a man = looking like a woman
- we wouldn't need to change our voice, because men's voice = women's voice
- actually, we wouldn't need to be MtF or FtM, because M = F
Clearly, these are not true. Men and women ARE different. Their brains are different. I don't see why we must assume their aggression levels must be the same, unless we are obscured by ideals of equality.
Similarly, cis women and trans women are different (otherwise we wouldn't need the two different labels etc. etc.), and there is no automatic reason to assume their aggression levels are the same either...
That's an interesting way to look at it.
And really, what you just expressed is a lot of the reason very many people transition in the first place. To exorcise themselves of the physical and biochemical characteristics associated with their birth sex and attain the physical and biochemical characteristics that come with their percieved sex. I deliberately chose not to use the word gender there because, well speaking personally for a moment, my gender is the one thing which
doesn't change with transition, everything else just falls into line with it.
Reading through people's thoughts and experiences here, it becomes clear that in a lot of cases, both the transguys and transgirls here
know what the hormones of their birth sex do to their body and mental faculties. I would venture that's why a vast majority are so intent to stop the production of testosterone in the case of the women, or estrogen in the case of the guys. And why they are so eager to begin taking the hormones associated with their internal gender.
The thing I wouldn't necessarily say for certain is that these biochemical processes and the physical characteristics play a major role in determining how aggressive someone is, or how passive. And, by the same token how masculine or feminine they are with regard to their personality type. I'll try to explain my reasoning.
Imagine a brother and a sister who were split up when they were very young, when their parents divorced. The little lad went to live with one, and the little girl went to live with the other. For the purposes of this, it doesn't matter which is which. Now, imagine that the little girl was raised in an environment where she saw her parent regularly be aggressive towards everyone and everything. Imagine she saw her parent, and their friends, regularly get drunk and fight with each other. Imagine she was teased and bullied at school, and then, when she told her parent about it, she was told that the best way to deal with it was to "grow a backbone and give the SOB's a taste of their own medicine". Imagine she protested and was beaten for being a 'wimp'. So she learned to toughen up, she thought it was okay to beat people up because it's what she'd been taught to do, and because she was scared not to because she would be seen as weak. Imagine if the only thing she'd been subjected to while growing up was the instilled belief that in order to get respect from people, they have to be afraid of you.
Now, imagine the little boy was raised in an environment where he was taught to respect people, where
his parent always took the time to listen to him, to sit him down and talk to him when he had a problem. Imagine they did things together; went to the zoo, to museums and theme parks or what have you. Imagine they sat down together of an evening to eat dinner, talking over the day. Perhaps his parent worked for a charity in their spare time and took him along to see how sometimes people have it rough in life and to teach him that wherever possible he should be patient with them, and listen to them, and do whatever he could to help them. Imagine this lad was also teased and bullied at school, but when he told his parent about it, they responded with something like "they have problems of their own that cause them to act that way, you should feel sorry for them, not angry at them." And then his parent took the issue up with the school, all the while instilling in the little lad the belief that in order to get respect from people, you should earn it by doing the right thing when you can, and trying to understand everyone else and how they're different to yourself.
Now, imagine both these kids back together twenty years later, as adults, having lived their lives according to the beliefs they grew up with and their expressions of those outlooks on life. Who would you say is the most aggressive?
As long winded as that was, the point I'm trying to make is that no matter what your biochemical makeup, a propensity for something isn't the same as an active expression of something. That testosterone may make someone more prone to aggression doesn't necessarily equate that everyone who's ever come into contact with it will inevitably turn out that way. I think personally that such traits are more habitual than inherent, and the
expression of such is far more dependant on your core beliefs and philosophies, how you were brought up and how you see other people rather than what you do because it's hardwired into you. And in that, men and women (both cis and trans) are all blank canvasses, just waiting to be painted with life experiences which illustrate them as individuals beyond simply their sex.
...
Not sure if that made sense but that's just my personal view. :)
Quote from: apple pie on April 27, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
We even had a TV program on a government TV channel here a while ago about whether white people are smarter than black people (and other races as well).
As an objective and well-presented program, there was no uproar or anything over its broadcast... but I imagine you would say it's racist :P
Ok, let me make it clear that I am white and am not bashing this because it weakens me. I'm posting because this type of study usually has a built in bias.
Surely you have seen cases where they tracked test scores to cultural concepts. Wasn't there a big one a while back about a lot of yachting terms on a standardized test that made it appear that children is that social class were smarter than others that didn't yacht. You always have to be careful about test bias.
