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 →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

The language trait is innate but varies over cultures and time.

The desire to do gender, masculinity and femininity, can be natural even if it is completed by culture.

Humans being adaptable flexible creatures, need to have a flexible gender system to deal with different environments. How flexible is debateable. But the system appears emergent.

In turn if "gender" was not innate why do all cultures across time have it?

[–]Penultimate_Penance 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Is gender necessary? By gender I mean sex stereotypes.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (16 children)

(gender in this context)

I think that's a category error to ask if gender norms are necessary. It's like asking if sexual orientation or language is necessary. I think gender is a product of both emergent traits and social construction.

If conforming people are stereotypical then non conforming people are stereotypical towards the opposite sex.

Gender norms is perhaps a better term than stereotypes.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Gender nonconforming people are proof the gender is bullshit. Gender/sexist stereotypes is what makes makes their life harder. I sure as hell would be a lot better off without bullshit sexist gender roles for women.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (14 children)

People who conform to opposite sex gender norms despite their environment is proof gender is bullshit?

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Being "gender nonconforming" does not mean conforming "to opposite sex gender norms." The fact that you can only see black & white blinds you to the fact that when it comes to "gender norms" most people are shades of gray.

This willful blindness to the reality of other people's lives is on you. As a man who finds the "gender norms" you consider "feminine" to be sexually arousing, who puts a lot of time & energy into "femininity," & who benefits a great deal from your status as a man in a male supremacist society, you have a vested interest & myriad incentives for wanting to uphold strict "gender norms" & trying to pigeonhole everyone & everything into one of two boxes labelled "masculine" and "feminine." But most people aren't like you in this regard.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Being "gender nonconforming" does not mean conforming "to opposite sex gender norms."

Can you give me an example of someone being gender non conforming without conforming to opposite sex gender norms?

I can see things can shift from one sex to another or become unisex or disappear but that does not mean everything will do that.

Gender norms will remain and gender non conformity will remain.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't shave my legs. In the United States it is not normal for women to not shave their legs. In some cultures it is normal for women to not shave their legs. E.G. Gender is arbitrary bullshit. Name any stupid expectation of men or women you can think of and there is probably a culture out there who has the opposite belief about which 'gender' should be doing what. Gender is the problem not the solution.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Men are presumed to be more criminal (including non violence), more aggressive and to be the primary positive figures of organised violence (warfare).

That seems pretty universal.

The organised violence role maybe an inevitable side product of civilization, rather than something primary.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Also you aren't understanding the argument. Gender roles consist of a collection of cultural beliefs about men and women. For example there are many people who believe that women are inherently bad at logic and anything that requires it like math, the sciences and philosophy. Women who get into the sciences, math and philosophy and succeed prove that the regressive sexist belief that women don't logic well is bullshit. When women are no longer denied access to education they do great, go figure, but sexist gender roles are a big fucking deal, because women all over the world throughout history up to the present day have been denied an education, because of these sexist beliefs about women's gender roles. Deifying and identifying with gender harms women full stop. Trans Identity and Feminism are incompatible full stop. Gender identity is rotten to it's core, because when drill you down to what gender actually is it is sexism plain and simple.

Many male trans individuals spout off horrifically sexist regressive beliefs about women and play act their sexist idea of womanhood and claim that that makes them a woman then turn around and expect women to be a ok with it. That's to put it bluntly batshit.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think men and women are behaviourally the same but I think the differences have to be limited. It has to be down to one or two things. I think the differences would be more like bi modal preferential desires.

For example, women were often employed as "human computers." Doing the maths for larger projects.

Why did computing and those roles become more male dominated? Because the pay went up and men sought that pay. The male power aggression aspect edged women out. Nothing to do with cognitive ability. Men in competition with other men feel they need the money.

Even a slight average difference might have effects on a larger scale. So not a big difference between the sexes, nothing to do with ability, only that average slight aggression power dynamic.

The singular power aggression dynamic might explain a lot of common differences we see across cultures, the crime difference, male propensity for organised violence and sex crime.

