QT, if gender is innate to identity

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]strictly 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (11 children)

Could you share the studies you mentioned at the end of your comment?

Here girls with CAH (who were exposed to more prenatal androgens) seem less likely than other girls to follow fake female gender norms (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0125) so prenatal hormones might influence who we imitate. It was a long time ago since I read about the self-socialization theory so can't find the other studies right now but there was a finding on monkeys where male monkeys didn't learn to be take care of monkey children by female monkeys, but if there were older nurturing male monkeys, then they would follow the example of these nurturing male monkeys and learn to take care of monkey children from them.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When girl is said that she is "other" or she is laughed out for having facial hair from the very childhood - no wonder she will not want to comply with gender stereotypes.

2016

Poor women with CAH pulled into this gender nonsense.

For example, boys tend to prefer playing with toy vehicles and weapons, whereas girls tend to prefer playing with dolls and tea sets.

That's a lie, which was already debunked in studies in 90s and 00s, as all this is imposed on kids. There was study, that younger boys will always play dolls with their older sister and will not find it girlish or anything, until tell it in school or elsewhere and be laughed out for doing this, only then those boys would start doing "what other boys do" - to "fit the group they belong".

This study says this later themselves:

In regard to gender-typed toys, parents, teachers and peers all encourage gender-consistent toy choices more than they encourage gender-atypical choices.

But they are still making assumption, that it is what boys and girls like and that it is natural. Which is not.

I'd ask /u/ColoredTwice experience on this, as she has CAH herself.

All the girls with CAH had been assigned and reared as girls, and treated with hormones postnatally to normalize their cortisol and androgen concentrations. Similarly, all the boys with CAH had been assigned and reared as boys, and they were treated with the same hormones as girls were to normalize postnatal hormone concentrations.

This is very weird statement. As far as I know, if they receive treatment for "wrong sex" - they will simply die. So there no "assigment" involved - it is just what medical personel was required to do to save lives of those kids.

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

When girl is said that she is "other" or she is laughed out for having facial hair from the very childhood - no wonder she will not want to comply with gender stereotypes.

Girls with CAH who get treatment don't all grow facial hair in early childhood, I think it would have been mentioned in the study if following fake gender norms depended on the child being bearded or not.

That's a lie, which was already debunked in studies in 90s and 00s, as all this is imposed on kids.

The study will mention other studies, that's almost inevitable, even studies you agree with would more often than not also mentions studies you don't agree with, but this is not the study itself. And the conclusion of the study is that the difference is not about the toys themselves.

But they are still making assumption, that it is what boys and girls like and that it is natural.

The point of the study is making fake norms and see the tendency to follow them. There is an article mentioning this study where Cordelia Fine who wrote the book delusions of gender is one of the co-authors https://theconversation.com/how-we-inherit-masculine-and-feminine-behaviours-a-new-idea-about-environment-and-genes-82524.

This is very weird statement. As far as I know, if they receive treatment for "wrong sex" - they will simply die. So there no "assigment" involved - it is just what medical personel was required to do to save lives of those kids.

They will use woke terms as they have to. Almost all studies nowadays use woke terms in some way or the other, one has to ignore that and read the meaning behind the word if one likes reading studies.

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate. I have read many studies and I have also read Cordelia Fine's books where she criticize the studies, and I mostly agree with the criticisms. One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people, and that seems to be the case for pre-homosexuals too (i.e children who are more gender non-conforming seem to be more likely to be same-sex attracted later in life). There are many ways to try to explain away this but none of those explanations ever seemed that convincing to me. The self-socialization theory would explain it though, and the self-socialization theory doesn't support the inevitability of gender norms.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people

That is the easiest part to explain, actually.

