Nothing isn't influenced by the environment the being is living in.
The growth of a human goes like this:
- Genes first.
- Environment second.

It's not really the culture that made the stereotypes.
I mean if you would have a small community of 50 people, let's say 25 men and 25 women (with some children here and there) living in the woods. Do you think the community would be just fine if women would hunt for food while men take care of the kids? I'm pretty sure that 90% of the time it would be a disaster unless all the dudes are like Chris Crocker and all the ladies like Buck Angel.

After thousands of years of using this formula (Which wasn't really a trend by the way, most civilizations in the world had gender-oriented roles because it worked best because of how we're made, not because of cultural pressure) we stopped using it because we simply do not need it anymore. We don't live in the wild, constantly struggling for survival, fighting bears and fishing with spears. We do not need gender-roles anymore.

Oriole, that hypothesis has already been halfway disproved. I say halfway because we no longer need to hunt for food and, therefore, we have no idea if it would be a disaster or not or what the women would look like. However, lots of dads take care of their children. I have known several stay at home dads. It is proven fact that it is not a disaster. It is also fact that most of them do not look like Chris Crocker. Not to mention that being a good parent requires a heck of a lot more logic and physical strength than you are suggesting.
Would you mind linking your resources for information about genes and personality? It's a subject I am very interested in.

I have no sources for what I am saying, everything I write are mostly theories that makes total sense to me.

Even if we don't need to hunt for food anymore it doesn't mean that my hypothesis has been ''half disproved''. I know that there are ''lots of dads that take care of their children'', and I really hope so, but what I mean is that a certain gender is usually better at something than the other is.
I'm talking about how we're designed, not what we can or cannot do.

There is the 'issue' between the 'self' and the 'ego' - if we look at gender, forgetting physical sex for a moment.

Some would argue that the 'feeling' as what one is, e.g. male, female, ... is a 'perception of the self' the real self i.e. something quite fixed and independent of our physical sex.

Our 'ego' is trained by our surrounding culture and those expectations that are placed 'into' us. Parents, peers, religion, etc.
If we can not 'feed' (constantly reaffirm) our ego, we are usually lost, depressed, confused, frightened, scared, etc. as we do not seem to please, to fit in with others, disappoint them –not being good enough- etc.

Ego-feeding is what even makes us post here at Susan's. Ego is what makes us desperate to pass, to pass expectations, to pass 'inspection' of what we have been trained to accept as to what is right - and what is not.

The problem starts if the self and the ego do not align. Transitioning is the self, asserting itself, yet the ego will suffer, suffer a LOT in the process.

Gender (brain sex) as I understand it is part of the self, the ego will try and align with our physical sex, - so we fit expectations - of what we are taught (ego training) for physical sex to be "right" – and what is not.

I think gender, brain sex, is as fixed as is physical sex, (along a scale though, as much as is physical sex BTW) and it becomes an issue if the two are not aligned, as the ego will constantly have to 'subdue' the self in order to fit and align oneself.

This BTW, does not only apply to gender issues. If our ego is too much misaligned with our real/inner-self, we have any sort of other issues, which very often require therapy to become more accepting of the needs of our REAL self - as opposed to the TRAINED ego.


I hope this will make some sense,
Axélle

Quote from: Edge on May 18, 2012, 06:07:55 PM
Meet me and my siblings. One is cis female, one is cis male, and one is fluid.

:-) Not exactly a scientific experiment though....

--Jay Jay

I am very wary on a strong belief in genes, I think they are used to explain away people too easily. I also think that believing in genes allows people to not take responsibility for their lives, people can just claim 'the genes did it' and not take control and feel a sense of self-determination and free will.

Genes exist. Whether or not they have any affect on personality has yet to be determined. They are not completely understood yet (not nearly). It's all very fascinating.
So if someone claims that "their genes made them do it" or something like that, feel free to ask for evidence.

How could I say this...
Let's say that you are a tree.
You genes would decide which kind of tree you are.
Your environment would decide how you would grow.

