CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Psychology › Is gender identity inherent, or is it shaped by our environment?

Is gender identity inherent, or is it shaped by our environment?

Started by George Morris2 · · 👁 15 views · 120 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants George Morris2Megan Nguyen22Eric Anderson7David Gomez3Drew Lee7hiddenhound3goldenpuma84vividorca9Brandon Wright54Rachel Stewart36Sandra Barrett4rustydrifter25Patrick Wright2Morgan Rodriguez57Keith Thomas21Rebecca Chase5Dana Nelson94Hannah White2Keith Lee2Lisa Hernandez3mistymason1Chloe Cook2
goldenpuma84 goldenpuma84 Active Member
72 messages
joined May 2014
#101 ·
Keith Lee2 said:So, you've got people in prison who already have a set gender identity—just a heads up.
So, we can't really pull them into the experiment to see how things actually take shape—just a heads up.
gender identity—it's a lot to wrap your head around, honestly.

Plus, we can't have any other animal species hanging around during the experiment—it’d just mess everything up.
Maybe our guys could take a page out of their book—learn how it's actually done.😁

If gender identity starts popping up under those kinds of conditions, then I guess we can basically conclude that...
Gender identity is its own thing—it exists even without all the social pressure around it.🤷


I've already reached that conclusion...

And animals live in social groups too. So we could probably argue there's a distinction between biological sex and gender identity even in the animal kingdom.
Rachel Stewart36 Rachel Stewart36 Member
35 messages
joined Nov 2010
#102 ·
goldenpuma84 said:Why is there such a drive to deny the natural differences between men and women? We are a biological species, after all. We're part of a nature that's currently at a stage where science still can't fully grasp how we developed the ability to view ourselves as morally autonomous beings capable of symbolic language.

We live in societies as political creatures, learning patterns of behavior that are often gendered through socialization. But doesn't a huge chunk of human psychology deal with those unconscious, unconditioned behaviors inherited from our ancestors? Even those biologically rooted impulses that modern society tries to suppress through upbringing? Doesn't modern psychology point to a clash between the subconscious—that genetically determined stuff that exists before social conditioning—and the societal expectations designed to stifle those deep-seated drives just to create a "civilized" person? Isn't that subconscious drive exactly what exists prior to any social environment?

Reducing a human being to a mere social automaton that can't even receive genetic instructions from the distant past is a bit much. It treats everything as a reaction to a socially stimulated stimulus. The "fix" offered is almost like sociological alchemy (kind of like the attempt to engineer a "new man" under communism): identify the broken social institutions imposing these differences, and the problem is solved. But it just doesn't work like that...

If someone claims "gender" represents socially imposed differences beyond negligible biological ones, then if the goal is a theory of universal humanity, the answer isn't creating a theory of gender centered on social constructs. Instead, the way out is embracing biological differences, which, aside from anatomy, shouldn't cause real differences in social interaction or how we perceive one another. But is that true? Or is this just a way for a certain kind of totalitarianism to hide behind a mask of false humanism (again, reminiscent of communism)?

Theologians say humans are divine creations. Materialists say we're raw natural matter. So, according to gender theory, what is a human? It seems to me they aren't either of those. They're just a social construct. Is that even possible?...

It’s not about denying anything—I’m just sharing a perspective that happens to clash with yours. Why does one view have to be "denial" just because it isn't identical to another? Honestly, if the other users here aren't too busy, maybe someone could actually define what they mean by "natural differences"—just so we're all on the same page. Are we talking basic biology, or some supposed inherent psychological traits? I’m not saying differences don't exist, I'm just questioning how much they actually matter.
goldenpuma84 goldenpuma84 Active Member
72 messages
joined May 2014
#103 ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s not about denying anything—I’m just sharing a perspective that happens to clash with yours. Why does one view have to be "denial" just because it isn't identical to another? Honestly, if the other users here aren't too busy, maybe someone could actually define what they mean by "natural differences"—just so we're all on the same page. Are we talking basic biology, or some supposed inherent psychological traits? I’m not saying differences don't exist, I'm just questioning how much they actually matter.


There are differences in anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Medicine handles the first, biochemistry the second, and psychology deals with the third. Because if everything were just a product of social conditioning, psychology wouldn't even need to exist as a field. It would just be sociology...