I saw that I am different to others in my sexuality, so I just went different in other ways as well, just because I already was not like others in some aspects. It was very strange not to see any other woman loving women, everyone was with men, so I thought I am just weird, and when I rebelled against "you need to date boys" - I went full GNC for few years during my teen years. I am bisexual, but with very strong preference for women, and because of social pressure, I decided I will only ever be with women. I know many similar stories about going GNC from lesbians and gay men. Especially gay men who were bullied - went even more GNC. Most transsexuals I know are gay men, who were victims of homophobia, who went full GNC and later full "feminine" to a "I will be a woman" degree.

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate.

It is hard to say. Boys and girls have different experience and different capabilities based on our biological differences. Same situation will be perceived differently by boys and girls, even if both will receive same treatment, same socialization and will have everything else the same. Our bodies are different, we can't escape this. Same goes with hormones - progesterone is working like sedative, while testosterone is working as anti-depressant and energetic. I don't think it will ever be possible to clearly know are we born with blank state or not, but just because our biological bodies, needs and experiences are different - we will be different as groups (men and women) always. We are - our experience and our biological needs.

[–]strictly 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I saw that I am different to others in my sexuality, so I just went different in other ways as well, just because I already was not like others in some aspects.

I was a tomboy as a kid and got bullied for it. I was a tomboy before I knew I was a lesbian. Among GNC homosexuals many seem to have been GNC before puberty, long before they were aware of being different from other kids in sexuality. There are certainly those who become GNC later too, and many who were never GNC at all, but on average homosexuals seem to have been more likely to have been GNC from a very early age than straight people on average. That is why some homosexuals are concerned about early child transition for GNC children and see that as gay conversion therapy as a significant percentage of them would probably grow up as homosexual.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate. I have read many studies and I have also read Cordelia Fine's books where she criticize the studies, and I mostly agree with the criticisms. One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people, and that seems to be the case for pre-homosexuals too (i.e children who are more gender non-conforming seem to be more likely to be same-sex attracted later in life). There are many ways to try to explain away this but none of those explanations ever seemed that convincing to me. The self-socialization theory would explain it though, and the self-socialization theory doesn't support the inevitability of gender norms.

Agree with this.

There is bad gender science. But bad gender science does not mean there is no science to gender.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Here girls with CAH (who were exposed to more prenatal androgens) seem less likely than other girls to follow fake female gender norms (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0125) so prenatal hormones might influence who we imitate.

Please explain where the "prenatal androgens" and "prenatal hormones" that these persons "were exposed to" in utero came from. How are they different to the androgens and hormones that babies are "exposed to" during the puberty of infancy?

Why is that you (& many others) are so willing to give credence to the idea that "prenatal hormones might influence" human behavior, but totally overlook the possible role of the sex hormones human babies make in vast quantities in the first 6 months of life starting at circa 4 weeks after birth?

Your generalizations about "monkeys" undermines your arguments. There are many, many different monkey species & a great variety of behaviors has been found amongst them. Which specific kind of monkey are you referring to here?

[–]strictly 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Please explain where the "prenatal androgens" and "prenatal hormones" that these persons "were exposed to" in utero came from. How are they different to the androgens and hormones that babies are "exposed to" during the puberty of infancy?

I think androgens in general are relevant, and the timing, as androgens don't always have the same effect depending on the timing.

Why is that you (& many others) are so willing to give credence to the idea that "prenatal hormones might influence" human behavior, but totally overlook the possible role of the sex hormones human babies make in vast quantities in the first 6 months of life starting at circa 4 weeks after birth?

I didn't mention the existence of the sun either. Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't believe in it. I can't mention everything as that would make posting something a full time job.

Your generalizations about "monkeys" undermines your arguments.

I said monkeys as I didn't remember the species and couldn't find the study, I mentioned not finding the study and it being several years ago since reading it so everyone would be free to ignore if they wanted to.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh c'mon. You said that prenatal hormones that fetuses "are exposed to" at some unspecified time during the 40 weeks it takes for a human fetus to grow to full term have a major influence on sex-linked traits & behavior much later on in life. Specifically you claimed that girls exposed to "more prenatal androgens" due to CAH are "less likely than other girls to follow fake gender norms" when they grow up, suggesting a cause & effect relationship.

