Quote from: Oriole on May 19, 2012, 09:03:54 AM
I can even tell why I am a certain way because of how my parents acted towards me.

Me too. My dad's emotionally unstable.

But were you to grow up somewhere or among people that regarded your unusual body as part of the natural group called male, then how you grew up and your idea of yourself would be completely different and you may be thinking of yourself as male now.
The genetics would be the same, but the environment would have created a completely different outcome.

Pica, I know what you're saying, and I agree with you.
Our brain tends to remember bad things that happened to us more than the good things. Our parents influences us in good ways most of the time, even though there was a little bit of bad. My dad wasn't around a lot when I was growing up, my parents both being very young when they had me (They were 21) had to work hard in order to be able to pay for all the extra expenses I cost them. I would spend a big amount of my childhood with babysitters or with my grand-parents. But then my parents broke up and I was living only with my mom. The lack of fatherly figure shaped me a certain way, one could argue that I am attracted to men because I am looking for qualities that my father had, but I'm still not certain about this. I use this as an example for the way my parenting had an influence on me and this is the most obvious one to me. (Don't worry about me, I have a decent relationship with my father and I am mentally sane)

If we want to talk about serial killers, we can see clearly that genes and environment are the two main things that shape an individual. Most serial killers come from families that had history with certain problems, it's often schizophrenia or alcoholism. Then the second factor is environment, and kids are the most influenced by their parents. Most serial killer had really bad relationship with their parents, most of them were beaten or sexually abused.
I'm not saying that if you experienced these things you are going to go in a killing spree, it's all about how your genes takes these experiences in the first place to create your personality out of this, but if you have schizophrenic ancestors, you should start to worry a little.

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 19, 2012, 09:02:30 AM
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."

I have not read that book, but it sounds as if it would be a good resource.

I have, however, read about studies of identical twins separated at birth, and how they have amazingly similar lives, despite being raised in different environments. It seems to me genetic controls are a factor.

Quote from: Oriole on May 19, 2012, 09:24:51 AM
If we want to talk about serial killers, we can see clearly that genes and environment are the two main things that shape an individual. Most serial killers come from families that had history with certain problems, it's often schizophrenia or alcoholism. Then the second factor is environment, and kids are the most influenced by their parents. Most serial killer had really bad relationship with their parents, most of them were beaten or sexually abused.
I'm not saying that if you experienced these things you are going to go in a killing spree, it's all about how your genes takes these experiences in the first place to create your personality out of this, but if you have schizophrenic ancestors, you should start to worry a little.

I'm not sure why we want to talk about serial killers, but let's be careful about making associations between them and mental illness. Finding tenuous links in order to explain why someone behaves the way they do takes responsibility away from the individual for the acts they commit, not to mention it adds to the stigma that 'if you have this then you must be a psychopath' which is often unfairly assumed and which many sufferers and treatment organisations are trying to get away from.

Can we get back to the subject of gender, as it relates to personality type, before this train of thought goes any further, please?

It was related because it is one of the clearest example I could use to describe what we were talking about (Genes+Experiences=Personality).
It doesn't mean that you will start killing people if you grew up similarly to a lot of serial killers in history, but I was just talking about the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad
You could have all the three characteristic from the Macdonald triad without being a completely crazy person, but it was shown that in a lot of cases of sociopathy that they were often linked together.

We cannot judge someone by the way they grew up or what we know about their ancestry, of course not, but we can have an idea of what they could possibly be like.

Quote from: Edge on May 19, 2012, 06:53:52 AM
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?

Well not sure it is even possible. If Nobody can really know what the gender of the child is, how do you accomplish this exactly? Remember that parent with the kid where they wouldn't tell anybody what gender xe was? What a big ruckus this caused? It was *very* controversial. And even people who agreed with this premise thought they went too far. But that is how far it would have to go, I'd think.

I am also pretty sure some modern parents raise their kids without a lot of the hang-ups of previous generations of genderdom (sorry just had to make that sentence!!). Actually compare city to small town kids (or red states blue states), and there were probably much fewer gender stereotypes pushed their way even 50 years ago (girls don't... boys don't...). That still isn't our experiment. They've got grandparents, relatives, schools, churches, etc. 