Genes affect our personality in the sense that if we wouldn't have the same exact ones as we do right now, we would be totally different.
Pica Pica, I can understand your point of view, but it doesn't change the fact genes do exist and they have a very, very strong effect on how we work. But I do not think that it is an excuse to say ''the genes did it'' and become a nihilist, actually I've never heard that in my life. It's not used to explain people too easily, because genes aren't 100% responsible, they're not the only thing that affects you and most people don't know the reasons why they are a certain way.

For the ''free will'' thing, I'd rather not talk about it. I do not believe that we do have free will but it is so hard and annoying for me to explain I would rather not.

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 19, 2012, 04:35:50 AM
I am very wary on a strong belief in genes, I think they are used to explain away people too easily.

I can agree with that. I can trace so much of who I've turned out to be to a few moments in my life. Times when I saw something or heard something that changed my whole outlook. Maybe I was genetically predisposed to have my outlook changed in that way, but sounds like a stretch to me.

Quote from: Oriole on May 19, 2012, 06:09:52 AM
Genes affect our personality in the sense that if we wouldn't have the same exact ones as we do right now, we would be totally different.

I can't wait to research it. It's so fascinating.
No, Jay Jay, it's not scientific, but how would one make such an experiment?

By the way Edge, I see that you gave me a -1 reputation point for ''sexism'', I'd like you to take in consideration that I am not sexist at all.
What I am saying is that we are not thinking about thing the same way. Men and women are both equally necessary in a society for more than just the ''reproduction'' factor. I am trying to be realist here, and what I said is obviously the case. I do stand by my words when I say that men are more of the ''thinking type'' and women are more of the ''feeling type'', it does not mean that women in general are more stupid than men.

Even the MBTI says so:
''Demographics of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator indicate that in the United States 65-76% of women prefer "feeling" and 55-67% of men prefer "thinking".''

I know some women who are more of the ''thinking type'', and I know some men who are of the ''feeling type'', but most of the time it is not this way. I know INFPs (Intraverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiving) who are very intelligent and logical, the only thing is that their feeling side is stronger and they are more vulnerable to what they think is offensive but they are also more capable to show empathy to people.

I'd also like to say that I am used to people disagreeing with me, thinking that I am aggressive and narcissistic or something, and I see this ''-1 reputation point'' that you gave me as a little slap in my face because you think that I am offensive.
Know that I didn't come here to fight with you guys, I came here to have legit discussions about gender related stuff.

Quote from: Oriole on May 19, 2012, 07:05:12 AM
I am trying to be realist here, and what I said is obviously the case.

What you have said has never been obvious to me in the society and the world I live in.
The statements about parents were rather outdated and have been proven to be false by reality and logic. You talk of genes, but the theories that you have stated as fact have not been proven yet and you have said yourself that you have no scientific evidence to back up your claims.

Quote from: Oriole on May 19, 2012, 07:05:12 AMI do stand by my words when I say that men are more of the ''thinking type'' and women are more of the ''feeling type''

Quote from: Oriole on May 19, 2012, 07:05:12 AMEven the MBTI says so:
''Demographics of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator indicate that in the United States 65-76% of women prefer "feeling" and 55-67% of men prefer "thinking".''

There is a considerable difference between those two statements.

If it's sources that you want, I'm sure that this article has plenty of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

I'm pretty certain than there isn't a considerable difference between my two statements. If there is, it would be nice to let me know exactly what it is.

I will come back and try to explain it later if it is worth it, but right now I'm getting a migraine.

A reminder of Rule 15

Quote
15. Items under discussion shall be confined to the subject matter at hand, members shall avoid taking the other users posts personally, and/or posting anything that can reasonably be construed as a personal attack.

regarding how genes and environment shape one's personality, i read this book written by two tv personalities who've gathered a good variety of studies on this. they only presented the most controversial theories on tv (which caused lots of discussion), but the book is actually pretty sensible (unfortunately i put the book in a place i can't remember where was, so i can't quote any single source)

they presented one study of identical twins where they found that twin who were separated at birth would usually grow up to become ever more similar the older they got (some would even smoke the same brand of cigarettes), whereas twins who grew up together would develop more distinct personalities and tastes. and of course many more studies, even of intersexed and transsexual people