The differences show up in:

- worldviews,
- core life values,
- criteria for choosing a partner,
- risk tolerance,
- conflict resolution styles,
- tendencies toward aggression,
- levels of empathy,
- natural inclinations toward certain types of work,
- the drive to follow a leader

and plenty of other things.

There are tons of them. To reiterate—since we are all offspring of both men and women, nobody hits every single marker perfectly. You'll find guys with feminine traits and vice versa, but on average, most men tend to behave differently than most women.

http://www.najreklame.com/najbolje-r...00c62728b.html

This ad captures just one of those differences pretty well...
Rachel Stewart36 Rachel Stewart36 Member
35 messages
joined Nov 2010
#104 ·
Good grief, this ad—honestly not even worth a response. As for those differences you brought up, it’s pretty clear you completely missed my point. Look, we could keep dancing this "intellectual waltz" all night if we wanted, but we aren't actually getting anywhere, are we? I'll just say this—I get where everyone else on the forum is coming from on this topic; I follow their logic and the path they took to get there, even if I don't buy their "interpretations." Since you clearly don't buy mine, the real question is: do you actually get what I'm saying? If you do, then we're done here—because the whole point isn't to agree, it's to understand the other side. If my "interpretations" are still flying over your head—which I really hope isn't the case—then I'm out of ways to explain them better. Happy debating. 😉
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#105 ·
goldenpuma84 said:I've already reached that conclusion...

And animals live in social groups too. So we could probably argue there's a distinction between biological sex and gender identity even in the animal kingdom.

Think about it—what if sex is just like an internal hunger signal that drives an organism
to act.
You don't need food sitting right in front of you to know you're hungry.
But to recognize sexual drive, you'd need the presence of the opposite sex
nearby.
If a sexual urge suddenly hits an individual who’s never even been exposed to
someone of the opposite sex, how would they even know what steps to take to
relieve that pressure?
Or maybe it's more like the presence of the opposite sex is actually the trigger
that sets off the instinct in the first place.

Basically, how would sexuality even form if a group was isolated from birth without any knowledge
of the opposite sex? Would that drive even exist at all?

Since animals live in social structures where both sexes are constantly present, it's hard to tell
if sexuality is triggered by being around the opposite sex
or if it would just kick in regardless, even if they were totally alone.
Hannah White2 Hannah White2 Active Member
135 messages
joined Oct 2011
#106 ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s not about denying anything—I’m just sharing a perspective that happens to clash with yours. Why does one view have to be "denial" just because it isn't identical to another? Honestly, if the other users here aren't too busy, maybe someone could actually define what they mean by "natural differences"—just so we're all on the same page. Are we talking basic biology, or some supposed inherent psychological traits? I’m not saying differences don't exist, I'm just questioning how much they actually matter.

I'm genuinely curious. This forum isn't just a place to bicker; it’s a spot to dig into interesting ideas.

I mean, how do you even deny "purely" biological traits or psychological gaps when they're both driven by the exact same underlying stuff? It's all connected.

Where does the social construction of gender identity actually kick in? Like, where's the line?
Rebecca Chase5 Rebecca Chase5 Member
10 messages
joined Jan 2011
#107 ·
goldenpuma84 said:There are differences in anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Medicine handles the first, biochemistry the second, and psychology deals with the third. Because if everything were just a product of social conditioning, psychology wouldn't even need to exist as a field. It would just be sociology...

The differences show up in:

- worldviews,
- core life values,
- criteria for choosing a partner,
- risk tolerance,
- conflict resolution styles,
- tendencies toward aggression,
- levels of empathy,
- natural inclinations toward certain types of work,
- the drive to follow a leader

and plenty of other things.

There are tons of them. To reiterate—since we are all offspring of both men and women, nobody hits every single marker perfectly. You'll find guys with feminine traits and vice versa, but on average, most men tend to behave differently than most women.

http://www.najreklame.com/najbolje-r...00c62728b.html

This ad captures just one of those differences pretty well...