And then there is environmental bias, a student at a struggling inner city school won't have the same resources as a student that attends a school in a richer area.
So unless they fully disclosed how they avoided those biases it could have well be extremely racist.
Remember there are "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". With the right questions to the right population one can make a survey say whatever they want.
***EDIT***
And just to make some people think, before you say well yet again here is proof you are so masculine, keep in mind this is about CHILDREN. Isn't protecting children a feminine trait? See how easy it is to make arbitrary distinctions to divide us up. We are all part of the whole, yes each part is different, but please don't cut off our hands to spite our feet.
As I said before the initial post seemed trollish, but I know that some of the follow ups WERE trolls.
If looked at from a practical point of view instead of a 'legitimacy' view, it makes total sense that a girl raised as and expected to be a boy would have more masculine traits than your average girl who was treated as and expected to be a girl from birth (that was run-on but you get the point).
And as mentioned before, aggressiveness does not equal male. It just takes a different tone. Women compete and tear each other down just as much as (and arguably more) than men. And the girlier, more 'feminine' girls tend to be the worst offenders.
The 'passivity of women' is a myth, probably born out of their general smaller and weaker physicality. Of course a 5ft 100 lb (and possibly pregnant) person would be more likely to run from a saber tooth tiger or something than a 6ft 200 lb one. That doesn't say anything about how much they like to argue. :laugh:
Quote from: apple pie on April 27, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
I'm past thinking too simply that we are "equal" without qualification. I like to think that we are equal but different.
To me, men and women are equal in that we are all able to do the same things freely.
But men and women are not completely equal. After all, if they really were completely equal, then
- you and I would be men, because men = women
- we wouldn't need to change how we look at all, since looking like a man = looking like a woman
- we wouldn't need to change our voice, because men's voice = women's voice
- actually, we wouldn't need to be MtF or FtM, because M = F
Clearly, these are not true. Men and women ARE different. Their brains are different. I don't see why we must assume their aggression levels must be the same, unless we are obscured by ideals of equality.
Similarly, cis women and trans women are different (otherwise we wouldn't need the two different labels etc. etc.), and there is no automatic reason to assume their aggression levels are the same either...
We even had a TV program on a government TV channel here a while ago about whether white people are smarter than black people (and other races as well).
As an objective and well-presented program, there was no uproar or anything over its broadcast... but I imagine you would say it's racist :P
It's nothing to do with being exactly equal in every way, it's just a non-sense idea based on the out dated notion that women are demure and passive where men are aggressive.
And yes, I would say that Tv program was racist. The actual study was performed on a culture unfair IQ test, and so highly slanted towards levels of education. Something white people have better access to. It was essentially non-sense, white power propaganda and is not taken seriously.
"Science" is frequently misused in an attempt to justify bias, but that is an absolutely backwards approach to real science.
Quote from: Sephirah on April 27, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
As long winded as that was, the point I'm trying to make is that no matter what your biochemical makeup, a propensity for something isn't the same as an active expression of something. That testosterone may make someone more prone to aggression doesn't necessarily equate that everyone who's ever come into contact with it will inevitably turn out that way. I think personally that such traits are more habitual than inherent, and the expression of such is far more dependant on your core beliefs and philosophies, how you were brought up and how you see other people rather than what you do because it's hardwired into you. And in that, men and women (both cis and trans) are all blank canvasses, just waiting to be painted with life experiences which illustrate them as individuals beyond simply their sex.
...
Not sure if that made sense but that's just my personal view. :)
Yup I get your point! Basically, the difference may be due to the different environments we grew up in. (It's the same point that "Forum Admin" is making as well, I believe.) It's not necessarily because of physical differences at birth. Men and women, and trans women and cis women, may behave differently because of the corresponding upbringings that they have.
But what environmental factors cause the differences are probably not simple. For example, by the time I was in my final year of my maths course at university, only about 10% of my classmates were girls; everyone else was guys. That's despite the fact that there were twice as many female students as male students at my university; we even had more female science students than male ones.
It's not a matter of ability, because amongst those people I know who willingly do mathematics, the boys and girls performed pretty much identically. But the more advanced the courses are, the fewer the number of girls doing mathematics. Furthermore, girls who do mathematics overwhelmingly prefer applied mathematics over pure mathematics. (There was only one other girl doing pure mathematics in my final year. And only one female pure mathematics lecturer...)
