QT: Why are gendered behavioural patterns typically sex-congruent (or rather concordant with their respective gendered socialisation) in trans people?

submitted by SnowAssMan from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

But you believe in agp but also think gender norms are societal.

Don't most essentialists think it's a mix?

How do decide what is essential and what is societal? Isn't universality a good measure?

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How AGP is related here?

Don't most essentialists think it's a mix?

I don't know.

How do decide what is essential and what is societal?

Studies must be done.

Things like agression are the mix, but caused by society. When you are stronger than some group, but not the strongest, if is often leading to agressive behaviour, and it is happening in all species with social or power hierarchy. And it is not happening in species without hierarchy. So without power hierarchy stronger but weaker than top males would not be agressive to females or less strong males. Humanity shown that we can build not power-based hierarchy, we just don't want to, as "everyone is used to it" and ones who have money and power do not want to lose those.

Isn't universality a good measure?

When talking about overwhelming majority, not when talking about minorities. In society, most items are universally made for right handed - because overwhelming majority of society are right handed.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Things like agression are the mix, but caused by society. When you are stronger than some group, but not the strongest, if is often leading to agressive behaviour, and it is happening in all species with social or power hierarchy. And it is not happening in species without hierarchy. So without power hierarchy stronger but weaker than top males would not be agressive to females or less strong males.

I have wondered about the aggression masculinity strength model.

In that the "dominance model" could purely result from a cultural perception of the physical dimorphism.

However I think it's very unlikely that nature would evolve physical dimorphism without complementary behavioural dimorphism. As if nature is creating gendered differences but offers no behavioural utility for acting on those differences.

Humanity shown that we can build not power-based hierarchy, we just don't want to, as "everyone is used to it" and ones who have money and power do not want to lose those.

I'm not so sure it's as simple as that.

Hierarchy is fairly useful. That's not a justification but it has it's uses.

It's also ubiquitous to a large degree.

I'm not sure what you have in mind as an alternative?

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As if nature is creating gendered differences but offers no behavioural utility for acting on those differences.

Even in animals it is happening time to time, when hierarchy is failing and some parts of the species living with different rules - if environment has changed.

I'm not sure what you have in mind as an alternative?

Not power-based hierarchy. I don't think it is possible with all humanity history, but we can at least aim there. With not enforcing gender stereotypes and gender based education from birth time - it should come naturally, not completely gone, but to a big digree after few generations. That will be really hard to achieve as well, but it is not a reason to be aiming there.

I could say "everyone's equality" like communism, but that will be lies, it can't fix anything, only make it worse. We can folow bonobo and love each other (that's a joke).

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I simply don't see men and women giving up masculinity and femininity.

As long as men and women carry on behaving differently, masculinity and femininity will carry on being things.

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Isn't universality a good measure?

Absolutely not. By that logic, religion would be a part of human biology (and in fact, it has been argued that it is by some), and as we know from the amount of atheists currently, it's not.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think a lot of religious behaviours are natural. I think they're naturally evolved. Societies without religion still have plenty of features religious ones do. It just manifests differently.