1. A worldview is merely a byproduct of one's environment, society, and upbringing.
2. While a hierarchy of values should ideally be universal, it remains shaped by what we are taught.
3. This varies from person to person.
4. There is no difference here.
5. It depends on the individual and their specific character.
6. Again, this depends on the individual and their character.
7. Empathy is not innate; it must be cultivated, which brings us back to learned behavior.
8. Either social standing or physical strength.
9. It is entirely dependent on the individual.
mistymason1 mistymason1 Member
26 messages
joined Jan 2012
#108 ·
Keith Lee2 said:Think about it—what if sex is just like an internal hunger signal that drives an organism
to act.
You don't need food sitting right in front of you to know you're hungry.
But to recognize sexual drive, you'd need the presence of the opposite sex
nearby.
If a sexual urge suddenly hits an individual who’s never even been exposed to
someone of the opposite sex, how would they even know what steps to take to
relieve that pressure?
Or maybe it's more like the presence of the opposite sex is actually the trigger
that sets off the instinct in the first place.

Basically, how would sexuality even form if a group was isolated from birth without any knowledge
of the opposite sex? Would that drive even exist at all?

Since animals live in social structures where both sexes are constantly present, it's hard to tell
if sexuality is triggered by being around the opposite sex
or if it would just kick in regardless, even if they were totally alone.

Are you being serious? Man, have you ever actually interacted with any animal species other than humans? 😂

Seriously.

Anyone who spends time around non-humans has seen those kinds of spontaneous experiments play out countless times. 😁
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#109 ·
mistymason1 said:Are you being serious? Man, have you ever actually interacted with any animal species other than humans? 😂

Seriously.

Anyone who spends time around non-humans has seen those kinds of spontaneous experiments play out countless times. 😁

Then give me one specific example where those conditions were met—and explain why.
Man, I honestly can't think of a single one.
My brain is just stuck on this image of a flock of sheep without a ram, so I can't really wrap my head around
if any of them ever stepped up to take over his "identity."
Since I'm basically a rancher, I should probably know, but since things started out this way--
who knows, maybe I'll end up a rancher too.😁
goldenpuma84 goldenpuma84 Active Member
72 messages
joined May 2014
#110 ·
Rebecca Chase5 said:1. A worldview is merely a byproduct of one's environment, society, and upbringing.
2. While a hierarchy of values should ideally be universal, it remains shaped by what we are taught.
3. This varies from person to person.
4. There is no difference here.
5. It depends on the individual and their specific character.
6. Again, this depends on the individual and their character.
7. Empathy is not innate; it must be cultivated, which brings us back to learned behavior.
8. Either social standing or physical strength.
9. It is entirely dependent on the individual.


Is man a natural being?

Does nature dictate human behavior in any way at all?

Could that distinction happen to be gendered?

Why do two sexes even exist?

Does the material base—the body—impact the spiritual superstructure?

Are there differences between men and women at the material level?

If they exist, could they cause specific differences in the superstructure, even regarding sex?

Is it possible for different material bases to coincide with certain biochemical differentiations between genders?

And honestly, where does this stubborn denial of facts come from?

Look, I haven't argued against the role society plays in installing expected gender roles in a single post. I also stand by my view that biological differences between the sexes predate society.

Let me repeat the question. If humans aren't divine creations nor natural beings—if we set aside idealism and materialism as the two main ways to interpret reality—what's left? Just "sociality" as the only category? Doesn't that degrade humanity by denying its inherent connection to nature? Isn't that just totalitarianism masquerading as humanity? Why this obsession with leveling differences and forcing uniformity, killing off the theoretical possibility of being different?

I’ve debated communists on this forum before, and I noticed some terrifying similarities with feminists. Both groups want to engineer a "new man," regardless of the facts, despite the facts (it all seems to come out of that Hegelian basket). Both are collectivist, even if they claim to strive for individual fulfillment. Both are totalitarian because they try to explain away the subject in its entirety. Both are Enlightenment-minded, believing they can reshape the world through socialization. Both are exclusionary because they deny others the right to the truth. Both are absolutist, thinking they've grasped the undeniable truth beneath a false facade, even when starting from flawed premises.

Both are anti-humanistic. Humans are clever beasts, really... underneath the glamour of this fake civilizational veneer, we retain that primal hunter-predator instinct that a few millennia of civilization hasn't quite managed to tame...
Brandon Wright54 Brandon Wright54 Active Member
69 messages
joined Jun 2010
#111 ·
goldenpuma84 said:Is man a natural being?