So what factors are causing this difference? Social expectations? It doesn't seem like it. Many girls I knew in high school clearly genuinely hated mathematics, despite doing really well in it, but not the guys. Simply put, it seems to just be that girls like maths less than boys, and a lot less too generally speaking. Why is that?
And while I don't know any other trans mathematician / mathematics student yet, as a pure mathematics person myself, I belonged to this group that was 90%+ male. I think it is safe to say that other advanced mathematics courses at our universities have predominantly male membership as well. Thinking in terms of likely reasoning, it seems natural (and I've always feel tempted) to say that, well, having had a male upbringing / having been born male / other stuff associated with "male" is associated with ending up doing pure mathematics... doesn't it? Despite me being quite girly otherwise...
By the way, in cultural studies, something I'm now doing (yes, I know, nothing to do with maths at all, but anyway), there seems to be no contention that male and female are different. Gender differences in a very wide variety of situations are studied. They don't avoid suggesting that male and female are different...
Quote from: Skyanne on April 27, 2012, 04:31:20 PM
And yes, I would say that Tv program was racist. The actual study was performed on a culture unfair IQ test, and so highly slanted towards levels of education. Something white people have better access to. It was essentially non-sense, white power propaganda and is not taken seriously.
I did say the TV program was objective and well presented, didn't I? Why would you think that it'd present a study like that as truth, and that it concluded white people are smarter? If it did, there would have been an uproar over it, which there wasn't.
Sure, at some point, it did interview someone who insisted that white people are smarter (and that Asians are even smarter). But it was immediately followed by someone who explained the flaws in such a study, such as those you mentioned. If the program was racist, then so would what you just said be :P (The program was presented by a black person as well... not that it should matter)
Quote from: apple pie on April 28, 2012, 04:07:08 AM
Yup I get your point! Basically, the difference may be due to the different environments we grew up in. (It's the same point that "Forum Admin" is making as well, I believe.) It's not necessarily because of physical differences at birth. Men and women, and trans women and cis women, may behave differently because of the corresponding upbringings that they have.
But what environmental factors cause the differences are probably not simple. For example, by the time I was in my final year of my maths course at university, only about 10% of my classmates were girls; everyone else was guys. That's despite the fact that there were twice as many female students as male students at my university; we even had more female science students than male ones.
It's not a matter of ability, because amongst those people I know who willingly do mathematics, the boys and girls performed pretty much identically. But the more advanced the courses are, the fewer the number of girls doing mathematics. Furthermore, girls who do mathematics overwhelmingly prefer applied mathematics over pure mathematics. (There was only one other girl doing pure mathematics in my final year. And only one female pure mathematics lecturer...)
So what factors are causing this difference? Social expectations? It doesn't seem like it. Many girls I knew in high school clearly genuinely hated mathematics, despite doing really well in it, but not the guys. Simply put, it seems to just be that girls like maths less than boys, and a lot less too generally speaking. Why is that?
And while I don't know any other trans mathematician / mathematics student yet, as a pure mathematics person myself, I belonged to this group that was 90%+ male. I think it is safe to say that other advanced mathematics courses at our universities have predominantly male membership as well. Thinking in terms of likely reasoning, it seems natural (and I've always feel tempted) to say that, well, having had a male upbringing / having been born male / other stuff associated with "male" is associated with ending up doing pure mathematics... doesn't it? Despite me being quite girly otherwise...
By the way, in cultural studies, something I'm now doing (yes, I know, nothing to do with maths at all, but anyway), there seems to be no contention that male and female are different. Gender differences in a very wide variety of situations are studied. They don't avoid suggesting that male and female are different...
That's very interesting, and made me think about what could contribute to the way a person is in relation to what they do and what they enjoy. Taking your example of mathematics, a subject I am largely apathetic about, lol, I was curious to find out what sort of factors could influence this difference in who studies it.
Something interesting I came across while doing a bit of research into it, which I would like to post and get your thoughts on:
From: http://www.nncc.org/curriculum/sac52_math.science.girls.html
QuoteWHY THE GENDER GAP?
Until recently, it was believed that male-female differences in math and science were caused by biology. In other words, girls' and boys' brains are different, so they are better suited for different things. The notion is that boys have superior spatial abilities, making them better suited for certain mathematical manipulations. Girls, on the other hand, are supposed to be better at language and writing. Evidence shows that boys do excel in math, and girls appear to do better in verbal-related skills. But are these differences a result of biology, or do other factors play a role?