This could well be the case. But it still raises the obvious question: where do these prenatal hormones supposedly come from? Moreover, it raises the issue of why the exclusive focus on the androgens & hormones in a fetus's system in utero - which as I'm sure you know can't be tested for or measured - whilst completely ignoring infants' sex hormones during the puberty of infancy that occurs in the first 6 months after birth, which we know are as high as they will be later on in the puberty of adolescence - & which can be tested for & measured very safely & easily?

One of the reasons I asked these questions is that when "prenatal androgens" & "prenatal hormones" that fetuses "are exposed to" are brought up to explain the development of behaviors later in a child or adult's life long after birth, it is often done with the intent of implying that these hormones come not from the fetus itself, but from the mother. According to a theory advanced by many misogynists and genderists, for some unknown reason women's bodies during pregnancy sometimes give rise to unpredictable surges of sex hormones that cause some fetuses to be flooded with tsunami-like "washes" of the sex hormones that usually predominate in the sex opposite to the fetuses' own sex . This in turn supposedly causes affected fetuses to end up many years later as children, adolescents or adults who are in some way atypical in terms of "gender" expression, identity &/or sexual orientation - or to have other issues like autism, anxiety and learning disabilities.

I'm not saying this is what you are saying or you believe. Just that this is usually the view of those who advance these sorts of theories about fetal "exposure to" prenatal sex hormones at unspecified times prior to birth.

A good way to get an idea if there's merit to the impact of early hormone exposure would be to test & measure the androgens & other sex hormones of babies in the puberty of infancy, then track the tested children as they grow up to see how they turn out. This could easily be done without risking any harm to the tested infants. Whilst it wouldn't solve the mystery of what happens hormonally inside human fetuses in utero, it certainly would go a long way to showing whether there really is a link, & how strong a link it is, between early-in-life sex hormone levels & such matters as later physical development, psychosexual development, sexual orientation, "gender conformity" or lack thereof, athletic ability & interests, trans identification and so on.

But no one seems to want to do this or even to discuss it. Rather, most people today who believe that sex hormone exposure early in life is important to, & predictive of, behaviors & inclinations later on in life would rather ignore investigating the measurable hormones of the puberty of infancy so they can continue to speculate solely about "androgen exposure" & "hormone washes" in utero.

Again, not saying this is what you believe or would rather do. I have no idea what you think. It's just that for the sake of all who might be reading, whenever someone brings up the issue of the impact of "prenatal hormones" on the trajectory of people's lives much later on, I feel a duty to raise questions to point up the unsubstantiated nature of these claims, as well as the mother-blaming that often underlies them.

[–]strictly 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

You said that prenatal hormones that fetuses "are exposed to" at some unspecified time during the 40 weeks it takes for a human fetus to grow to full term have a major influence on sex-linked traits & behavior much later on in life.

I said seem, not definitely, and nothing about major, it’s theory about child imitation. I didn’t state anything about other androgens not mattering. But androgens at one stage doesn't necessarily lead to the same effects as androgen at another stage, and I don't know how long the researchers think this particular timing window expands, and the study itself primarily talks about prenatal androgens, and it’s also hard to know if these girls continued to have an overproduction of androgens even after birth as many of them probably were diagnosed with CAH at birth and got treatment for it, so there wouldn't be much for me to expand on regarding the potential role of post natal hormones in this particular case. I also don’t have limitless time so I will never be able to speak about everything that can be factor.

But it still raises the obvious question: where do these prenatal hormones supposedly come from?

Untreated CAH leads to an overproduction of androgens, this starts before they are born which is why girls with CAH might be born with virilized genitalia.

it is often done with the intent of implying that these hormones come not from the fetus itself, but from the mother

Never implied it came from the mother here, the girls in study have CAH so I thought was obvious that source the was the condition the girls had.