Does nature dictate human behavior in any way at all?

Could that distinction happen to be gendered?

Why do two sexes even exist?

Does the material base—the body—impact the spiritual superstructure?

Are there differences between men and women at the material level?

If they exist, could they cause specific differences in the superstructure, even regarding sex?

Is it possible for different material bases to coincide with certain biochemical differentiations between genders?

And honestly, where does this stubborn denial of facts come from?

Look, I haven't argued against the role society plays in installing expected gender roles in a single post. I also stand by my view that biological differences between the sexes predate society.

Let me repeat the question. If humans aren't divine creations nor natural beings—if we set aside idealism and materialism as the two main ways to interpret reality—what's left? Just "sociality" as the only category? Doesn't that degrade humanity by denying its inherent connection to nature? Isn't that just totalitarianism masquerading as humanity? Why this obsession with leveling differences and forcing uniformity, killing off the theoretical possibility of being different?

I’ve debated communists on this forum before, and I noticed some terrifying similarities with feminists. Both groups want to engineer a "new man," regardless of the facts, despite the facts (it all seems to come out of that Hegelian basket). Both are collectivist, even if they claim to strive for individual fulfillment. Both are totalitarian because they try to explain away the subject in its entirety. Both are Enlightenment-minded, believing they can reshape the world through socialization. Both are exclusionary because they deny others the right to the truth. Both are absolutist, thinking they've grasped the undeniable truth beneath a false facade, even when starting from flawed premises.

Both are anti-humanistic. Humans are clever beasts, really... underneath the glamour of this fake civilizational veneer, we retain that primal hunter-predator instinct that a few millennia of civilization hasn't quite managed to tame...


I don't see how those three categories would even function in isolation. Isn't ideology, by definition, a shared system of beliefs within a social group? If that's the case, how can "sociality" exist as some separate, isolated thing? And this "connection to nature" you’re talking about—which you claim is inseparable from being human—might just be another ideological construct, a specific version of social reality being forced on us. Maybe it isn't "man as a natural being" that's under threat here, but rather certain traditional interests hiding behind the dogma of nature. I'm not claiming any theory is immune to ideology, but I don't think the goal is to erase differences—it's more about questioning how those differences function within the systems that shape both individuals and groups.
Drew Lee7 Drew Lee7 Member
43 messages
joined Nov 2010
#112 ·
Lisa Hernandez3 said:A few general thoughts (for Drew Lee7):
- Distinguishing between sex and gender is primarily—if we are treating it as a theory or a construct—a sociological matter (anthropological, cultural, etc.); its main goal is to explain the mechanics of socialization, identity formation, and social biases.
- If there’s any doubt about whether this theoretical approach—interpreting reality through a tangible, defined concept—actually makes sense, one might just look at other constructs, like national identity, for instance. We tend to feel those identities are real and exist independently of us, even though they aren't strictly tied to being born into a specific ethnic group; it’s also worth remembering that the very basis for interpreting society stems from these types of identificationsof distinct (independent of the individual) realities, which is an idea found in the recognition of social facts dating all the way back to Emile Durkheim.
- Transsexuality and transvestism might fall under the category of gender identity disorders in a clinical sense, simply because there is a logical discrepancy between one's assigned status and their lived experience that needs to be acknowledged and addressed; however, that doesn't mean it makes sense—or is necessary—to label such people as disordered, let alone ill.

A few quick thoughts (Lisa Hernandez3):

You are being incredibly hypocritical. The insults thrown between me and Brandon Wright54 went both ways. All I did was state that, for me, the whole concept of gender theory is just plain nonsense (and I even made sure to clarify that it isn't just nonsense, because I was pointing out specific things about what the theory claims) while actually providing arguments, which is something most people here fail to do. From the get-go, Brandon Wright54 acted all high and mighty, talking down to me like I’m some idiot who needs a lecture because I don't know jack. She talks big about "gender theory" this and "gender theory" that, acting as if I simply don't grasp the concept. Her attitude toward everyone else in the thread has been condescending from the start—as if she’s the sole authority and anyone who doesn't think exactly like her is clueless. My point was that even if she knows a lot about gender theory, the theory itself is fundamentally flawed. I offer arguments, and she just retreats into theoretical constructs because she thinks I don't "get" it. 🙄 Her entire approach was basically gaslighting; it was insulting because she didn't even try to engage with my actual points. Instead, her move was to claim I was wrong simply because I don't subscribe to her definitions, while she remains "right" because she understands them. In other words, I was refuting her views, not attacking her as a person, until she started (indirectly) insulting me.