BTW, I saw this thing about transgender children and in one case the mom had fraternal twins. One of them turned out trans and wanted her sister's pink cup. "No, the pink cup is for girls." The youtube was filled with comments on how "bad" the mother (who eventually accepted the girl for who she was-- so she certainly was NOT a bad parent). Not bad, imo, but highly conventional in a sort of rural south way (which I think it was).

As for genes. The genetic influence of anything is interesting, but how much really? I'd guess trans* on any level is more to do with the amniotic fluid bathing embryonic and fetal humans or brain differences very early on.

--Jay Jay

Quote from: aleon515 on May 19, 2012, 11:15:48 AM
Remember that parent with the kid where they wouldn't tell anybody what gender xe was?

One of my mom's co-worker's is doing that. I didn't know it had been done before. What were the results?

Quote from: aleon515 on May 19, 2012, 11:15:48 AM
As for genes. The genetic influence of anything is interesting, but how much really? I'd guess trans* on any level is more to do with the amniotic fluid bathing embryonic and fetal humans or brain differences very early on.

possibly, but even then there are intersex conditions that are result of something in the genes, so why not for trans too?

the book that pica mentioned:
google gave me one interesting result other than the book itself:
A Critique of "Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA"
i didn't read the whole thing, but the last paragraph is still interesting to read:
One of the many unfortunate consequences of Lewontin's confused message is that the only sound part of it might well be overlooked. His rejection of the harmful old doctrine that "human nature cannot be changed" indicates that he is at least aware of the fundamental premise of social science. And his warning concerning the foolishness of the currently popular, romantic notion of disallowing any environmental change so as to maintain "harmony with nature" is badly needed. This is the arena where we can really benefit from the advice of biologists, but only if it is based on science and not on personal ideology. However, when Lewontin reveals that he does not yet know the difference between the two, he forfeits all claim to credibility.
even people who believe in the importance of genes don't necessarily deny the effect of society

this is the book i was talking about (norwegian):
http://www.gyldendal.no/Gyldendals-pocketslipp/Dokumentar/Foedt-saann-eller-blitt-saann
published last year, and thus contains lots of newer knowledge
it touches onto many different themes. genes, environment, parenting, personality, gender, sex, etc...
they also have a facebook group where people post many interesting articles about different things, some in english:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/345285616004/

Quote from: Metroland on May 18, 2012, 05:34:56 PM
Sephira thanks for sharing this analogy.  It seems really interesting.  However I was wondering what if the building itself has a character of its own, a gender?  Not every building is similar to the other so what if starting by the building the architecture means something to everyone?

Sorry for not replying to this sooner.

That's an interesting idea. I have to confess to not having given it a massive amount of thought since often I tend to see my body as little more than a home for my consciousness, or sentience (literally a building, I guess) rather than something influential in and of itself.

Hmm, I suppose it all depends on the individual and the significance each one assigns to the various parts of themselves. For example, by nature I am very introspective. I spend large amounts of time in meditative states which are free from bodily sensations and even awareness. During these times I get in touch with, what I consider to be, the essence of myself. The... part of me which makes me me, as opposed to a walking cadaver, as it were.

In those times, I have a mental self-image of myself, especially when interacting with visualised representations of the various aspects of my psyche, or emotions etc. A frame of reference for interaction, I guess you could say. This is quite seperate and different to the way my body looks, although not entirely. It's hard to describe, it's like I'm my own sister. There are aspects I recognise which perhaps come from the way my body is physically, and years of having to live in it, but it's as though... hmm... it's as though, at some point in the past, something happened which caused my body to develop physically male and my mental and/or spiritual 'everything else' to develop female. I don't know if that was in the womb, before, or after.

The thing about this self-representation is that it requires no conscious thought to experience. It just is. I have, at times, attempted to 'be' the way my body looks on the outside. That is to consciously recreate that image of myself in my mind. And it takes a quite extraordinary effort to do so, because it just doesn't 'stick'. There's no familiarity there whatsoever. And unless I keep up a certain amount of concentration, it ends up reverting back, like a coiled spring re-coiling back to its original shape. It's forced, and often that ends the whole experience.

As far as I can tell, this only applies to the way I see and experience the bodily sensations of this self-image within my mind. I've tried to ponder if it has any sentience of its own, sort of like a Russian doll type thing, but that just makes my head hurt. So the conclusion I've come to is that it's little more than a blueprint for the way my body is supposed to be. According to who, or what, I don't know. The Architect, whoever or whatever that is (I've just realised that's a Matrix reference. Ugh). But it just is whether I want it to be or not.

...

I'm sorry, that's not really answering your question.

I guess that everyone's building does have a character of its own. Although personally I wouldn't call that gender. Perhaps self-expression within the limits of anatomical boundaries is the way I would put it... although I tend to think of it more like erosion, to be honest. The constant weathering away and subtle reshaping of the exterior by physiological, sociological even psychological processes into something the outside world wants it to be.

However, as I said at the start, before all the probably unnecessary waffle... people assign differing significance to different aspects of themselves. And gender seems to be a different concept to everyone. Since I am more of an introvert, I see it as something within myself, seperate from a body that serves only to remind me how different it is to everything else about me. However, for others, perhaps more in touch with, and integrated with their bodies, it means something else. And, as you say, the architecture of the building itself holds more significance in how, and who, a person sees themselves to be.

Or maybe something else entirely for yet other people.

Part of the fascination with us as sentient beings is finding these things out, and seeing how people are different, not just with their buildings but with the way they live in them.

Quote from: Sephirah on May 19, 2012, 05:25:34 PM
The thing about this self-representation is that it requires no conscious thought to experience. It just is. I have, at times, attempted to 'be' the way my body looks on the outside. That is to consciously recreate that image of myself in my mind. And it takes a quite extraordinary effort to do so, because it just doesn't 'stick'. There's no familiarity there whatsoever. And unless I keep up a certain amount of concentration, it ends up reverting back, like a coiled spring re-coiling back to its original shape. It's forced, and often that ends the whole experience.

I guess that everyone's building does have a character of its own. Although personally I wouldn't call that gender. Perhaps self-expression within the limits of anatomical boundaries is the way I would put it... although I tend to think of it more like erosion, to be honest. The constant weathering away and subtle reshaping of the exterior by physiological, sociological even psychological processes into something the outside world wants it to be.

people assign differing significance to different aspects of themselves. And gender seems to be a different concept to everyone. Since I am more of an introvert, I see it as something within myself, seperate from a body that serves only to remind me how different it is to everything else about me. However, for others, perhaps more in touch with, and integrated with their bodies, it means something else. And, as you say, the architecture of the building itself holds more significance in how, and who, a person sees themselves to be.

Part of the fascination with us as sentient beings is finding these things out, and seeing how people are different, not just with their buildings but with the way they live in them.

I hope I didn't chop this up to much, but...this is nicely put.

Thanks Sephirah for the explanation.  I guess for you, you are able to reconcile your thoughts and your body.

For me I am still having problems with my body.  Not all parts.  Only some.  The saying that I am born in the wrong body doesn't make sense to me but some parts I would like to get rid off.

Maybe it is good to start to think the way you are thinking that the inside (thoughts) are important and it is important to take care of the vessel but everyone does it to varying degrees.  For you, you are able to separate between the two and it is not affecting you that much how your body looks.

Thanks for the explanation.

Quote from: Metroland on May 20, 2012, 07:40:35 AM
For me I am still having problems with my body.  Not all parts.  Only some.  The saying that I am born in the wrong body doesn't make sense to me but some parts I would like to get rid off.

I don't see that there has to be a definitive 'this' or 'that' in the way a person believes their body should be, or who a person sees themselves mentally to be, either. That I believe people have a gender 'blueprint' somewhere inside themselves... well, that blueprint doesn't have to be 'male' or 'female'. I don't see why it couldn't be a mixture of both, or neither. Or something outside the scope of either. This mental blueprint, or sense of self, isn't restricted by the binary physical limitations that anatomy is constrained by. It has the freedom to just be. Only when that freedom is curtailed by being integrated into a medium which has inherent rigidy do can the complications arise, be that by virtue of being completely at odds or only partially, the end result is often similar. A need for change.

Quote from: Metroland on May 20, 2012, 07:40:35 AM
Maybe it is good to start to think the way you are thinking that the inside (thoughts) are important and it is important to take care of the vessel but everyone does it to varying degrees.  For you, you are able to separate between the two and it is not affecting you that much how your body looks.

I don't know, I wouldn't say it doesn't affect me that much. Sometimes it affects me very badly, and very persistantly. However this is almost always during times when my awareness is very much shifted into the physical. During those times, things can feel very wrong and unpleasant indeed. Being mentally aware of who you are sometimes isn't enough to combat the vastly overwhelming sensory assault which comes from living and interacting within in a very tangible world. Sometimes it feels like a lone figure engulfed by a violent storm, trying to speak only to be drowned out by the sound of the wind and thunder.

I suppose I've just learned techniques to get back in touch with the 'real' me, as I see it, when that happens. Maybe it is a coping mechanism, who knows.

Anywhoo, I think I've probably rambled on enough about this, lol. I apologise if at any point it seemed as though I was trying to force my views on anyone. In spite of the way I feel about myself, I am fascinated by the different views that everyone else has of themselves, too, and don't see any other as less valid than my own. We're all just trying to make sense of stuff, after all.

Sephirah,

I didn't think that you were trying to impose your ideas and I really enjoyed reading them.

Your thoughts got me thinking about how we view gender and sex (this might be a little bit of rambling of my own).  Why are sex organs given so much importance?  When we say that a person has a penis then they are thinking in a masculine way and when one has a vagina then one thinks in a feminine way.  Why don't we say that about blue eyes and hazel eyes (maybe this is a poor example because eye color is not binary)?  What if once a baby is born the color of the eyes decides everything about them for the rest of their lives.  Kate Bornstein writes in her book "The Gender Workbook" about the idea that a woman having a penis or a man having a vagina.  Could this be accepted?

Quote from: Metroland on May 20, 2012, 10:18:16 AM
Could this be accepted?

Yes.
Why not.
Many already do.
It's really not a big deal.
It's just a penis, just a vagina.
So?

Ativan

Has a manly man with a suite and tie and hoarse voice ever came to you and told you I am a woman?  Not a woman inside but a woman? He goes to the DMV and selects female in the sex box.

I haven't heard anyone who told me this is just a vagina or this is just a penis.  It would be nice to hear that from someone.

I guess it really boils down to semantics. The words assigned to things to express thoughts and concepts. At some point, before the advent of language, there were no words to call somone or something 'male', 'female', 'masculine' or 'feminine'. At some point, someone had to decide what these things were to be called, and why.

Often the etymology of words comes from descriptions of traits or actions associated with the thing in question. I suppose because direct observation is easier to describe than mental abstract. For example, the English word female is derived from the Latin word fēmina (woman), which itself is thought to be derived from another Latin word, fellāre (to suck), which refers to breastfeeding of a child... an action taken by someone with breasts.

Also, the words we use to call things what they are now are sometimes just corruptions and simplifications of older words, or groups of words, that sometimes have more complex meanings. For example, one etymology of the English word Man comes from the Old English word Mann, which itself was gender neutral, and meant simply 'human', or human being. 'Woman' and 'Man' in that particular language both had prefixes attached (Wermann for a man, and Wifmann for a woman).

Perhaps the evolution of language has more to do with the way cultures and societies assign importance to one thing or another, rather than the actual thing itself.

I am no expert in language but definitely it changes with culture and it is good that language changes with our influence on it.

I am not sure though how this pertains to the discussion?

No, probably it doesn't. But it's one possibility with regard to your question of why sex organs are given such importance. How changes in language influence what constitutes the way people view male and female, perhaps originally based on physical characteristics associated with each.

You're right though, it is drifting away from the original subject. My apologies.

Quote from: Metroland on May 20, 2012, 02:31:23 PM
Has a manly man with a suite and tie and hoarse voice ever came to you and told you I am a woman?  Not a woman inside but a woman? He goes to the DMV and selects female in the sex box.

I haven't heard anyone who told me this is just a vagina or this is just a penis.  It would be nice to hear that from someone.

Yes. I don't know if she went to the DMV or not.

I tried to say that as nicely as I could, with the least amount of words.
I hope you took it that way, I didn't mean it any other way. I guess the 'So?' could be taken differently.

Ativan