According to a theory advanced by many misogynists and genderists, for some unknown reason women's bodies during pregnancy sometimes give rise to unpredictable surges of sex hormones that cause some fetuses to be flooded with tsunami-like "washes" of the sex hormones that usually predominate in the sex opposite to the fetuses' own sex . This in turn supposedly causes affected fetuses to end up many years later as children, adolescents or adults who are in some way atypical in terms of "gender" expression, identity &/or sexual orientation - or to have other issues like autism, anxiety and learning disabilities.

Prenatal/neonatal androgens being a factor is the leading theory behind female homosexuality. Regarding conditions where scientists think prenatal/neonatal androgens might have a role they are generally uncertain regarding the source of the influencing hormones. It’s known that mothers with certain hormonal conditions (like PCOS) are more likely to give birth to children with certain conditions, making early hormone exposure a possible factor in that condition but this doesn't mean the source of the hormones must come from the mother as it’s equally likely that the child simply inherited the genes related to the mother’s hormonal condition and that in turn causes the child to have a higher androgen production.

at unspecified times prior to birth

It sounded like you thought I too specific for not talking about the potential role of post-natal hormones, but here you seem to think not mentioning a month is too unspecific. They do have theories about the when for some of these things as there some indications about the timings but that would be on a more speculative level.

But no one seems to want to do this or even to discuss it

I think researchers are interested in doing a study like the way you say but studies in this area are not well-funded so often they can only get funding for studies that are very cheap to make. Plus I imagine there is a lot of paper work with consent even for studies that seem simple. As for me, I’m interested in the research but I’m not a researcher, and although I have read a wide range of studies I can’t read studies that don’t yet exist, it’s not to due to lack of wanting. Anyway, it's worth noting the prenatal/neonatal hormones being a factor is only the leading theory for female homosexuality, not male homosexuality (as there are other factor they think matters more there).

as well as the mother-blaming that often underlies them.

What is there to blame if we are talking about homosexuality/GNC? It’s a neutral thing, neither good nor bad. I don’t understand why we should be morally invested in from whom the potentially influencing androgens originally came from, it’s not like we should need a scapegoat to blame in this context as being atypical is not being defective. And in the contexts where the child does indeed have negative condition with strong inheritable factors (like haemophilia) I still don’t think we should see any parent as blameworthy for contributing the gene. Seeing the idea of being the carrier as close to slander would contribute to the idea that the carrier would morally guilty in some way.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I said in my comment that I wasn't suggesting you personally had claimed or believed the things I was clarifying & objecting to. My points were aimed at the general ideas raised by your earlier post, & I meant them as much for other readers as for you. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. If that's how it came across, I apologize.

Untreated CAH leads to an overproduction of androgens, this starts before they are born which is why girls with CAH might be born with virilized genitalia.

But the androgens that are overproduced in girls with CAH come from their own bodies during & following development of their own gonads & other glands like the adrenals, right? The excess androgens don't from their mothers' bodies. That's what I was trying to clarify.

Regarding conditions where scientists think prenatal/neonatal androgens might have a role they are generally uncertain regarding the source of the influencing hormones. It’s known that mothers with certain hormonal conditions (like PCOS) are more likely to give birth to children with certain conditions, making early hormone exposure a possible factor in that condition but this doesn't mean the source of the hormones must come from the mother as it’s equally likely that the child simply inherited the genes related to the mother’s hormonal condition and that in turn causes the child to have a higher androgen production.

The speculations/research I am raising concerns about aren't about pregnant women with PCOS - they are about the 90-95% of women who don't have PCOS or any other condition causing hyperandrogenism. A number of researchers & others allege that women with no unusual hormonal conditions at all nonetheless somehow generate unpredictable sex hormone surges during pregnancy that somehow end up causing their children to have such issues as autism or to identify as "trans" later in life.