Not an absolute difference but an average which is more clear in larger populations.

This does not mean "patriarchies" are stable or the only system. Societies can find that bias in male behaviour has to be better managed. It has to be controlled for greater good of society.

I'm speculating here as are we all because the science is not clear.

There are people who identify as "trans women" saying outrageous sexist things. I'm not justifying them. They are frankly absurd.

I still can't see men and women on average behaving innately identically. Sex is one of those things they have different behaviour on.

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

For example, women were often employed as "human computers." Doing the maths for larger projects.

Why did computing and those roles become more male dominated? Because the pay went up and men sought that pay. The male power aggression aspect edged women out. Nothing to do with cognitive ability. Men in competition with other men feel they need the money.

It was a little more complicated than that. Actually, a lot more complicated.

Women were pushed out of many positions in computing & many other fields because traditionally women were routinely fired from their jobs when they got pregnant. This was lawful to do in most jurisdictions. Moreover, in many jurisdictions and/or lines of work, women had to cease paid employment outside the home once they got married. Sometimes this was by law; sometimes it was by company policy, union rules and professional or industry standards; & sometimes it was by social convention. In many cases, it was all of those factors combined at once.

Also, after World War II was over, women in countries like the US and UK were fired en masse from the jobs in computing, defense & nearly all other industries that they had held during wartime because their governments decided the jobs the women had be doing rightfully belonged to the men who had served in the military and now were returning to the civilian workforce.

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

I think I agree with all of that. There is also the white goods revolution in the 20th century. "Homemaking" stopped being the job it was. Child rearing very much still is a job.

The surplus labour from white goods pulled women into the work place. Also just as house work was eased hard labour was eased and work became less arduous in general. Fair take?

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

It might be a fair take, but it's not one I think is all that accurate.

An important factor (of many) you are overlooking is that during WW1 and WW2, & the Great Depression in between, the vast number of people in the US and UK who would have spent their lives working as domestic servants (as housemaids, cooks, scullery maids & kitchen staff, laundresses, valets, personal maids, drivers, errand-doers, nursemaids, governesses, butlers, personal secretaries, household managers & so on) found that opportunities to go into other lines of work opened up to them - & that in many places there was less chance to land relatively well-paying jobs as professional domestic servants because of all the formerly very wealthy upper-crust who'd lost fortunes, or whose fortunes had been greatly diminished. This vastly changed things both for the ultra rich who lived in the vast mansions of the top tiers of the upper class (as seen in TV & films like & Upstairs, Downstairs; The Remains of The Day; & Downton Abbey) as well as in the far more modest homes of middle class people.

For example, prior to the two wars, lots of middle class families relied on live-out hired help such as "a regular girl" or two who did most of the household cleaning, & also on (mostly) women who came in to homes to cook, bake & do laundry. At the same time, a lot of home cooking, baking & laundry was contracted out to workers who undertook those tasks in their own homes or in communal, commercial facilities.

My understanding is that in the 20th century, the opposite to what you say happened actually occurred: homemaking didn't cease "being the job it was" in the past as you put it; rather, "homemaking" became a FT job that individual "housewives" were expected to do all on their own, with no help or with only very occasional help (such as a cleaning person coming in once every two weeks, occasional babysitters & perhaps a baby nurse who'd be hired to stay over for the first two weeks after MC women gave birth).

Similarly, the introduction in the 20th century to homes of such features as indoor plumbing, modern "bathrooms," a plethora of new household appliances like electric vacuum cleaners & washing machines for laundry & steam irons, plus a vast array of brand-new cleaning & laundry products & tools, went hand in hand with the rise of increasingly higher, more demanding, exacting & finicky standards of household & personal hygiene.

When people shat & peed in outhouses, the outdoors, "chamber pots" or portable "stools," there actually was a lot less clean-up than today. When the modern indoor plumbed toilet became a standard part of the the average home - & the toilet came to be placed in the same room where people bathed, brushed their teeth & kept their "medicine cabinets" - there suddenly was a brand-new need to keep the toilet & the area around it sparkling clean. And it was women who got saddled with this new chore.

Similarly, in the 20th century when many people went from taking a bath only once a week, or even more rarely, to bathing or showering every day, sometimes several times a day, & to washing their hair on a very frequent basis as well, it ended up creating a whole lot more work for whomever it was that was tasked with keeping home bathrooms clean. Which in most cases were the "housewives" whose domestic duties you claim became less onerous.

The upshot was that that house work for the average "housewife" actually became more, not less, arduous & time-consuming over the course of the 20th century.

Yet at the same time, a myth arose that, as you put it, "house work was eased" for women - a myth that was gladly embraced & spread by men who were not tasked with doing any housework & had no effing idea of what it involved. But of course, the source of the myth that "house work was eased" in the 20th century were the big corporations manufacturing & peddling all the new appliances & cleaning & laundry products whose adverts sold women - & everyone else - on the idea of ever-more exacting standards of household & personal hygiene.

The myth that women's domestic burdens were getting lighter & easier as they were actually getting heavier & more difficult to pull off to served to gaslight and further demoralize the women stuck doing all the unpaid house work that supposedly has become so much easier & less time-consuming than in the past.

Today, of course, the domestic servant class of past eras has been recreated, albeit in different ways, by modern-day immigration policies, take-out food, & all the shopping & delivery services, errand services, meal kits, prepared meal/food subscription services, household cleaning services and so on that have been made possible by the internet. Most people today don't employ household cooks, laundresses & valets, FT housekeepers or chauffeurs any more. But plenty of people today are reliant on food that is prepared elsewhere & delivered to their homes or workplaces by low-paid workers on quick order; on dry cleaners & "wash & fold" to take care of the laundry; on household cleaners who work as day laborers; on Uber & Lyft & local car services to get around; & on shopping & ordering services that will deliver groceries, beverages including booze, pharmacy products & pretty much everything & anything else directly to the doors of homes & right to people's desks at work.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We can acknowledge that there may very well be some average behavioral differences that may be innate to men and women respectively, but it is extremely difficult to separate nature from nurture. Sexism is a very likely reason why women are pushed out of certain fields and why pay raises when a field becomes male dominated and falls when it is female dominated. Women's work isn't respected, and it isn't valued.

Telling women they're not succeeding, because they aren't aggressive enough is just more sexism. Many women leave tech and high earning careers, because the bullying & sexual harassment just isn't worth it anymore.

If a male person behaves in a more stereotypically feminine fashion that does not make that male person a woman, that just means that some male people have personalities that are considered feminine. This proves that feminine and masculine gender roles being innate are bullshit, because if it was there wouldn't be so many exceptions to the rule.

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

We can acknowledge that there may very well be some average behavioral differences that may be innate to men and women respectively,

Right. On average in some areas.

but it is extremely difficult to separate nature from nurture.

It is difficult I agree.

Sexism is a very likely reason why women are pushed out of certain fields and why pay raises when a field becomes male dominated and falls when it is female dominated. Women's work isn't respected, and it isn't valued.

Yes I think sexism does take over at times. It often is related to rank misogyny.

Telling women they're not succeeding, because they aren't aggressive enough is just more sexism. Many women leave tech and high earning careers, because the bullying & sexual harassment just isn't worth it anymore.

But are we acknowledging that baseline of aggression that men might have?

If a male person behaves in a more stereotypically feminine fashion that does not make that male person a woman, that just means that some male people have personalities that are considered feminine. This proves that feminine and masculine gender roles being innate are bullshit, because if it was there wouldn't be so many exceptions to the rule.

To me though this creates a clash between "acknowledging that there may very well be some average behavioral differences that may be innate to men and women"

and "feminine and masculine gender roles being innate are bullshit"

There is some pattern to some things being innate and some things being cultural.

I understand with things being "bullshit" at times, at the same time I don't see how all of it is going to go away.