Quote from: Nicky on April 06, 2010, 07:57:42 PM
Well, I think there is a thing that is constructed that you can call gender. But I also think gender covers other things as well, non constructed things.

Okay, let's explore that. Take two human beings and strip them of all socialisation.
What determines their gender?

Exactly.

Perhaps they would create their own differentiation, I think they would, driven by some unseen force, might as well call it gender. (assuming they are of differening genders - but you might need more than two to get some good collective differentiation going)

Or lets say one had a male body and the other a female. The male one might have a desire to be like their female companion in body and voice and look. Does that make them 'female gendered'? I think it does. But without socialisation their would have no words for it, just an unnamed desire.

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 08:02:52 PM
Okay, let's explore that. Take two human beings and strip them of all socialisation.
What determines their gender?

That's a non-question.  It's like saying, pretend we have a circle with four sides -- is it still a circle?  There are sentences you can make with words that at first seem completely logical, but you're not really talking about anything grounded in reality.

I think it is a good thought exercise.

I good analogy might be sexuality. Take two people stripped of socialisation. Would their sexuality be a blank slate? I don't think anyone would expect that to be the case. I think they same could be said for your 'innate' sense of gender.

If there was no innate sense of 'gender', what makes us transgendered?

I think the 'gender' I am talking about is a different concept to the 'gender' casorse is talking about.

Socially what it means to be male or female is different depending on the culture. But there is a differentiation in every culture. I think this is because our internal gender. It is not so much how thing, but a differntiation thing. i.e. I am different from you but similar to these people, how can we express that? Tadaa social gender is born.

Quote from: Nicky on April 06, 2010, 08:13:15 PM
Exactly.

Perhaps they would create their own differenciation, I think they would, driven by some unseen force, might as well call it gender. (assuming they are of differening genders - but you might need more than two to get some good collective differenciation going)

Or lets say one had a male body and the other a female. The male one might have a desire to be like their female companion in body and voice and look. Does that make them 'female gendered'? I think it does. But without socialisation their would have no words for it, just an unnamed desire.

You didn't really answer the question.
Without socialisation, what determines their gender?

---

Post Merge: April 06, 2010, 08:21:27 PM

---

Quote from: Ketsy on April 06, 2010, 08:14:36 PM
That's a non-question.  It's like saying, pretend we have a circle with four sides -- is it still a circle?  There are sentences you can make with words that at first seem completely logical, but you're not really talking about anything grounded in reality.

It is not a non-question.
It's an uncomfortable question, which you don't want to explore, so you're declaring it a non-question to avoid confronting it.

As I believe that gender is preset in the womb. It is hard wired and socilization does not matter.

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 08:20:07 PM
You didn't really answer the question.
Without socialisation, what determines their gender?

I thought I did.
They do themselves of course. In the absence of external guides they will make up what that means to them. I.e. they will socialise themselves.

I think you are talking about the expression of gender, which to me is flexible. But in the absence of socialisation this expression would not exist. But they will create it I think, driven by internal need.
Internally what determines it is brain stuff - physiological I think.

Just put on my mod hat here - please try not to make it personal casorse. Ketsy attacked your question, don't attack her personally back. Please PM me direct if you have an issue with this (you can do this now that you have 15 posts)

Cheers
Nicki

mod hat off

Quote from: cynthialee on April 06, 2010, 08:24:14 PM
As I believe that gender is preset in the womb.

There's certainly a lot of credibility to that theory.

QuoteIt is hard wired and socilization does not matter.

How does one express gender without socialisation?

---

Post Merge: April 06, 2010, 06:32:56 PM

---

Quote from: Nicky on April 06, 2010, 08:29:39 PM
I thought I did.
They do themselves of course. In the absence of external guides they will make up what that means to them.

So until they have manufactured a new set of social constructs, gender remains an intangible 'feeling'?

---

Post Merge: April 06, 2010, 07:33:53 PM

---

Nicki - just edited out the last bit, will talk to your through pm.

I think so, I think it would be an intangible feeling.

My feeling of being a woman is rather intangable. What do you think? Seems plausable to me and agrees with the idea of gender being hard wired.

Quote from: Nicky on April 06, 2010, 08:42:09 PM
I think so, I think it would be an intangible feeling.