More recently, researchers have focused on the influence of the social environment on children's math and science achievement. Very early on, boys are given the chance to tinker with toys or objects (for example, building blocks, Legos, racing cars, and simple machines) that involve many of the principles inherent in math and science. Girls often lack these experiences, so they enter math and science classrooms feeling insecure about their abilities. Girls then begin to believe they cannot do math and science as well as boys. This belief is consistent with a stereotype in our culture that defines math and science as male domains. That is, males are better suited for math and science, and math and science are more useful to males than to females. Also, personality traits attributed to mathematicians and scientists are associated more with males. Mathematicians and scientists are often thought to be competitive, achievement-oriented, and not very social.
Parents, teachers, or school counselors who believe these stereotypes are less likely to encourage or support a young girl's decisions to take math and science in high school and beyond. It has been found that when parents believe boys are better at math than girls, they are willing to let their daughters drop out of math class when the going gets tough. With sons, however, the same parents encourage persistence. In the classroom, teachers, often unaware of their own biases, call on boys more, praise boys more for correct answers, and are more likely to ask boys for help in science and math demonstrations. The message girls get is that they are not as good as boys.
It seems more complex, as you say, than saying it's because boys are built one way and girls another. If the above has any sort of merit, it would suggest that were girls treated in the same way as boys in terms of encouragement and/or percieved ability, that the difference wouldn't be quite so marked. And that suggests that it's not as a result of someone's biological "maleness" or "femaleness", or at least not in an overriding way. In other words nurture rather than nature plays a definite part in it.
Yes,
But...
This is a "chicken or the egg" theory.
For example:
Do men excell at math because of their upbringing, or are they brought up to excell at math because they do?
This is turning into a great discussion.
Hello again Sephirah! :)
Thanks for showing me the link! I somehow have the impression I've come across that page myself before. The science part seems a valid theory, but unfortunately, the math part doesn't really match my observations; let me explain.
Firstly, I did already have in mind that boys and girls may seem like they perform differently because girls are somehow discouraged from doing mathematics. So in my previous post, I was only considering the girls who clearly did well in mathematics; it happens that there was no shortage of such girls at my high school... (And as for the teacher factor, my maths teacher actually regularly picked the girls to answer questions more than the boys! Needless to say, the girls answered as well as the boys would)
Back then, I was in a really tightly knit group of five other girl friends plus me, and we always did everything together, from having lunch to sitting together during class, except when I HAD to be separate from them for sports etc. (since I was still living as a guy) In particular, we'd study together and discuss our school work together, so I knew really well how brilliant they were at mathematics (well, and at all the science subjects they were doing... they did better than me actually). However, they also expressed repeatedly their hatred for mathematics very strongly, e.g. "I SWEAR I'll never touch this stuff again after high school", whereas they didn't hate the other science subjects.
So what I was puzzled about was this: The girls at my school were doing brilliantly in mathematics, and had full confidence in their mathematical abilities. Yet they still passionately hated mathematics. Furthermore, it did not apply at all to science subjects; many of them even went on to do science at university. And as I said, there were actually more female science students than male ones at my university as well (though compared to the overall 2-to-1 female-to-male ratio for the whole university, there was still a considerably lower female-to-male ratio for science). And my girl classmates in maths at uni overwhelmingly did
applied mathematics, as if the mix of mathematics and science appealed to them more than pure mathematics...
So it seems to me that this asymmetry occurs only in mathematics, and not other sciences; it doesn't seem to be a confidence issue either... So the page you linked to doesn't quite ring true to me for maths. Nevertheless, I think it is a valid theory for the difference seen in other sciences :)
So... what are other possible factors that cause so many girls to hate maths?
The page you linked to also mentioned briefly this "girls - language" association; I feel obliged to remark that I am actually as good in languages as I am in mathematics... but I haven't really thought carefully about what implications that might have yet. I am good at, and enjoy, logical mathematical operations, but I am also good at, and enjoy, writing well-polished essays. Did my upbringing encourage me to develop myself in language skills? It doesn't seem like it... In fact, in my early teens, I nagged my parents to let me learn two foreign languages outside school (since where I come from, they generally don't teach foreign languages other than English, unlike in Western countries); it wasn't my parents who wanted me to do so. I was in a boys' school at the time too (I changed schools later), so it wasn't influence from girls either. So why did I want to learn languages, and why did I do well in them, without obvious upbringing factors? Again, it makes me feel tempted to take the "easy way out" and make that brain difference argument thing, but I want to try to consider other possible reasons first...