And you? You acted like I was some delinquent who needed to be punished first and then lectured on how the world works. Well, guess what, sweetheart? Based on the very tenets of gender theory you love so much, you were just acting like an internalized patriarchal male, resorting to the classic "stick and cane" method of dominance.

The core issue of this entire debate is that there are people who believe a person can be split into sex and gender, and those who believe that's impossible (and as you can see, I'm not alone in that, so your lecturing is pure narcissism). Basically, sex is sex, regardless of how someone perceives their own gender identity. To put it plainly, male is male and female is female; how they choose to perform their roles or how society sees them is a different conversation entirely. As for the whole debate over "pseudo" versus "real" intersex conditions? That's a non-issue. Either someone is biologically capable of reproduction or they aren't. If they aren't, it's a mutation that results in sterility.
Rachel Stewart36 Rachel Stewart36 Member
35 messages
joined Nov 2010
#113 ·
Just jumping in here. Why treat sociality as some separate category from the spiritual or the material? Isn't being social basically an amalgamation of both? Why split things up and isolate them—missing the whole point of how all these components actually interact to form a whole? The goal shouldn't be to deny "nature" or "culture," but to explain "gender identity" by embracing the sheer elasticity and variability of all those moving parts. Insisting that one side takes precedence over the other—or that nothing ever changes—just leads to these narrow, inorganic ways of thinking. Maybe defining "gender identity" should start by viewing a human being as a biological entity embedded in a social system—one woven together by interactions with everything from the physical and biological to the psychological, spiritual, and symbolic. It’s about acknowledging how they all play off each other to build a sense of self. Ignoring that interplay feels like a dangerous kind of reductionism—the kind that just feeds into various "ideological trends."

I've never bought into this "paradigm of separation" thing, though I seem to run into it constantly. Why slice biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, physics, math, philosophy... away from each other? Why divorce nature from culture and settle for such a limited view? Whatever happened to eclecticism?
Lisa Hernandez3 Lisa Hernandez3 Active Member
211 messages
joined Aug 2010
#114 ·
The sociological perspective essentially focuses on how much a biological individual is embedded within society—that's really the core of its entire body of work. Most disciplines today are inherently "eclectic" by nature of their scientific foundations; you only really see reductionism creeping in through specific sub-disciplines or the particular emphasis placed during observation and theorizing. Things like the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and epistemology—those specialized branches—all put these nuances under the microscope as well. I suspect, Drew Lee7, that your issue isn't necessarily with these fine distinctions, but rather—if I may say so—a certain personal aversion toward disciplines that deal with the "intangible."
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#115 ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:Just jumping in here. Why treat sociality as some separate category from the spiritual or the material? Isn't being social basically an amalgamation of both? Why split things up and isolate them—missing the whole point of how all these components actually interact to form a whole? The goal shouldn't be to deny "nature" or "culture," but to explain "gender identity" by embracing the sheer elasticity and variability of all those moving parts. Insisting that one side takes precedence over the other—or that nothing ever changes—just leads to these narrow, inorganic ways of thinking. Maybe defining "gender identity" should start by viewing a human being as a biological entity embedded in a social system—one woven together by interactions with everything from the physical and biological to the psychological, spiritual, and symbolic. It’s about acknowledging how they all play off each other to build a sense of self. Ignoring that interplay feels like a dangerous kind of reductionism—the kind that just feeds into various "ideological trends."