anyway, what i got out of it was that personality is in your genes, but can be tweaked a good deal based on environment. like how twins who grow up together will feel a greater need to form their own identity so they develop different personalities, while those who don't grow up together don't have the same need, so they don't tweak the core they were born with too much. it also suggests that one's personality is highly influenced by the environment when one is young (because of a need to be taken care of, so kids will often do whatever they can to be what they think they're expected to), but this influence weakens as one gets older, and one gets closer to one's "real" personality

i also strongly believe that if something outside of myself changes me in any way, then it's because i'm predisposed for it. since there are other people with the same experiences who don't react the same at all. but blaming things on the genes is taking it a bit too far, since flexibility and ability to conform is also in the genes. the book also presented a study where they found that kids tend to have their own interesting taste in colors until they (usually) at around age 3-4 suddenly learn that boys don't like pink, while girls have to like it, and choose according to this. a couple of years later, when they've established their identity as part of their gender group, they suddenly start to show more integrity in color choice again

interaction between genes and environment is really interesting. the most important reason to believe in genes (at least to a certain extent), is that when genes dictate that someone's a boy, then environment can't do anything to change this. if environment gave this person the wrong chromosomes, the wrong body type, changed his body at birth, he still remains a boy. what part of the genes has to do with gender is still very uncertain, though, and it's probably so complex that scientists will be surprised more than just a few times when they think they've gotten closer to the answer

(anyway, this is just my conclusion from what i've read about it, there may be evidence suggesting otherwise. if you know of any, please inform me)


and now to the op's actual question... i think both gender and personality is decided mostly by genes, but also by environment. gender might be less influenceable than personality, though. they also don't work in the same way and aren't parallel to each other in any way. a cis woman can have the common personality traits of a cis guy and still be female. i'm pretty sure that the same goes for trans women too, but it might be a lot harder for them to show or admit it, since people would start questioning their "choice" of gender

(i hope i don't offend anyone with this, btw. i don't mean to, but i might have written something wrong without realizing)

I am not doubting the existence of genes in themselves, and it is clear that genes and genetics do have control over such things as eye colour and various metabolic features.

But to put genes as the centre of the story of the personality seems such an easy way out of discussing any real social issues and problems, to lessen the importance we place on parenting and the structures of our society. I also don't see much anecdotal evidence in genes on behaviour and personality. It would seem personality and behaviour are more influenced by the people and societies in which we grow up and are around, then the ones we come from.

I think gender has a largely psychological basis, and my own identity as an androgyne springs in a large part from my problems with visual/spacial/3d type skills, that led me to identify more with the feminine than with the masculine - yet not wholly as female, nor not as male.

Ooh! If you remember the name of that book, Taka, please share it? I love this kind of stuff.
I agree, Pica Pica, that genes are not the centre of the story. I have noticed some interesting patterns in my own family though that I would like to study further.
(Sorry for derailing the thread. I like brains and genetics a little too much. Er... maybe we can start a neuroscience and genetics topic else where? Pretty please?)

I suppose you are what you read and at a youngish age I read The Doctrine of DNA by Richard Lewontin, which I found to be a very convincing argument against genetic reductionism.

I just typed in the name of the book to get the author's name, and got this pretty good quote from the piece.

"The transfer of causal power from social relations into inanimate agents that then seem to have a power and life of their own is one of the major mystifications of science and its ideologies."

Taka, that's a really interesting thing you shared with us, I never thought about what would happen with twins. If it turns out to be true (Which could easily be the case considering that it makes sense) then genes are way more powerful than I thought they were. Also it could be purely coincidental but I'm not so sure about that.

Pica, genes aren't an easy way out of discussing social issues and problems, it is far from being that.
If I take myself for example (Again, I hate doing this but I know myself more than anybody else) I was born a little different from other males.
Growing up, I noticed that I wasn't like the average boy physically (Because of genes), so the environment would treat me differently and the way I perceived thing were unique to me (Like they are for everybody else) and it shaped me to the way I am today. That doesn't exclusively start during puberty, but that is where it is the most noticeable.
So, the way I was born + the way the environment influenced me created a path for my personality, these two things really are the only things that make somebody what they are. By environment, I don't mean what it looks like outside, it's everything really. Parenting is part of the environment and it has great influential power on the children. I can even tell why I am a certain way because of how my parents acted towards me.

Now, what I said about myself is valid for everybody else.