Quote from: Tori on April 28, 2012, 06:36:00 AM
This is a "chicken or the egg" theory.
Totally off-topic, but not so long ago, there was a news article on BBC that reported a hen giving birth to a chick without first laying the egg. So, apparently the chick came first :D
(Don't worry I know what you mean)
I think it's not quite chicken-and-egg though. It doesn't feel like to me that parents encourage boys to do well in science only when they do well in it...
QuoteSo... what are other possible factors that cause so many girls to hate maths?
Short of saying "you'd have to ask them", my honest answer is that I don't know. One thing I would say, however, is that compulsory education where you don't choose what you study, you just have to do it whether you like it or not... well I don't think it's quite the same thing as education you choose to undertake. And often classes are taught to the lowest common denominator - so kids who are, shall we say, a bit smarter than the average bear... well, they feel a distinct lack of challenge and lessons are inherently unappealing to them. I mean, my maths teacher was a crashing bore. His voice was monotonous and his teaching style was akin to dragging your fingernails down a chalkboard. He did nothing to make maths fun. At all. So by the time I was done with the compulsory lessons, I figured the only way I'd be studying it further would be tied to a chair with a gun to my head.
Speaking from my own experiences of school, which are no doubt different to your own (and that's partly the point), it was actually the boys in my class which professed to hate maths. Mainly because the cool boys hated it, because they were of the "I come to school to work on my social life, not to study" types. And since the cool boys were, well, cool (apparently), the vast majority of the other boys tried to mimic this behaviour thinking it would make them 'cool' too.
Maybe that's a factor in your experiences. Peer pressure. Or maybe it's a cultural difference between countries. Or maybe celebrity culture. I don't think there's just one cause that links every single girl who doesn't like maths in school, or boys who do. I think if you asked each of those girls why they didn't like maths, they'd give you a different answer.
To illustrate, I found an article from one of the newspapers in the UK, talking about the situation over here (where I live). It made for fascinating reading and maybe you'd like to take a look at it. According to this article, the difference in girls and boys who study maths, while still marked, is nowhere near as striking as the one you're talking about. Which again may be a cultural difference or something else.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/maths-reform/9126371/Make-Britain-Count-Are-girls-really-worse-at-maths-than-boys.html
Dispite the title, the article talks about more than just aptitude. It's really worth a read.
This discussion is a prime example of why I try not to generalise and believe more that each individual is a complex amalgam of everything they've experienced, biochemistry, culture, beliefs, upbringing, those around them, emotional baggage and lord knows what else. It's fascinating to see how other people think and feel about things.
QuoteSo why did I want to learn languages, and why did I do well in them, without obvious upbringing factors? Again, it makes me feel tempted to take the "easy way out" and make that brain difference argument thing, but I want to try to consider other possible reasons first...
Maybe neurological factors
do play a part. I don't know for sure. Maybe you watched tv shows in foreign languages and wanted to learn them, or saw pictures in books of the countries associated with the languages and that instilled a desire to learn them... or maybe knowing that since you couldn't learn them at school, it would have to be something you did on your own initiative. Maybe it was a display of independence and an affirmation of growing up, taking responsibility for yourself.
As for why you did well in them. It could just be, as I suspect, that you're a highly intelligent individual.
Who knows, other than you? And that's really I guess the point I want to leave this on. That's the reason we encourage people to see a therapist when dealing with gender issues, on a one-to-one basis, so that how everything relates to that particular individual can be explored and decisions reached free from generalisations, bias and stereotypes. Issues can be explored on a deeply personal level, integrating the physical issues associated with dysphoria, for example, rather than just the mental issues of what constitutes being who you are.
The best any of us can do is theorise and hypothesise about why this or that may be the way it is. Short of getting inside someone else's head, experiencing their emotions and living their lives, that's really the best we can hope for. And while it makes for fascinating discussion, as in this case, the final say on whether someone is one thing or another lies, in my opinion, with the individual themselves.
I wonder if this plays a role in the girl/math issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-grant-halvorson-phd/girls-confidence_b_828418.html
Girls are led to believe their skills are innate; when something isn't readily solved, they may assume they simply aren't good at it. Math has more 'problems to be solved' that may take a few tries than less tangible subjects like language.