I've never bought into this "paradigm of separation" thing, though I seem to run into it constantly. Why slice biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, physics, math, philosophy... away from each other? Why divorce nature from culture and settle for such a limited view? Whatever happened to eclecticism?

image

Totally agree!
This guy is leaning into that flexibility even more than we are—
unlike a few of the closed-minded people in here.☕
Rachel Stewart36 Rachel Stewart36 Member
35 messages
joined Nov 2010
#116 ·
forum user Lisa Hernandez3: My (rhetorical) question is really just a comment on how people love to toss scientific "tools" around in debates—while totally ignoring the fact that the whole field is pretty damn eclectic.

forum user Keith Lee2: Oh, look at him go. He claims he's being limited, then posts something like this; give yourself more credit man. 😁 As much as I dig your post, it’s a bit far from what I actually meant. And yeah, I make a distinction between a narrow approach and a narrow-minded person. Maybe try reading a little closer instead of jumping to conclusions? 😉
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#117 ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:forum user Lisa Hernandez3: My (rhetorical) question is really just a comment on how people love to toss scientific "tools" around in debates—while totally ignoring the fact that the whole field is pretty damn eclectic.

forum user Keith Lee2: Oh, look at him go. He claims he's being limited, then posts something like this; give yourself more credit man. 😁 As much as I dig your post, it’s a bit far from what I actually meant. And yeah, I make a distinction between a narrow approach and a narrow-minded person. Maybe try reading a little closer instead of jumping to conclusions? 😉


Rachel Stewart36 said:Just jumping in here. Why treat sociality as some separate category from the spiritual or the material? Isn't being social basically an amalgamation of both? Why split things up and isolate them—missing the whole point of how all these components actually interact to form a whole? The goal shouldn't be to deny "nature" or "culture," but to explain "gender identity" by embracing the sheer elasticity and variability of all those moving parts. Insisting that one side takes precedence over the other—or that nothing ever changes—just leads to these narrow, inorganic ways of thinking. Maybe defining "gender identity" should start by viewing a human being as a biological entity embedded in a social system—one woven together by interactions with everything from the physical and biological to the psychological, spiritual, and symbolic. It’s about acknowledging how they all play off each other to build a sense of self. Ignoring that interplay feels like a dangerous kind of reductionism—the kind that just feeds into various "ideological trends."

I've never bought into this "paradigm of separation" thing, though I seem to run into it constantly. Why slice biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, physics, math, philosophy... away from each other? Why divorce nature from culture and settle for such a limited view? Whatever happened to eclecticism?

Okay, I read it more carefully this time—avoiding that "dangerous reductionism that feeds
into various ideological movements"—and then I reached my conclusion!

If we actually consider every single factor that shapes a person's identity, then we have to
realize that identity is constantly shifting.
Within a single day, if you apply those exact criteria—like the
symbolic ones—a person's gender identity could change several times over.
For example:
A guy gets chewed out by his boss at work, goes home and yells at his son about school,
then his wife yells at him because she also got chewed out by her boss.
So, what's the actual gender identity of that poor guy (and everyone else involved) for that day? 🤷
The poor dude just grabs the iron, turns on the TV, and starts ironing kitchen towels while watching
a football game.
Rachel Stewart36 Rachel Stewart36 Member
35 messages
joined Nov 2010
#118 ·
Man, you’re seriously messing around here—either you just don't get my sarcasm, or you're being stubborn just to prove a point. Check the ego at the door, man; stop playing dumb when reading what people actually wrote because you're just making yourself look bad. This whole thread has gone completely off the rails now, so I don't see any point in staying involved.
Keith Lee2 Keith Lee2 Active Member
117 messages
joined Dec 2006
#119 ·
Rachel Stewart36 said:Man, you’re seriously messing around here—either you just don't get my sarcasm, or you're being stubborn just to prove a point. Check the ego at the door, man; stop playing dumb when reading what people actually wrote because you're just making yourself look bad. This whole thread has gone completely off the rails now, so I don't see any point in staying involved.

Fine.
Just ignore everything else and focus on the idea that sex is constant, while gender identity
(basically, gender) shifts depending on the situation—meaning it could even change
multiple times in a single day.

P.S. what did you mean by "hometown" 😕 was that supposed to be "gender town" or something else🤷
😁
Chloe Cook2 Chloe Cook2 Newcomer
1 message
joined Apr 2011
#120 ·
The thread’s been dead for two months now, I know. But I feel like I should say something, I guess.

Back in my teenage years—not that I want to sound old, I guess—I was convinced that every single gender difference, aside from the obvious biological stuff, was just socially imposed. I used to think that if we could somehow convince everyone around a newborn that they were actually a different gender, they’d grow up with that identity. Maybe. Just an old thought.