My feeling of being a woman is rather intangable. What do you think? Seems plausable to me and agrees with the idea of gender being hard wired.

I think that as a child, I analysed (fairly unconsciously) the males and females around me and decided (unconsciously at first and later consciously) that I'd much rather be like the female than the males - that it was better to be female than male.
What caused my tiny brain to decide that being female was preferable is an exercise in wild speculation.
But I definitely wanted to be female.

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 08:20:07 PM
It is not a non-question.
It's an uncomfortable question, which you don't want to explore, so you're declaring it a non-question to avoid confronting it.

I have no discomfort with the question such as it is, and please don't make assumptions about me when you don't know me.

If you want to know my personal take on the subject, I personally don't believe that the idea of 'gender' or 'sex' as binary qualities accurately represent the reality of human experience. Personally I find that the behaviors that feel comfortable and natural to me are identified by society as 'female' behaviors, and that the way I would like my body to be matches up with what society calls 'female'.  But the question of 'was I born female?' doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I was born me.  'female' is a word other people use to describe a set of behaviors and attributes, and you can scarcely find two people that agree on what all of those attributes are.  So from my perspective, 'male' and 'female', 'girl' and 'boy', 'man' and 'woman' are all just words we use out of convenience, rather than describing some essential quality of people.  You can call me a girl if you want and I'll be happy to take up that label, because I like the way the word sounds and I like a lot of the associations that come with it.  But 'girl' or 'woman' or whatever does not define me -- I define me.

Quote from: Ketsy on April 06, 2010, 08:47:14 PM
and you can scarcely find two people that agree on what all of those attributes are.

I respectfully disagree. I think it is extremely easy to find two people who agree on what those attributes are.
That is why we have such well defined gender stereotypes.

Hey good debate guys! Really enjoying it.

Just thinking back Casorce. At one point I did have a feeling that I wanted to be female. I was a little boy that did not feel I was a boy and wanted to be a girl.

But somehow my perception changed. Now I look back and I always was a female. K8 on this site was someone who seemed to have a similar shift in perception, as they mentioned earlier in this topic, it came as something of a revalation I think.

We should probably factor in perception here and perception can shift.

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 08:49:32 PM
I respectfully disagree. I think it is extremely easy to find two people who agree on what those attributes are.
That is why we have such well defined gender stereotypes.

I was particular about what I said:

"you can scarcely find two people that agree on what all of those attributes are"

Many people can agree that a particular quality is 'feminine', most people can agree on a number of qualities that are feminine, but few people will agree on every single quality that they consider feminine.

As for well-defined gender stereotypes, I disagree there.  I think there are well-defined personality stereotypes that can be divided along gender lines: the cheating husband, slutty bar girl, macho weightlifter, prim and proper librarian, ditzy blonde, butch dyke, and so on ad nauseum.

So there are behaviors and attributes that can be qualified as 'masculine' or 'feminine' based on the fact that they appear more frequently in one gender or the other, but it's not a clear cut definition that all girls are X and all guys are Y, because any time you try to make that definition there are a million examples of people that don't fit in.  This is the incredible spectrum of human diversity.  Dividing it in two, as male and female, is a matter of convenience.  It makes it easier to function in society for the most part, except when interacting with people who don't fit into the binary in the way that you expect them to.

Quote from: Ketsy on April 06, 2010, 09:25:22 PM
I was particular about what I said:

"you can scarcely find two people that agree on what all of those attributes are"

That can be applied to anything; it's difficult to find two people who agree on the minutiae of virtually any moderately complex issue.
However we very rarely examine the minutiae of such issues.
So I don't see how that is at all relevant.

QuoteMany people can agree that a particular quality is 'feminine', most people can agree on a number of qualities that are feminine, but few people will agree on every single quality that they consider feminine.

Which tells me that it is extremely easy to define someone or something as feminine.

QuoteAs for well-defined gender stereotypes, I disagree there.  I think there are well-defined personality stereotypes that can be divided along gender lines: the cheating husband, slutty bar girl, macho weightlifter, prim and proper librarian, ditzy blonde, butch dyke, and so on ad nauseum.

Those are sub-stereotypes within broader stereotypes.

QuoteSo there are behaviors and attributes that can be qualified as 'masculine' or 'feminine' based on the fact that they appear more frequently in one gender or the other, but it's not a clear cut definition that all girls are X and all guys are Y, because any time you try to make that definition there are a million examples of people that don't fit in.  This is the incredible spectrum of human diversity.  Dividing it in two, as male and female, is a matter of convenience.  It makes it easier to function in society for the most part, except when interacting with people who don't fit into the binary in the way that you expect them to.

I agree.

In a world devoid of gender demarcations (such as clothing identified as female/male or certain behaviours/activites gendered as male/female), do you think trans people would still exist?

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 09:41:41 PM
Which tells me that it is extremely easy to define someone or something as feminine.

Right, except the trouble comes when trying to define 'female' as a gender.  Plenty of guys are into 'feminine' things, and women into 'masculine' things, but despite this we generally say that guys are male and women are female -- except when people stop fitting into those boxes.  Some gay guys are into lots of feminine things, maybe even more feminine things than masculine things, and yet they identify as male.  How do we explain that?  If this essence of gender identity is not tied to the qualities that we normally divide up among people as feminine and masculine, what's the point of dividing those qualities up in the first place?  What does 'female' mean if it doesn't (necessarily) mean 'feminine'?

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 09:41:41 PM
That can be applied to anything; it's difficult to find two people who agree on the minutiae of virtually any moderately complex issue.
However we very rarely examine the minutiae of such issues.
So I don't see how that is at all relevant.

Exactly -- it's a moderately complex issue.  And yet many people will tell you it's simple (not that I agree with them): penis = man, vagina = woman.  If it's so complex, why the need to make it seem so simple?

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 09:41:41 PM
In a world devoid of gender demarcations (such as clothing identified as female/male or certain behaviours/activites gendered as male/female), do you think trans people would still exist?

That's a tricky question.  Is 'trans' short for 'transgender' or 'transsexual'?

Quote from: Ketsy on April 06, 2010, 09:56:59 PM
Some gay guys are into lots of feminine things, maybe even more feminine things than masculine things, and yet they identify as male.  How do we explain that?

By them enjoying being gendered as male and liking their penis a hell of a lot!

QuoteThat's a tricky question.  Is 'trans' short for 'transgender' or 'transsexual'?

For the purpose of the question: both.

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 10:07:07 PM
By them enjoying being gendered as male and liking their penis a hell of a lot!

Being gendered as male by who?  If by themselves, then what does that mean?  Or, if by others, then we're back to the situation where gender is defined by how others treat us, and hence a societal construction.

Quote from: casorce on April 06, 2010, 10:07:07 PM
For the purpose of the question: both.

Then we have to figure out what you mean by 'a world without gender demarcations'.  In my mind that means a world where the concept of 'gender' doesn't exist, and there is only the concept of biological sex.  In that world, 'transgender' isn't really a meaningful term.  As for 'transsexual', then to me that would mean someone who wanted the physical attributes of the opposite sex, and since that's generally part of what transsexual people in reality experience, then yes I think transsexual people would exist.

I'm not sure how there could be a world without gender demarcations, but with some concept of 'gender', but if you have some idea then feel free to fill me in.

Quote from: Ketsy on April 06, 2010, 11:42:09 PM

I'm not sure how there could be a world without gender demarcations, but with some concept of 'gender', but if you have some idea then feel free to fill me in.

We're slowly moving toward such a world.
Look at it this way: a world where there isn't any particular gender attached to any action or item of clothing - i.e. both men and women freely wear skirts and makeup, play football or box.

The fact that something's socially constructed doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't arise from a biological predisposition. Language, for instance, is socially constructed in its specifics - it's perhaps the ultimate cultural artifact - but our brains are naturally predisposed to learn it, create it, and work with it within a very particular non-arbitrary set of rules.

The specifics of gender performance and identity are arguably socially constructed. That doesn't mean gender doesn't exist, or that there's no biological reason for an individual human to identify with one side or the other of a binary gender system differentiated primarily by visible physical sex. As far as we know, all human societies are structured in more or less this way.

And humans are highly social animals that can't be studied effectively in isolation from our social environment. A human who isn't socialized around other humans isn't a healthy individual, and is most certainly not existing in their 'default' natural state.