What is there to blame if we are talking about homosexuality/GNC? It’s a neutral thing, neither good nor bad. I don’t understand why we should be morally invested in from whom the potentially influencing androgens originally came from, it’s n

Of course, today amongst most educated people in the West, there's no blaming mothers for what their bodies might have done to fetuses when pregnant when kids turn out to be gay or GNC. But in the West, this sort of mother-blaming did historically go on - & it still goes on in many countries & certain cultural milieus in the West were homophobia is still rife & the norm.

Moreover, it's part of a larger pattern of mother-blaming that goes back many generations. Schizophrenia, other mental illnesses & various other problems used to be blamed on things mothers' bodies did to their fetuses in utero. Now some scientists like Simon Baron-Cohen allege that autism is caused by women producing too many steroid hormones during pregnancy (he says this based on testing the hormones in amnio fluid, without taking into account that the hormones in amnio fluid might well come from the fetus or from fetus & mother together, rather from the mother alone).

Outside of research settings, women are still told not to have "negative feelings" like anxiety, fear or grief when pregnant coz the cortisol will screw up the fetus's developing brain. What women drink, eat, do, feel & think during pregnancy is still strongly policed for fear of the damage we will do to our future children as they develop inside us. Some of the caution, as in the case of drinking alcohol, is legitimate. But a lot of the policing of women's bodies, outer behaviors & inner lives that women are subjected to when we are pregnant is about a larger, deeper pattern of social control of women & mother-blaming specifically.

in the contexts where the child does indeed have negative condition with strong inheritable factors (like haemophilia) I still don’t think we should see any parent as blameworthy for contributing the gene. Seeing the idea of being the carrier as close to slander would contribute to the idea that the carrier would morally guilty in some way.

Of course, no one should blame blame parents for passing on heritable conditions to their children, be they X-linked ones like hemophilia or severe combined immune deficiency; Y-linked ones like webbed toes or hairy ears; or ones which occur only when both parents carry & pass on a genetic mutation, as in the case of cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia or hereditary hemochromatosis. But what should happen & what actually happens IRL are two very different things. In families with these sorts of inherited conditions, there tends to be good deal of blaming. Het couples where the man & woman each have to pass on a genetic mutation for disease to occur in their offspring still often blame each other for their children's illnesses & deaths; as someone from a CF family I know this firsthand.

Moreover, because many more inherited conditions are X linked than Y linked (coz the X chromosome carries many more genes than the Y, & thus many more mutations or "defects"), often it's the female chromosome that gets the most blame. Which just leads to more antipathy towards females & femaleness, & in turn feeds into the larger problem of women being blamed for pretty much everything in life, including the bad behavior of men.

Also, since the general public began to grasp how congenital conditions get passed on, many people known or suspected to carry a genetic mutation proven to cause a serious disease or condition have been stigmatized & discriminated against in dating & potential mating, employment & health insurance coz others see us/them as defective ourselves or as carrying a defect that we will likely pass on to our children like a time bomb. It's not right, but it sure does happen. (Which is one of the reasons I campaigned for the USA's Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.)

But all this is neither here nor there, because the issue of placing blame on women for the hormones our children are/were/might have been exposed to in utero isn't confined to women with hyperandrogenic conditions like PCOS, nor is it confined to women with genetic mutations that we could pass on with the result that our children might have a medical condition that has a clear, already-proven biological basis that leads to distinct, telltale physical markers on which a definitive diagnosis grounded in material reality can be made. The women who are being blamed for causing their fetuses to be "exposed to" hormones that might cause them either to grow up to have problems with no clear physical causes & markers like autism, "gender dysphoria" or "transsexualism" - or just to be atypical in what you & I would consider a neutral way, neither good nor bad, like homosexuality or "gender nonconformity" - are mothers in general, not just those with certain medical conditions or who carry certain gene mutations than can result in kids having a disease or DSD.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.