I guess you learn a few things as you get older. It isn't all black and white. There are biological differences, maybe driven by hormones, though there’s certainly a social element too. If you handed people an essay to grade and didn't tell them the author's gender, they’d probably give a higher score if they thought a man wrote it. Does that mean men are more competent? Not necessarily. It just means people tend to value their input more, regardless of the actual quality. Why that is, though... well, that's a different question entirely. It's probably not just about social conditioning.

The differences mentioned earlier... most of them seem legitimate, I guess. Men tend to lean more toward risk-taking, aggression, and physical exertion, while women often show more empathy. You could probably look at the experiences of transgender people on hormone therapy to see that. It seems many trans men report an increase in libido, quicker tempers, and finding it harder to cry—where they might have wept before, now they just get frustrated. They also deal with higher energy levels, needing more sleep, eating more, exercising more, building muscle faster, spontaneous erections, and constant sexual thoughts. On the flip side, trans women taking estrogen often report feeling softer or calmer, with a decreased sex drive. To me, it suggests these traits are largely driven by hormones rather than being some kind of social construct. Maybe.

Maybe because everything is so tangled up—and since most of these gaps seem to be driven by biology rather than just how we're raised—the whole concept of gender feels unnecessary. Even for trans or gay people, I guess.

If I’m transgender, then I guess it just means I was born one sex, but I feel like that's wrong. Being in that body feels unnatural, I suppose. Transitioning makes things align, so everything is fine. I don't really see it as having one sex and another gender... no. It's more like a person has one biological sex and a different identity—they see themselves as one thing, even if their physical reality says otherwise. Maybe.

I suppose sexual orientation isn't about having one identity separate from gender. It’s more like they coexist, much like it does for heterosexual people. It’s just that certain aspects might deviate from the majority norm. For instance, if most men happen to love sports, it doesn't mean a man who isn't interested in athletics has some sort of identity disorder. Similarly, just because most men are attracted to women, it doesn't follow that a man attracted to other men has an identity issue. Most traits associated with a specific gender are just individual facets. I guess you don't need to check every single box to belong to a category.

I suppose if someone is born male and is perfectly content with their body, they could be a ballet dancer, walk with more grace, enjoy things like soaps and lotions, or grab coffee with girlfriends to gossip about clothes and guys. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a female identity; they might still see themselves as a man, just... a less conventional one. I guess the same logic applies the other way, too. Someone born female might want a more masculine physique and live life as a man, even if they don't fit the standard mold. Nothing is ever truly black and white, I guess.

There’s a difference between how we perceive our own bodies and how well we fit into typical masculine or feminine stereotypes. I suppose the first part defines gender identity, while the second is just personality. Personally, regarding those traits, I feel like I sit somewhere in the middle. I have plenty of traditionally masculine traits, and plenty of feminine ones—maybe leaning slightly more toward the former. But that doesn't change my gender identity. I am male, regardless of those characteristics. Or regardless of which body I was born into, I guess.

And another thing... queer theory often distinguishes between transsexuality and transgenderism. One relates to sex, the other to gender. Honestly, I think if we truly embraced gender and transgender identity, then anyone with even one trait typically associated with the opposite sex could be considered transgender.

On the other hand, transsexuality seems to point toward a disconnect with one's own body. A need to change that body to match the opposite sex. In my view, once that transition happens, the person HAS changed their sex, and their identity and sex are finally aligned. So, I suppose that is a functional "cure" for transsexuality.

Because, quite often, if someone born male identifies as female—unless they were already built like a man from the start—after hormone therapy and the necessary surgeries, nobody would be able to tell they aren't a woman, unless they knew the person's history. Apparently, these procedures are so effective when done by top-tier surgeons that even a gynecologist might not see a difference between a cisgender vagina and one created through surgery.

The results for the penis aren't always as seamless, I suppose, but the hormonal impact is significant. Many people born male, even after hormone therapy, retain enough masculine physical traits that people can easily judge their birth sex. It seems to work differently for those born female. If you see a trans man in shorts, most people wouldn't be able to tell he wasn't born male. Even with prosthetics, or just being lucky with height and high-quality surgery, seeing them naked wouldn't necessarily seem "strange."

So, try telling me that person is still their original sex. All the physical traits and the internal chemistry shift to align with the new sex. I don't see what that has to do with the old sex, except maybe chromosomes, I guess.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads