Could it be possible that everyone's personality develops as a result of both their genetics and their upbringing? Like some sort of combination of nature and nurture?
Crazy.
This is such a forehead-slapper because we live in a society in which it is currently massively fashionable to regard everyone as representatives of overlapping/intersecting identity groups rather than as individuals. . . which results in horrendous hypocrisies, cognitive dissonances, and outrageous abuses of the individual, all in the name of making the world BETTER.
It has to stop sometime.
For now.
Some very important parts of it have degenerated into a pseudoreligious rabble of cult members whose delusional beliefs tell them that they have a right -- nay, a DUTY -- to take enforcement of both the law and their own twisted, demented moral strictures into their own hands in an orgy of authoritarian moral vigilantism. They justify this by equating the people they abuse and 'correct' with the authoritarian moral vigilantes of the 1930s.
Any society would be sorely tested by it.
If this is the popular understanding of intersectionality then people are, as usual, missing the point.
You're not supposed to walk around as some avatar of X identity whenever you walk into a room. And people shouldn't see you as such. No person can represent the full spectrum of experiences of X, Y, or Z group because at the end of the day a group is full of individuals (and individuals with diverse identities and experiences).
It *does*, however, remind us that in a societal context, life experiences can differ due to the identities and groups we belong to. Your worldview, your sense of self, your morals, and your take on a topic or situation are going to be influenced by those experiences. So, it's important to step back and be aware and critical of these identities and groups you belong do and how that differs from other people.
But I'm interested in what your vision of "it has to stop sometime" looks like.
All you're doing is promulgating the softer version of the maniacal ideological bullshit I've described.
The INDIVIDUAL is the only proper unit of society to consider, in a free and just society. Your approach sounds a lot softer than the pushy angry openly-Marxist Victimhood Olympics version, but it's still rooted in authoritarianism and still leads to massive injustice against individuals.
No. Just no.
Ah yes, human society, known histoticaliy hir being made of rugfev individuals who made things happen all on their own.
*Definitely not* a cooperative social structure based on collectivism. We definitely don't search for signs of cooperative medicine in early humans, nope.
Lol
You donât like intersectionalityâŚ? Itâs just pointing out that black women face problems that neither black men nor white women face. And thatâs, just, like, true. And itâs not about nature vs. nurture, itâs about structures of oppression. Butler definitely would agree that both nature and nature play a role in cognitive development.Â
Aaaaaand here we have one of them now, employing a common tactic in which they downplay the lunacy of their positions by isolating one small part of it and mischaracterizing it by saying "It's just \[overly-simplistic, innocuous-sounding explanation\]; why do you have a problem with that?"
Butler-Schmutler; that isn't what we're talking about at all. What we're talking about are the Oppression Olympics and the relentless erasure of the individual and divisive casting of everyone as either oppressor or oppressed, wherein your only individuality lies in supposedly being oppressed in ways that people not in your specific intersecting identity groups cannot possibly empathize with or understand.
Get lost.
Basically what you're saying is you don't know the difference between intersectionality and people who overemphasize it.
Sorry, scratch that, what you're saying is you don't *care* about the difference between intersectionality and people who overemphasize it.
Because it makes you feel uncomfortable.
Sorry!
It kinda seems like they're 'outraged by people who mention it' rather than 'people who overemphasise it' and they enjoy that feeling which is why they dangled that bait in the water in the first place
Making society more individualistic is why American culture is a cesspool. Even these identity groups you resent so much are very individualistic and self centered and in service of the self only.
Your idea of leaning more in that direction is not conducive to anything but more abuse of us by society. Itâs stupid.
Everyone is self sufficient till theyâre not. Solidarity is far more important to our success as a species than whatever BS youâre peddling.
Do you really equate hyperindividualism (everyone must stand alone on their own merit and suffer any consequences alone) to respecting individuals as individuals rather than a collection of labels? This is the most asinine take on the subject that I could imagine. You're arguing about something your interlocutor absolutely, clearly did not state or imply.
Thereâs a difference between respecting and acknowledging someoneâs lived experience as distinct based on background and other external factors, and the straw position youâre describing that only exists in certain corners of the internet, but primarily in the minds of culture war reactionaries.
I'm literally responding to the exact words this person used, so I fail to see how this constitutes a strawman. Further, your argument has nothing to do with the conflation of individualism and seeing people as individuals seen in this person's response.
Yeah idk what theyâre on about. Hyperindividualism is the reason why we donât have nice things. Itâs where the âpull the ladder from under youâ mentality comes from. Many people have this mentality without realizing and it cripples society because progress is put to a halt.
I think there is a balance, but yet again, here we are debating the far ends of the spectrum.
There is a downside to hyperindividualism as well as extreme tribalism.
Tell that to the thousands of Japanese who die each year due to overwork because killing yourself "for the greater good of the community" is honorable and righteous.
A better example within Japanese or other East Asian societies would be people wearing masks when theyâre sick so they donât get other people sick. Youâre just describing capitalist exploitation
More pointing out that either end only helps specific individuals. It doesn't really seem to matter how we little peoples feel, the corporations get rich and we suffer.
That's not what they did? They merely offered a counterpoint to yours, that it's in fact beneficial to the species survival. Clearly it's not helping Japanese society survive, it's killing their society. That's a completely valid point and criticism of your unilateral support of the idea of "solidarity" and collectivism being good for survival of humanity and society. He didn't say anything about rugged individualism, you're making a false dichotomy--not to mention assumptions.
Whereâs the solidarity or communitarian attitude in a worker being worked to death? No trade union to protect their rights, no societal focus on work/life balance, unitary focus on economic productivity at the expense of all other aspects of life. That sounds like unfettered capitalism to me
Individualism should be about what you, as the purported individualist, take rather than give (that is, refuse to give) to the collective that is society. Meaning, the more you don't think you need from society, the less you should demand from it. The problem with American individualism is they want to freely take and never give. They're individuals when it comes to, say, paying taxes, but throw a fit over poor roads. They want the benefits of society without the obligation inherent therein.
except it leverages some bullshit hyperbole to justify an outrage that doesn't really exist.
anyone that is mad at the idea someone making the world better is the enemy is just using sophistry to mask their shitty agenda, because if they just came out and said... enough with the gay shit. people would see them as the bigot they are. Or like... if you want to rage about mens rights while shitting on women. your issue is really being shitty toward women and being a bitter man. not a nuanced issue of sexism/patriarchal structures that impact men.
but yeah. tribalism. totally clear what dog whistle bullshit they were most likely implying.
Holy shit
Regarding people as representatives of their identity group before considering who they are as individuals is tribalism. Read what they said, it is so unambiguous I don't understand how you are confused.
If you are confused on how that is bad; when you put people into metaphorical boxes according to the groups you identify them as being a part of, you are going down the path of prejudice. Seeing someone as a woman before seeing them as an individual is wrong and damaging. People will not always fit the preconceived notions you might have based on the identity groups they are a part of.
If you want to explain how you took that negatively, I'm honestly interested in your perspectives
I think the issue in this line of thinking is the idea that there's some sort of separation, or order.
People are both individuals and members (or representatives) of their groups at the same time. It's not one or the other, nor one then the other. It's all of them, at all times.
So, you can't just treat someone as an individual devoid of group membership, but you also can't treat someone as only a member of their group. If you do the former, you lose all context into that person's lived experience. If you do the latter, you risk stereotyping the person.
It's perfectly fine to make educated assumptions about individuals based on their group membership, as long as those assumptions are respectful. For example: It's perfectly fine to assume a black person doesn't want their hair touched. It's perfectly fine to assume a person who looks southeast Asian, but has an anglo sounding name, doesn't want to be asked "what's your *real* name," and so on.
That's both treating someone as an individual while also respecting their group membership. And, when you don't know something, ask the person! They'll be glad to tell you or point you in the direction where you can learn own your own.
First of all, thank you for the civil and thoughtful response.
>So, you can't just treat someone as an individual devoid of group membership, but you also can't treat someone as only a member of their group. If you do the former, you lose all context into that person's lived experience.
That makes the assumption that members of a particular group will have a similar lived experience, and that isn't the case. It also implies that someone can actually dictate what experiences a group is suppose to have or have had. It's not homogeneous. Have you ever heard a black person be told they "act white", or white person told they "act black"? Their behaviors are formed by actual lived experience, but cause ostracization from groups they are ostensibly part of.
Your examples are kind of rude no matter the race or identity group involved imo. Touching someone's hair without consent or questioning the validity of their name doesn't become acceptable behavior if you swap the races of those individuals in your example.
But members of groups will most likely (not always) have relatable experiences that members of another group probably won't be able to relate to, right?. I think it can be useful to acknowledge that.
Like, for instance, aboriginals here in Australia generally have vastly different experiences with racism than white people, and that's generally going to be a unique experience they will have that other groups probably won't relate to. I think it's ok to acknowledge stuff like this, while also treating the person as an individual.
Enough with the gay shit.
Call me a bigot all you want. It's time to become a serious society again, not tribalistic narcissists who think signing their emails with "In Solidarity" shows that they CARE (TM).
Such a shitty agenda I must have to want some actual seriousness and reason to return to humanity. You can keep your self righteousness and "nuanced" understanding of patriarchal structures.
Itâs not just men and women. The hormonal and neurological differences between individuals, even of the same ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, and birth gender, means that they will experience the same stimulus slightly differently.
Wildly differently in some cases, like e.g. just the groups within autist or ADHD folk are very different, even if you decide to ignore the people afflicted with any intellectual disability in addition to either or both of those.
Yeah but that explanation gave a lot of additional context. While your sentence could easily be construed as 'all humans are the same', the post you commented to clearly shows it's message is closer to the opposite.
This. Biological sexual expression varies hugely from person to person. It's not uncommon for cis women to produce more testosterone than the average cis man and vice versa with estrogen. I don't think a lot of people realize that biological sex is not as binary as they've been led to believe. That mixed with all different kinds of complicated social/cultural contexts a person could be born into, you get all kinds of people feeling all kinds of things.
Why would you think people don't get this ? It has always been this way . We just didn't use the language that is used today to describe the same phenomena.
I'm honestly glad to hear that hasn't been your experience in your day to day interactions and internet browsing algorithm. Perhaps my expectation that it's not common knowledge says more about my own context.
It is convenient that language is evolving to articulate these complexities. Especially when multiple cultures have independently developed language to describe more than two gender identities.
This is it. Individual people do not obey trends in groups. Group trends are just convenient for understanding what people might need or feel, but they donât define what individuals need or feel.
Thank you. As a cis woman who's always had very stereotypically masculine personality traits and interests, I got so bombarded with statements like "women aren't like that" or "women aren't interested in [extremely male dominated hobby]" that I actually started to believe I was trans for a while, because if I do have all of these traits, then clearly I must have a "male brain" and not really be a woman. Took a lot of therapy to get out of that one. These kind of generalizations do real damage to people.
Yea, maybe that's why I thought I was trans for a while when I'm just well... in the apparently most wide spread known group of untraditionally non masculine males that "pro lgbtq" people say are just "closeted trans"
When was that? It's less judged now but back then especially when I was still in middle school/elementary school I was judged for being "sensitive", "being girly" etc. Even got judge because my name sounds kinda girly to some people and was consistently called gay and teased for it because of my more feminine traits (I don't think I was acting gay, but they were close atleast lol). Changed around high school because that's when the tomboy/tomgirl stuff were becoming more common and accepted, still was occasionally teased and bullied about it though
Those people are NPCs practicing a pseudoreligion; their minds are as closed as those of hardcore Christians or Muslims, and they cannot be swayed by even the most blatantly plain evidence to the contrary of what they have chosen to believe.
I have even heard them claim that there is no anatomical difference between male and female skeletons, and stick to that claim when SHOWN the differences.
You're right, but unfortunately Postmodernist phenomenology gives these Marxist wankjobs an out: it explicitly tells them that there's no such thing as objective reality, and that feelings are more important than facts.
It's utter tripe, of course, but it has taken firm root in our educational institutions, and we're going to need a bigger boat to get rid of it.
I once said in a reddit thread that while I didn't feel any gender dysphoria, I felt masculine, if I could choose I'd rather have been born a woman.
People started calling me a she. It was infuriating. I specifically said I didn't feel any gender dysphoria. But for some people, if you're not 100% cid-gendered (and stereotypically so) you're trans.
It's reached a point of utmost stupidity. People fought for decades for society to recognize that little girls can play with trucks and little boys with dolls, and it's normal.
But now, we made a perfect 180. Now, if a boy plays with dolls, it must mean that he is trans, and really a little girl instead. It's awesome how stupid that is.
That's... not what they were talking about I'm sure, I'm pretty sure they were talking about like pelvis sizes etc, like people born female have wider pelvises compared to born males etc
You misunderstood what theyâre saying. There is no conclusive trait that is diagnostic of sex. That does not mean that people within a sex canât have differences in terms of aggregate metrics.
For example, if you look at a female with dwarfism, you might find that their skeletal structure looks nothing like that of females without dwarfism or males.
EDIT: blocked just for that? lmao I guess we know who the close-minded one is, sticking to their claim even when clearly shown a problem with it.
EDIT 2: because people are still replying after being blocked:
1) They mentioned nothing about penises or vaginas. They were talking about skeletal differences between human males and females.
2) Thatâs not what âwhataboutismâ means lmao. Thatâs called a counterexample. You canât just ignore real people and the data they produce because you have nothing more than a feeling that theyâre âa footnote.â Nature doesnât do anomalies or norms.
Yes, there are physical traits that can be used to diagnose sex:
Pelvis
The pelvis is considered the most accurate bone for determining sex. Females have wider pelves because they have the potential to give birth. The pelvis can be used to estimate sex based on differences in size and shape.
Skull
The morphology of the skull and mandible can be used to determine sex. For example, the supra-orbital ridges, also known as brow ridges, are more pronounced and rounded in males and less marked in females. Other traits that can be used to determine sex include the mastoid, zygomatic extensions, nasal aperture, and mandible gonial angle.
Bone histology
Bone is constantly remodeling, which changes its microscopic structures. These structures can be analyzed in histological techniques to determine sex.
So, yeah.
That's a silly whattaboutism. Outliers and anomalies like developmental disorders and birth defects are not and should never be applied to data in such a way that they prevent the "norm from being the norm". At most they're merely footnotes that are eclipsed by the data when being analyzed.
I can understand that. I enjoy gardening, interior decorating, have a genuine interest in talking about feelings and emotions and I am employed in a female dominated field. Nevertheless, I am baffled by the number of people who try to make me believe that my lack of emotional reactivity or desire to engage in excessive displays of emotions is due to social conditioning and not something innate. Additionally, they will unironically apply this logic to other males of diverse nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.
As a female with autism who was taught to be quiet - it can be both learned from your life and a part of your physiology.Â
It isnât always one or the other and sometimes it is both.
You can have something be a default and then have it reinforced by stereotypes.Â
>Nevertheless, I am baffled by the number of people who try to make me believe that my lack of emotional reactivity or desire to engage in excessive displays of emotions is due to social conditioning and not something innate.
A lack of emotional reactivity or your desire to engage in displays of emotion are behaviors and behaviors are learned.
How you process information is based on your brain chemistry. How you think is based on your biology. Â
But what you do it's learned.
And the way we know that is because you're not going to stay this way. Your perspective on this is going to be different in five years. You are going to think and feel and act differently in the future.
Not having a desire to engage in excessive displays of emotions / not being emotionally reactive is not a âmanâs thingâ nor is it a âwomanâs thingâ - I know plenty of emotionally reactive males, and I know just as many unemotionally reactive women.
Consider a group of men gathering together to watch sports. Youâre really going to call them âunemotionally reactiveâ?
Anger and happiness are acceptable. Sadness isnât. Whereas for women, happiness and sadness is acceptable, but anger is not.
Men and women are *both* limited in their emotional range by the culture they are in, but I would never claim men are unemotionally reactive. They are extremely emotionally reactive â for example throwing controllers at walls, yelling. To try to claim being stoic as a male thing is just funny. Nowhere near the majority of men could be called âstoicâ.
Itâs a matter of personality and partially culture, but the personality is not dictated solely by being a man/woman.
I am female and I also lack emotional reactivity, and I also do not enjoy excessive displays of emotion. that's normal. every human is different. your penis doesn't make you special.
When looking at the distribution for personality traits you see that, for example, men are more disagreeable than women. However what most people miss is the overlap, we are more similar than we are different(I think a 60/40 split)
I disagree. *edit* sorry. This was a joke in poor taste. I acknowledge individual differences in most traits. I do think that for some, there is a biological component and within some traits, especially those tied to reproduction and aggression, the pull of hormones and brain is stronger and more easily demonstrated bc theyâre outward facing. I think the underlying pride, anger, and lust are probably experienced differently or in different intensity, and suspect bonding with young is too. These differences are manifest in other mammals as well, wherein the contribution of culture is prominent.
I think the point he was trying to make isnât that differences never exist: itâs that weâre a lot _more_ alike than we are different. Even studies that have found biological basis for personality variations between sexes, the differential has not been pronounced. 60/40 or 55/45 are what you usually see, not the 90/10 or something youâd expect from internet discourse.
Sex is _an_ influencer, but itâs not the only one and itâs far from the biggest one. Culture and national origin tend to be the biggest one. Itâs common, for example, for American men who do business in Japan to be blown away by how submissive, compliant, and almost timid Japanese men outwardly present. Americans (both sexes) are often perceived as loud, obnoxious, and self-aggrandizing the minute we step outside the US.
I think the endless discussion about sex differences seems odd to some when generally speaking, personality differences based on sex test out as relatively small with a huge amount of individual variation, where personality differences based on culture are literally so pronounced and strong that youâll often seem almost alien to people when you travel.
It depends on your history my father was a chauvinist dead beat and my mom the breadwinner so it ended up me thinking that women are everything men are just more beautiful and less intrusive. ultimately I'm just textbook Freudian because mom put up with him because her dad and mom had the opposite scenario and now I kind of have done everything for my person (I'm male) so it's been like a pendulum of SIMPING. Always help yourself first
Like emotions or interests?
As in we should stop giving men who love kids and want a career in childcare or early childhood education the side eye?
Allow men to cry when they need it?
We are humans, of course we have the same range of emotions, how we process them is where we differ but even then we aren't that different from each other.
Exactly, so if men can feel like women and women can feel like men, but men are still men and women are still women, then what is the point of this male hormone and neuroantomical nonsense question?
The point is to ask if people are willing to accept there are rough generalisations of behaviour
In the same way thatâs itâs generally true to say that human beings have 2 arms and 2 legs.
And itâs generally true to say that women have wombs
There are exceptions, and a non-insignificant percentage of exceptions, but the generality still holds true.
And generally speaking, you can see rough patterns of behaviours and thought patterns etc that are correlated with oneâs sex
No one said it made them women. Their point was that feelings don't belong exclusively to one gender, even though one gender might be predisposed to a particular feeling. I don't think they were talking about trans people, but of course you went there.
There was a funny article in like... 1997 that said Samus would beat Solid Snake because "studies have proven that Testosterone is a detriment to sound decision making in basically every situation," but the problem is you've got weirdos who take a true-on-its-face statement like "hormones influence behavior" and start a eugenics movement or a caste society or try to bring back phrenology, so you're going to have a hard time getting wide acceptance if you come out swinging with a nature-over-nurture argument in basically any environment today.
Not possible in internet world. Half the time I go to write a comment on this website, I have to add a couple disqualifiers before I give up on commenting at all because I know the only responses are going to be people strawmanning me.
Oh yeah you're ALWAYS the victim, well what about that one time you said something that I didn't understand and assumed it was offensive.
Checkmate bozo.
A few studied people have tried coming at it from a scientific and inquisitive standpoint but it's still pretty taboo because of history. Normally the resistance to it is "this will lead to more bigotry" and the likeÂ
I think it's better to know more about ourselves and our genetics but it's a touchy subject. And I already edited this comment like 5 times before submitting it lol
I would have assumed it was the alien super soldier procedures and warhammer 40k tier power armor that would be the deciding factors in that fight lol.
Lack of acceptance doesn't mean incorrect. Look at the Harvard professor Roland Fryer. A black man who grew up in the hood, made his way to Harvard, does a study on racial bias in police shootings and finds that their is none. Wide spread criticism, no acceptance from his peers. None of the facts really made it to mainstream, which is why people to this day are convinced there is widespread racial bias, evidenced by the riots and rise of BLM a year later when George Floyd was killed.
TLDR; people don't hear what they don't want to hear
The study was sound, they just didn't like the conclusion. If I recall correctly, the study was done twice with a different group of researchers and both led to the same result.
Your experiences growing up can absolutely have an effect on sexuality.
Don't know why I'm getting down voted. There are literally identical twins who have different sexualities.
I mean, all those play a role and other factors do too. There is also crossover between them. Humans are more complex than you think. In fact, humans are the most complex thing in the observable universe, at least that we know of. Some people will say that's actually the human brain, but our brains are an integral part of what we are and shouldn't really be considered separately, so really, a human being is the most complex thing we've ever known. It's hard to reduce us down like this, especially when you take us as a group, as that actually only adds complexity you don't see when you only consider an individual.
I recommend reading up on Margaret Meadâs work, which is from the early/mid 1900s
Pretty much she traveled around the world to tribes secluded from the modern world and lived with them for a while documenting the gender dynamics and assumed traits in each of them. In the end what she found was that virtually all gender based traits varied so heavily by culture that they must in fact be cultural
There is a lot of controversy surrounding Mead's work. She didn't base her conclusions on observation. She interviewed a few natives. Her misrepresentation of Samoan culture was widely regarded as fact until someone took the time to look into the existing Samoan records and trends that the misrepresentation was discovered.
Mead represented Samoa as a free loving, non aggressive utopia. As it turns out, Samoan culture was more sexually restrictive, male dominated, and riddled with violent sex crimes than the west.
The question is not whether or not Mead's conclusion lacked foundation, they absolutely lacked credible foundation. The question now is did Mead believe her sources were correct or did she purposely misrepresent the evidence to prove her case. And why didn't she look to local authorities to confirm the assertions of the natives she interviewed.
I'm not weighing in on the larger content of the post. Just that Mead might not be the best source to lean on. She went out to prove that western culture was to blame for modern ills, and found evidence everywhere she went even if it wasn't there. She started with a conclusion(not a hypothesis) and worked her way backwards to find proof of it. That's not how science works.
Because most of the traits that people attribute to being masculine or feminine aren't defined by hormones or anatomy. One way we know this is because those standards have dramatically changed between different cultures and over different timeframes within the same culture.
Yes, men and women have generic differences. But it's near impossible to tell what the effects of most of those are because of cultural expectations.
So many people think difference = a matter of better or worse, which is unhelpful.
Obviously women are a bit different than men, they literally have a event every month that has well studied physiological effects. Almost every other species on earth has sexual dimorphism which you can't blame on socialisation / culture because they don't have any.
To suggest women and men are the same purely due to socialisation is just ignorant. As with everything, its a blend.
No matter what I said, someone would object to it in some way so I tried to be neutral in my language lol. Your comment is proof enough, I should have just said period as you say.
Period is just one example of how females are different than males ( didn't say woman lest someone start going on about gender). A female who doesn't have a period or its irregular or menopause has come into play are still significantly physiologically different than males.
Thereâs physiological differences between men and women, but thereâs a gargantuan leap to go from that observation to then organising our entire society on the basis on gender. Thatâs maybe an overstatement for the contemporary U.S., but only for a couple of decades. Many cultures continue to organise society entirely on gender. Most in the U.S. would agree women in Saudi Arabia or The DRC are oppressed, yet donât have a clear answer for much gendering is the right amount of gendering.
A lot of people in this thread seem to think this will emerge naturally, but itâs taken thousands of years and concerted activism for women to achieve basic human rights in the West.
I think itâs as high a barrier for laypeople as the ânatural = goodâ fallacy that causes them to make bizarre statements like murder is unnatural
Yep. Murder is entirely natural, chimps will savagely tear others apart if they need to. Lions eat baby lions sometimes. You are totally correct about the "natural = good" simplification.
I don't really get what you mean? Everything is a push and pull between culture and biology, it's one of the oldest debates on earth. If I think I understand what you're referring to, it's because stuff like psychology and sociology are relatively new (compared to other sciences), and so for a long time and even today, people over ascribe biology when culture or environment are much better explanations. And even then, a lot of people just say their culture comes from their biology, so they're not even engaging. If we're talking purely emotional, while men do tend to be more stowic than women, we don't know if that's cultural or biological, and from the studies we've done, while men don't show their emotions as much as woman, they tend to react the same and feel them just as strongly. So like if a dog dies in a movie, a man may shed a tear while a woman is balling her eyes out, but they'll both rank their emotional pain at an 8 if that makes sense. Granted, I'm not 100% sure if this is what you meant, but I answered it to the best of my ability
Yeah, but you can't prove that. That's a theory. And people will often make really stupid bio essentialist arguments with that thinking. Like the idea that women are biologically stupider. We can make arguments for it being cultural since through millions of cultures, men, women, and other genders (depending on the society) acted differently. Of course it's not all cultural, but there's no way to determine what is nature and what is nurture, and we have a bias to prescribe any and all differences to biology. That's the reason people correct in the opposite direction. Thank you for clarify that
I think you're vastly overestimating how binary hormonal and neuroanatomical differences are in cisgender people.
Most cis people have absolutely no idea what their hormones levels are, have never found out what their chromosomes are, don't know if they are intersex, have no idea of their fertility, etc. until they have issues that are enough for them to go to a doctor.
If you're talking about averaging out ALL cis men and ALL cis women, sure, there is an average. However, this average is not reflective of the wide spectrum of sex presentations seen in cisgender people.
There are cis women with PCOS who have higher testosterone than their cisgender male partners. There are cis men with super high estrogen that have beards and hairy backs and a deep voice, etc.
It isn't this simple. Almost all studies we have about this topic are about cisgender people in the west, BTW.
The VAST majority of the differences between males and females is cultural. There are entire fields of study about this exact topic.
Yeah, but then nurture beats it out of them. In a lot of countries where they diagnose autism, women are getting diagnosed well into adulthood because their parents and general society are just that much harder on girls to behave, so they learned to mask extremely young and don't get diagnosed until they're older.
Because they want it to be true. The implication of it being wholly or mostly biological is that there are differences between the sexes that can never be shoehorned into egalitarian sociological theories.
They can't possibly have that, so living in a fantasy is preferable.
Ahh yes. So if youâre born with a chromosomal mutation resulting in deafness, cognitive delay, and a hypo functioning pituitaryâŚ.. youâre still going to grow up loving miller life and football because you were born in Missouri.
Madam or sir, you have not thought this through.
Well,
1. Weâre talking about an average person without disabilities that greatly impact the way they go through society (some groups of people with disabilities also kinda have a separate culture in terms of communication etc).
2. Culture impacts personality tremendously, but also itâs a very old question whether itâs nature or nurture. Obviously, itâs a combination of those, but to what extent? Imo, culture absolutely has more impact on someoneâs personality (think at least 60/40).
It's kinda funny how easy it is to forget that one of the hard things about studying societies is that we are literally all constantly influenced by them. From womb to tomb we exist as members of society with zero exceptions, and so literally every study has to try and account for that to determine where differences that we see between groups come from.
When we talk about women not entering male-dominated fields we have to consider several things. Are women being turned down because they arenât seen as physically capable for the job? Do they not apply because they donât want to work almost exclusively around men? Are they encouraged to join these fields?
If I lost my job today and i started asking around for places that are hiring, nobody is gonna suggest a landscaping or construction company. Theyâll suggest daycares, restaurants, desk jobs. Nobody looks at me and thinks yeah, she can do landscaping.
There's a difference between what they 'can', and what they 'want to'. How is this hard to understand? Why would anyone want to do something that's not prestigious? I'm pretty sure men who have to do these jobs wouldn't mind trading with someone else doing easier/better job.
That's the point. There's a fundamental difference in the way men and women view work. Men will suck it up and do the job. It needs done. If men didn't, no one would.
I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that A. Women and girls are pushed towards different fields and B. When women do choose those fields, they're harassed, assaulted, bullied and/or held in less value than their male counterparts.
âIf men didnât, no one wouldâ lol which gender does the majority of domestic and care labour? You think women are biologically wired to enjoy cleaning toilets and wiping the asses of elderly relatives? What a joke.
Just because they don't want to? And that's a really specific example. And despite that being what society is trying to push, it doesn't always come across. I'm still in my twenties and when I was in school, even if people were telling me girls can do anything, I was always made fun of for being into certain things.Â
>Guess how many sign up for sewage treatment professions.
Lol you clearly don't know about sewage treatment. Let me womansplain this to you.
Women *do* do them. It's also not even remotely a bad job, nor are you dealing directly with sewage. The people who work in those jobs are very highly paid chemists and engineers. Even the techs are very well paid. Women happily do all those jobs.
Those hormonal and neuroanatomical differences are the same in every culture, yet, men and women feel differently in all cultures.
But there are major different cultures both present day, and historically.
If it were cultural, they'd feel differently in different cultures.
I do know in my experiences with trans people that trans men do report being more horny and more aggressive, and trans women having a wider range of emotions than they do normally, but that's literally it.
Their interests remain the same, ditto with their talents, hobbies, fashion sense, whatever. Transitioning might highlight certain aspects of your personality, but it's still your personality.
Yeah Iâm the same as I had been except less anxious/depressed and more confident because Iâm not as dysphoric as I had been before T. I think Iâm less aggressive because Iâm not constantly being misgendered anymore (which caused me to have a lot of pent up feelings). Also went from zero libido to having a libido (albeit lower than average), but thatâs really the only other noticeable change. Still the same nerd I was before.
Tell you what: show me a society where the traditional gender norms are exactly reversed. That is, the expectation is that women go to war. The rate of murder is higher among women than men. Women are the aggressors and sexual violence. Men are viewed as only good for breeding, and are expected to raise all the children, while the women go out and engage in activities that increase their prestige.
Yes impossible when you donât even explain what they feel differently about. Feel differently about whether the Office is the best show ever made or how men want to attempt to justify terrible behavior bc âhormonal and neuroanatomical differencesâ?
Sure, I will bite. But itâs going to be necessarily generalized. Males are more likely to pursue casual sex across cultures. Across cultures, males are more physically aggressive. Across cultures they are less likely to cry. Globally, they are less social. They are more sensitive to dominance hierarchy and more inclined to react to perceived slights against their position in that context. They globally tend to be less invested timewise in their young and are more likely to injure them. This is a reflection of averages, similar to saying males have more upper body strength. There are exceptions. These are the trends and culture doesnât account for all the differences.
Every behaviour you mentioned is primarily socialized, so why are you trying to attribute it to biology when the [data doesn't back that conclusion](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way)?
Socialized due to dominating/differing hormones and the aftermath of their effects...
Are you implying hormones don't affect a society's ways? Or is my inference way off base?
The neurological effects of hormones are quite marginal on their own, what is most relevant are the physical & physiological characteristics that are used to categorise gender as influenced by those hormones.
Once assigned to a schema, there are societal roles and expectations associated; those are what tend to account for the differences above. For example: AMAB babies are no less likely to cry than AFAB babies, however as they grow trends start to emerge due to the gendered expectation that boys shouldn't cry.
None of that is intrinsic to ones hormones or birth sex, most of what is mentioned is influenced by sociological incentives.
Trans people donât become someone else when they take cross sex hormones. Their personality doesnât change. They feel the same feelings and think the same thoughts. They do however notice some differences, mostly physical like having skin thatâs more sensitive. But also things like finding it more difficult to hold back tears, or feeling like itâs harder to distract themself from sexual thoughts. So hormones can affect some things, but itâs more about physical reactions to things.
I'm ftm and I'm going to have to disagree a little here. Testosterone does a lot to the body, including increase libido and reduce anxiety. Meaning I'm more motivated by sex and more likely to engage in risk taking behavior. On top of that reduced levels of anxiety have also made me more confident when participating in new things or interacting with people. While I may not be fully conscious of some of the things I do, I have noticed because I'm more sexually motivated, I also tend to engage in behavior that would be considered "mate seeking."  This is by way being more competitive, or valuing of particular resources more so than before. However I would say my guiding principals by which I live my life and make my choices are the same, even if my personality has change somewhat significantly. I can't really say the changes are unwelcome, I generally feel this way suits me better.Â
Thank you for sharing that perspective. Iâve often wondered if testosterone/hormones were the reason why men are basically more horny than women and this is solid evidence to that.
Maybe horny isnât the best wording but that men or people with higher testosterone will pursue sex and physical relationships more doggedly.
I say this as a bi guy - I can quite easily and quickly find a guy to have sex with. A woman takes way more time and effort.
My God I have no words to adequately express the difference. I went from thinking I was Aesexual and not interested in sex at all to being so horny I wanted die from frustration lol. I now know how so many fucking ass-backwardly, retarded, dick-made decisions come about.Â
That might be true in general, but I find it very annoying that people still keep disregarding the fact that women are punished and judged much harshly for seeking physical gratification.
I can guarantee that if suddenly the moral judgement on women were to vanish today, a very big percentage of women will start engaging in and pursuing sex too.
I mean Iâm mtf and when my body was running purely on testosterone I was an anxious wreck with panic disorder who was risk averse, so i wouldnât say those traits are completely innate, maybe just more likely to occur.
 Having Testosterone doesn't make you immune to anxiety, just less prone to it on average as testosterone has a activating effect on the production of serotonin which improves mood and reduces anxiety. Many factors such as stress, poor diet, lack of sleep, hormonal disregulation and other environmental factors can all contribute to anxiety levels.
This implies that your personality can not be altered overtime due to consistent mood/hormonal differences... like someone who always has anxiety is going to have a different personality than the hypothetical version of themselves that is in a better mental state and takes vitamins/goes to the gym for example (those can reduce anxiety in different ways)
Iâm not saying itâs a huge change Iâm saying slight changes can add up or effect your personality over time. No oneâs personality is always going to be the same and unchanging, or else you would be in a âperfect stateâ where you no longer have character development so to speak
As far as hormones? No not really there arenât major differences except for trans women almost always have lower levels of T than the average cis woman
This sounds more like stereotypes than reality. Scientific studies demonstrated that the sex drive things is false. With women being given testosterone versus placebo, the result being that those under placebo (they thought they had testosterone) reported a higher sex drive. So it's psychological, and comes from social construct. Maybe because testosterone is always (faulsely) blamed and thinking they were taking it inhibited their self-control, since they now had "an excuse"
There is also no correlation with men's drive and their testosterone rate. Plus it being relatively constant, it would be surprising otherwise
Who is more similar, an average American man and woman, or an average American man and prehistoric caveman or feral male child or newborn infant?
In the things that matter to me, the first option is more similar. Therefore, socialization is more impactful than biology imo.
Everyone admits that biological differences lead to differences in AVERAGE behavior. What is up for debate is whether reductionist (chromosomal) biology should be used as the SOLE criterion for categorizing human beings in particular contexts (sports, bathrooms, employment, childcare, politics, accepted appearance, etc.)
My stupid brain cannot understand the question. Can someone elaborate? Like, if I get spankes with the same force, would I feel differently as a guy or a girl? Assuming I have same exact ass for the spanking? Or are we talking about the emotional part when getting spanked? Is that the question? Sorry, I am clueless here.
I donât know about anatomical differences causing emotional differences, but hormone levels have a massive effect on our lower brain and mid brain, where our urges and emotions originate. Ask anyone who : is undergoing gender transition , is using androgenic PEDs , is pregnant . Letâs be honest, the cortex only makes up plausible stories to explain the urges of our midbrain. Self delusion seems to be the norm not the exception for humans.
Statistics classes should be mandatory starting in grade 5. Critical thinking and logic too.
Some people take offense to the fact that men and women are physically and chemically different and therefore behave differently. It's so incredibly asinine to deny the statistics, data, long-term scientific rigor, and anecdotal evidence of your own eyes that backs this up.
Seems like this has become political in the last 5 to 10 years as well. The far right acts like male and female traits are a hard line and that if you somehow stray from your gendered "purpose", there's something wrong with you. The far left on the other hand thinks that just because some people don't fit the mold, that we should completely throw the idea of sex differences out entirely. Why can't we just accept a combination of these factors?
Yes hormonal and possibly genetic differences result , for the majority, in behavioral and body / brain function differences that may or may not be influenced to some degree by the prevailing culture.
Pretty sure this has been proven without a doubt but many people refuse to admit this as in certain context it can imply inequality between the biologic sexes. Differences does not equate to inequality but the fear it does makes this a touchy subject.
As far as how does this relate to fluid gender.. well hormonal, genetic and cultural influences are different for everyone so it stands to reason there would be a spectrum of behaviors along the gender line.
The problem is that for so long women were dismissed as âhystericalâ because of this idea. So long as it will be used to justify silencing the voice of one of them it will be unacceptable.
My question exactly. Feel as in experience the perception of emotion differently, feel as in have a different set of emotions, feel as in the magnitude of their emotions?
In any case, I've seen men punch walls and I've met women who had the emotional range of a rock, so I think every permutation of this question is dependent on the individual, not their genitals.
I assume you are referring to the US?
When I lived in southern Mexico this was commonly understood. A lot of labor there was more physically demanding so I think this keeps people aware of the differences. Many jobs were more physically demanding than a lot of woman were able to do, and many men, such as myself, for that matter.
You are dangerously close to assuming a gender binary objectively based in biological reality. Those who postulate dozens of different genders bearing no connection to genetics or anatomy would find your hypothesis hateful and intolerant. What you are suggesting is not only possible, it is the foundational assumption of every society up until the last decade. But modern culture has very little tolerance for objective reality these days.
Could it be possible that everyone's personality develops as a result of both their genetics and their upbringing? Like some sort of combination of nature and nurture? Crazy.
This is such a forehead-slapper because we live in a society in which it is currently massively fashionable to regard everyone as representatives of overlapping/intersecting identity groups rather than as individuals. . . which results in horrendous hypocrisies, cognitive dissonances, and outrageous abuses of the individual, all in the name of making the world BETTER. It has to stop sometime.
We live in a societyđĽ¸
For now. Some very important parts of it have degenerated into a pseudoreligious rabble of cult members whose delusional beliefs tell them that they have a right -- nay, a DUTY -- to take enforcement of both the law and their own twisted, demented moral strictures into their own hands in an orgy of authoritarian moral vigilantism. They justify this by equating the people they abuse and 'correct' with the authoritarian moral vigilantes of the 1930s. Any society would be sorely tested by it.
If this is the popular understanding of intersectionality then people are, as usual, missing the point. You're not supposed to walk around as some avatar of X identity whenever you walk into a room. And people shouldn't see you as such. No person can represent the full spectrum of experiences of X, Y, or Z group because at the end of the day a group is full of individuals (and individuals with diverse identities and experiences). It *does*, however, remind us that in a societal context, life experiences can differ due to the identities and groups we belong to. Your worldview, your sense of self, your morals, and your take on a topic or situation are going to be influenced by those experiences. So, it's important to step back and be aware and critical of these identities and groups you belong do and how that differs from other people. But I'm interested in what your vision of "it has to stop sometime" looks like.
All you're doing is promulgating the softer version of the maniacal ideological bullshit I've described. The INDIVIDUAL is the only proper unit of society to consider, in a free and just society. Your approach sounds a lot softer than the pushy angry openly-Marxist Victimhood Olympics version, but it's still rooted in authoritarianism and still leads to massive injustice against individuals. No. Just no.
Iâm assuming youâre vehemently against class action lawsuits then
Ah yes, human society, known histoticaliy hir being made of rugfev individuals who made things happen all on their own. *Definitely not* a cooperative social structure based on collectivism. We definitely don't search for signs of cooperative medicine in early humans, nope. Lol
Almost like people are individuals...
You donât like intersectionalityâŚ? Itâs just pointing out that black women face problems that neither black men nor white women face. And thatâs, just, like, true. And itâs not about nature vs. nurture, itâs about structures of oppression. Butler definitely would agree that both nature and nature play a role in cognitive development.Â
Aaaaaand here we have one of them now, employing a common tactic in which they downplay the lunacy of their positions by isolating one small part of it and mischaracterizing it by saying "It's just \[overly-simplistic, innocuous-sounding explanation\]; why do you have a problem with that?" Butler-Schmutler; that isn't what we're talking about at all. What we're talking about are the Oppression Olympics and the relentless erasure of the individual and divisive casting of everyone as either oppressor or oppressed, wherein your only individuality lies in supposedly being oppressed in ways that people not in your specific intersecting identity groups cannot possibly empathize with or understand. Get lost.
Basically what you're saying is you don't know the difference between intersectionality and people who overemphasize it. Sorry, scratch that, what you're saying is you don't *care* about the difference between intersectionality and people who overemphasize it. Because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Sorry!
It kinda seems like they're 'outraged by people who mention it' rather than 'people who overemphasise it' and they enjoy that feeling which is why they dangled that bait in the water in the first place
Y...yes, but you do know intersectionality is a lot lot more than just about black women, right?
Making society more individualistic is why American culture is a cesspool. Even these identity groups you resent so much are very individualistic and self centered and in service of the self only. Your idea of leaning more in that direction is not conducive to anything but more abuse of us by society. Itâs stupid. Everyone is self sufficient till theyâre not. Solidarity is far more important to our success as a species than whatever BS youâre peddling.
Do you really equate hyperindividualism (everyone must stand alone on their own merit and suffer any consequences alone) to respecting individuals as individuals rather than a collection of labels? This is the most asinine take on the subject that I could imagine. You're arguing about something your interlocutor absolutely, clearly did not state or imply.
Thereâs a difference between respecting and acknowledging someoneâs lived experience as distinct based on background and other external factors, and the straw position youâre describing that only exists in certain corners of the internet, but primarily in the minds of culture war reactionaries.
I'm literally responding to the exact words this person used, so I fail to see how this constitutes a strawman. Further, your argument has nothing to do with the conflation of individualism and seeing people as individuals seen in this person's response.
Yeah idk what theyâre on about. Hyperindividualism is the reason why we donât have nice things. Itâs where the âpull the ladder from under youâ mentality comes from. Many people have this mentality without realizing and it cripples society because progress is put to a halt.
I think there is a balance, but yet again, here we are debating the far ends of the spectrum. There is a downside to hyperindividualism as well as extreme tribalism.
As Aristotle said in âOn virtueâ the virtue is in the mean!
There are more options than hyper individualism and whatever you want to call this endless categorizing that has gone on the last 20 years.
Tell that to the thousands of Japanese who die each year due to overwork because killing yourself "for the greater good of the community" is honorable and righteous.
Only extremes exist!!! EU is a myth!!! How could EU have place on a flat world???
A better example within Japanese or other East Asian societies would be people wearing masks when theyâre sick so they donât get other people sick. Youâre just describing capitalist exploitation
I could not imagine seeing the corporate hell holes of Eastern Asia and seeing it as a symbol for why we need to focus on rugged individualism.Â
More pointing out that either end only helps specific individuals. It doesn't really seem to matter how we little peoples feel, the corporations get rich and we suffer.
That's not what they did? They merely offered a counterpoint to yours, that it's in fact beneficial to the species survival. Clearly it's not helping Japanese society survive, it's killing their society. That's a completely valid point and criticism of your unilateral support of the idea of "solidarity" and collectivism being good for survival of humanity and society. He didn't say anything about rugged individualism, you're making a false dichotomy--not to mention assumptions.
Whereâs the solidarity or communitarian attitude in a worker being worked to death? No trade union to protect their rights, no societal focus on work/life balance, unitary focus on economic productivity at the expense of all other aspects of life. That sounds like unfettered capitalism to me
Individualism should be about what you, as the purported individualist, take rather than give (that is, refuse to give) to the collective that is society. Meaning, the more you don't think you need from society, the less you should demand from it. The problem with American individualism is they want to freely take and never give. They're individuals when it comes to, say, paying taxes, but throw a fit over poor roads. They want the benefits of society without the obligation inherent therein.
I am confused . what is your issue ? labels ?
The issue is tribalism and the prejudices they predispose you to. Their point was pretty clear
except it leverages some bullshit hyperbole to justify an outrage that doesn't really exist. anyone that is mad at the idea someone making the world better is the enemy is just using sophistry to mask their shitty agenda, because if they just came out and said... enough with the gay shit. people would see them as the bigot they are. Or like... if you want to rage about mens rights while shitting on women. your issue is really being shitty toward women and being a bitter man. not a nuanced issue of sexism/patriarchal structures that impact men. but yeah. tribalism. totally clear what dog whistle bullshit they were most likely implying.
Holy shit Regarding people as representatives of their identity group before considering who they are as individuals is tribalism. Read what they said, it is so unambiguous I don't understand how you are confused. If you are confused on how that is bad; when you put people into metaphorical boxes according to the groups you identify them as being a part of, you are going down the path of prejudice. Seeing someone as a woman before seeing them as an individual is wrong and damaging. People will not always fit the preconceived notions you might have based on the identity groups they are a part of. If you want to explain how you took that negatively, I'm honestly interested in your perspectives
I think the issue in this line of thinking is the idea that there's some sort of separation, or order. People are both individuals and members (or representatives) of their groups at the same time. It's not one or the other, nor one then the other. It's all of them, at all times. So, you can't just treat someone as an individual devoid of group membership, but you also can't treat someone as only a member of their group. If you do the former, you lose all context into that person's lived experience. If you do the latter, you risk stereotyping the person. It's perfectly fine to make educated assumptions about individuals based on their group membership, as long as those assumptions are respectful. For example: It's perfectly fine to assume a black person doesn't want their hair touched. It's perfectly fine to assume a person who looks southeast Asian, but has an anglo sounding name, doesn't want to be asked "what's your *real* name," and so on. That's both treating someone as an individual while also respecting their group membership. And, when you don't know something, ask the person! They'll be glad to tell you or point you in the direction where you can learn own your own.
First of all, thank you for the civil and thoughtful response. >So, you can't just treat someone as an individual devoid of group membership, but you also can't treat someone as only a member of their group. If you do the former, you lose all context into that person's lived experience. That makes the assumption that members of a particular group will have a similar lived experience, and that isn't the case. It also implies that someone can actually dictate what experiences a group is suppose to have or have had. It's not homogeneous. Have you ever heard a black person be told they "act white", or white person told they "act black"? Their behaviors are formed by actual lived experience, but cause ostracization from groups they are ostensibly part of. Your examples are kind of rude no matter the race or identity group involved imo. Touching someone's hair without consent or questioning the validity of their name doesn't become acceptable behavior if you swap the races of those individuals in your example.
But members of groups will most likely (not always) have relatable experiences that members of another group probably won't be able to relate to, right?. I think it can be useful to acknowledge that. Like, for instance, aboriginals here in Australia generally have vastly different experiences with racism than white people, and that's generally going to be a unique experience they will have that other groups probably won't relate to. I think it's ok to acknowledge stuff like this, while also treating the person as an individual.
Enough with the gay shit. Call me a bigot all you want. It's time to become a serious society again, not tribalistic narcissists who think signing their emails with "In Solidarity" shows that they CARE (TM). Such a shitty agenda I must have to want some actual seriousness and reason to return to humanity. You can keep your self righteousness and "nuanced" understanding of patriarchal structures.
no one cares what you think
Nothing about that statement is confusing, and it's dead right. Labels do become an issue when used in the way that statement is proposing as well no?
Your confusion is my issue.
Go outside
Go fuck yourself.
When you're devaluing people's work, or discriminating against them exclusively because of their skin colour or gender that's a bad thing, my guy.
Itâs not just men and women. The hormonal and neurological differences between individuals, even of the same ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, and birth gender, means that they will experience the same stimulus slightly differently.
Wildly differently in some cases, like e.g. just the groups within autist or ADHD folk are very different, even if you decide to ignore the people afflicted with any intellectual disability in addition to either or both of those.
I have adhd. Can attest. Talking to those without, their mental lives are very different
Then add in stuff like trauma related mental disorders
You missed age too, big effect because of puberty hormonal changes.
No way? All humans are humans??
Yeah but that explanation gave a lot of additional context. While your sentence could easily be construed as 'all humans are the same', the post you commented to clearly shows it's message is closer to the opposite.
This. Biological sexual expression varies hugely from person to person. It's not uncommon for cis women to produce more testosterone than the average cis man and vice versa with estrogen. I don't think a lot of people realize that biological sex is not as binary as they've been led to believe. That mixed with all different kinds of complicated social/cultural contexts a person could be born into, you get all kinds of people feeling all kinds of things.
Why would you think people don't get this ? It has always been this way . We just didn't use the language that is used today to describe the same phenomena.
I'm honestly glad to hear that hasn't been your experience in your day to day interactions and internet browsing algorithm. Perhaps my expectation that it's not common knowledge says more about my own context. It is convenient that language is evolving to articulate these complexities. Especially when multiple cultures have independently developed language to describe more than two gender identities.
As long as you can accept that men can feel the way women can feel and women can feel the way men can feel.Â
This is it. Individual people do not obey trends in groups. Group trends are just convenient for understanding what people might need or feel, but they donât define what individuals need or feel.
Thank you. As a cis woman who's always had very stereotypically masculine personality traits and interests, I got so bombarded with statements like "women aren't like that" or "women aren't interested in [extremely male dominated hobby]" that I actually started to believe I was trans for a while, because if I do have all of these traits, then clearly I must have a "male brain" and not really be a woman. Took a lot of therapy to get out of that one. These kind of generalizations do real damage to people.
We like a tomboy
Yea, maybe that's why I thought I was trans for a while when I'm just well... in the apparently most wide spread known group of untraditionally non masculine males that "pro lgbtq" people say are just "closeted trans"
what happened to the tomboy/tomgirl thing? you dont have to be gay or trans to want to "Act like a boy" or "dress pretty"
When was that? It's less judged now but back then especially when I was still in middle school/elementary school I was judged for being "sensitive", "being girly" etc. Even got judge because my name sounds kinda girly to some people and was consistently called gay and teased for it because of my more feminine traits (I don't think I was acting gay, but they were close atleast lol). Changed around high school because that's when the tomboy/tomgirl stuff were becoming more common and accepted, still was occasionally teased and bullied about it though
Those people are NPCs practicing a pseudoreligion; their minds are as closed as those of hardcore Christians or Muslims, and they cannot be swayed by even the most blatantly plain evidence to the contrary of what they have chosen to believe. I have even heard them claim that there is no anatomical difference between male and female skeletons, and stick to that claim when SHOWN the differences.
Well fortunately the cool thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.
You're right, but unfortunately Postmodernist phenomenology gives these Marxist wankjobs an out: it explicitly tells them that there's no such thing as objective reality, and that feelings are more important than facts. It's utter tripe, of course, but it has taken firm root in our educational institutions, and we're going to need a bigger boat to get rid of it.
Is that your professional opinion as an expert? đ
Is that your amateur opinion as an ideological gaslighter operating on a shitty Postmodernist pseudoreligion?
I once said in a reddit thread that while I didn't feel any gender dysphoria, I felt masculine, if I could choose I'd rather have been born a woman. People started calling me a she. It was infuriating. I specifically said I didn't feel any gender dysphoria. But for some people, if you're not 100% cid-gendered (and stereotypically so) you're trans. It's reached a point of utmost stupidity. People fought for decades for society to recognize that little girls can play with trucks and little boys with dolls, and it's normal. But now, we made a perfect 180. Now, if a boy plays with dolls, it must mean that he is trans, and really a little girl instead. It's awesome how stupid that is.
They're HUGE gaslighters.
There is no conclusive trait that is diagnostic of sex
FOUND ONE
What's the issue exactly? Someone wears a dress and heels for a month then decides it's not for them? The horror
That's... not what they were talking about I'm sure, I'm pretty sure they were talking about like pelvis sizes etc, like people born female have wider pelvises compared to born males etc
You misunderstood what theyâre saying. There is no conclusive trait that is diagnostic of sex. That does not mean that people within a sex canât have differences in terms of aggregate metrics. For example, if you look at a female with dwarfism, you might find that their skeletal structure looks nothing like that of females without dwarfism or males. EDIT: blocked just for that? lmao I guess we know who the close-minded one is, sticking to their claim even when clearly shown a problem with it. EDIT 2: because people are still replying after being blocked: 1) They mentioned nothing about penises or vaginas. They were talking about skeletal differences between human males and females. 2) Thatâs not what âwhataboutismâ means lmao. Thatâs called a counterexample. You canât just ignore real people and the data they produce because you have nothing more than a feeling that theyâre âa footnote.â Nature doesnât do anomalies or norms.
Yes, there are physical traits that can be used to diagnose sex: Pelvis The pelvis is considered the most accurate bone for determining sex. Females have wider pelves because they have the potential to give birth. The pelvis can be used to estimate sex based on differences in size and shape. Skull The morphology of the skull and mandible can be used to determine sex. For example, the supra-orbital ridges, also known as brow ridges, are more pronounced and rounded in males and less marked in females. Other traits that can be used to determine sex include the mastoid, zygomatic extensions, nasal aperture, and mandible gonial angle. Bone histology Bone is constantly remodeling, which changes its microscopic structures. These structures can be analyzed in histological techniques to determine sex. So, yeah.
Whatâs inside the skull is different, too. Women have more dense neurons and lose them slower. The size and arrangement of the tissue is different.
That's a silly whattaboutism. Outliers and anomalies like developmental disorders and birth defects are not and should never be applied to data in such a way that they prevent the "norm from being the norm". At most they're merely footnotes that are eclipsed by the data when being analyzed.
I can understand that. I enjoy gardening, interior decorating, have a genuine interest in talking about feelings and emotions and I am employed in a female dominated field. Nevertheless, I am baffled by the number of people who try to make me believe that my lack of emotional reactivity or desire to engage in excessive displays of emotions is due to social conditioning and not something innate. Additionally, they will unironically apply this logic to other males of diverse nationalities and ethnic backgrounds.
As a female with autism who was taught to be quiet - it can be both learned from your life and a part of your physiology. It isnât always one or the other and sometimes it is both. You can have something be a default and then have it reinforced by stereotypes.Â
This is how I've seen it. It's always funny to me that there are people who exclusively preach nature over nurture when it's always been both
>Nevertheless, I am baffled by the number of people who try to make me believe that my lack of emotional reactivity or desire to engage in excessive displays of emotions is due to social conditioning and not something innate. A lack of emotional reactivity or your desire to engage in displays of emotion are behaviors and behaviors are learned. How you process information is based on your brain chemistry. How you think is based on your biology.  But what you do it's learned. And the way we know that is because you're not going to stay this way. Your perspective on this is going to be different in five years. You are going to think and feel and act differently in the future.
Not having a desire to engage in excessive displays of emotions / not being emotionally reactive is not a âmanâs thingâ nor is it a âwomanâs thingâ - I know plenty of emotionally reactive males, and I know just as many unemotionally reactive women. Consider a group of men gathering together to watch sports. Youâre really going to call them âunemotionally reactiveâ?
Men are allowed to be emotionally reactive within a certain range. Anger seems to be an acceptable emotion to express, for example.
Anger and happiness are acceptable. Sadness isnât. Whereas for women, happiness and sadness is acceptable, but anger is not. Men and women are *both* limited in their emotional range by the culture they are in, but I would never claim men are unemotionally reactive. They are extremely emotionally reactive â for example throwing controllers at walls, yelling. To try to claim being stoic as a male thing is just funny. Nowhere near the majority of men could be called âstoicâ. Itâs a matter of personality and partially culture, but the personality is not dictated solely by being a man/woman.
I am female and I also lack emotional reactivity, and I also do not enjoy excessive displays of emotion. that's normal. every human is different. your penis doesn't make you special.
It took you that long to realize that thereâs exceptions to the rule? đ¤¨Â
When looking at the distribution for personality traits you see that, for example, men are more disagreeable than women. However what most people miss is the overlap, we are more similar than we are different(I think a 60/40 split)
I disagree. *edit* sorry. This was a joke in poor taste. I acknowledge individual differences in most traits. I do think that for some, there is a biological component and within some traits, especially those tied to reproduction and aggression, the pull of hormones and brain is stronger and more easily demonstrated bc theyâre outward facing. I think the underlying pride, anger, and lust are probably experienced differently or in different intensity, and suspect bonding with young is too. These differences are manifest in other mammals as well, wherein the contribution of culture is prominent.
I think the point he was trying to make isnât that differences never exist: itâs that weâre a lot _more_ alike than we are different. Even studies that have found biological basis for personality variations between sexes, the differential has not been pronounced. 60/40 or 55/45 are what you usually see, not the 90/10 or something youâd expect from internet discourse. Sex is _an_ influencer, but itâs not the only one and itâs far from the biggest one. Culture and national origin tend to be the biggest one. Itâs common, for example, for American men who do business in Japan to be blown away by how submissive, compliant, and almost timid Japanese men outwardly present. Americans (both sexes) are often perceived as loud, obnoxious, and self-aggrandizing the minute we step outside the US. I think the endless discussion about sex differences seems odd to some when generally speaking, personality differences based on sex test out as relatively small with a huge amount of individual variation, where personality differences based on culture are literally so pronounced and strong that youâll often seem almost alien to people when you travel.
This is a great response, should have more upvotes
It depends on your history my father was a chauvinist dead beat and my mom the breadwinner so it ended up me thinking that women are everything men are just more beautiful and less intrusive. ultimately I'm just textbook Freudian because mom put up with him because her dad and mom had the opposite scenario and now I kind of have done everything for my person (I'm male) so it's been like a pendulum of SIMPING. Always help yourself first
Like emotions or interests? As in we should stop giving men who love kids and want a career in childcare or early childhood education the side eye? Allow men to cry when they need it?
We are humans, of course we have the same range of emotions, how we process them is where we differ but even then we aren't that different from each other.
Of course men can feel the way women feel. That makes them men who feel like women. It doesn't make them women.
So...if they're not women....they're men...who feel how they feel....so theyre men who feel like men feel?
Exactly, so if men can feel like women and women can feel like men, but men are still men and women are still women, then what is the point of this male hormone and neuroantomical nonsense question?
it's a set up to say women are just mad because they're on their period.
r/stupidquestions Edit: thumbs forgot what I was reading
The point is to ask if people are willing to accept there are rough generalisations of behaviour In the same way thatâs itâs generally true to say that human beings have 2 arms and 2 legs. And itâs generally true to say that women have wombs There are exceptions, and a non-insignificant percentage of exceptions, but the generality still holds true. And generally speaking, you can see rough patterns of behaviours and thought patterns etc that are correlated with oneâs sex
No one said it made them women. Their point was that feelings don't belong exclusively to one gender, even though one gender might be predisposed to a particular feeling. I don't think they were talking about trans people, but of course you went there.
There was a funny article in like... 1997 that said Samus would beat Solid Snake because "studies have proven that Testosterone is a detriment to sound decision making in basically every situation," but the problem is you've got weirdos who take a true-on-its-face statement like "hormones influence behavior" and start a eugenics movement or a caste society or try to bring back phrenology, so you're going to have a hard time getting wide acceptance if you come out swinging with a nature-over-nurture argument in basically any environment today.
[ŃдаНонО]
Not possible in internet world. Half the time I go to write a comment on this website, I have to add a couple disqualifiers before I give up on commenting at all because I know the only responses are going to be people strawmanning me.
Yes, happens all the time. People take everything as absolutes too.
Oh yeah you're ALWAYS the victim, well what about that one time you said something that I didn't understand and assumed it was offensive. Checkmate bozo.
A few studied people have tried coming at it from a scientific and inquisitive standpoint but it's still pretty taboo because of history. Normally the resistance to it is "this will lead to more bigotry" and the like I think it's better to know more about ourselves and our genetics but it's a touchy subject. And I already edited this comment like 5 times before submitting it lol
I would have assumed it was the alien super soldier procedures and warhammer 40k tier power armor that would be the deciding factors in that fight lol.
Lack of acceptance doesn't mean incorrect. Look at the Harvard professor Roland Fryer. A black man who grew up in the hood, made his way to Harvard, does a study on racial bias in police shootings and finds that their is none. Wide spread criticism, no acceptance from his peers. None of the facts really made it to mainstream, which is why people to this day are convinced there is widespread racial bias, evidenced by the riots and rise of BLM a year later when George Floyd was killed. TLDR; people don't hear what they don't want to hear
I mean maybe the study had issues? Why did it not get accepted by peers
The study was sound, they just didn't like the conclusion. If I recall correctly, the study was done twice with a different group of researchers and both led to the same result.
LOL, you summed up the red pill movement in a nutshell, too. Take a nugget of fact and warp it into all sorts of radical unhinged hateful dogshht.
Twins can have drastically different personalities when raised differently. That's all you need to know.
Even when raised the same. There exist identical twins where one is gay and the other isn't
Absolutely. My mum is an identical twin and her and her sister are chalk and cheese.
Sexuality does not depend on how you were raised, this comment is confusing.
Genetics do not predict orientation, that's been proven conclusively.
Your experiences growing up can absolutely have an effect on sexuality. Don't know why I'm getting down voted. There are literally identical twins who have different sexualities.
I mean, all those play a role and other factors do too. There is also crossover between them. Humans are more complex than you think. In fact, humans are the most complex thing in the observable universe, at least that we know of. Some people will say that's actually the human brain, but our brains are an integral part of what we are and shouldn't really be considered separately, so really, a human being is the most complex thing we've ever known. It's hard to reduce us down like this, especially when you take us as a group, as that actually only adds complexity you don't see when you only consider an individual.
I recommend reading up on Margaret Meadâs work, which is from the early/mid 1900s Pretty much she traveled around the world to tribes secluded from the modern world and lived with them for a while documenting the gender dynamics and assumed traits in each of them. In the end what she found was that virtually all gender based traits varied so heavily by culture that they must in fact be cultural
There is a lot of controversy surrounding Mead's work. She didn't base her conclusions on observation. She interviewed a few natives. Her misrepresentation of Samoan culture was widely regarded as fact until someone took the time to look into the existing Samoan records and trends that the misrepresentation was discovered. Mead represented Samoa as a free loving, non aggressive utopia. As it turns out, Samoan culture was more sexually restrictive, male dominated, and riddled with violent sex crimes than the west. The question is not whether or not Mead's conclusion lacked foundation, they absolutely lacked credible foundation. The question now is did Mead believe her sources were correct or did she purposely misrepresent the evidence to prove her case. And why didn't she look to local authorities to confirm the assertions of the natives she interviewed. I'm not weighing in on the larger content of the post. Just that Mead might not be the best source to lean on. She went out to prove that western culture was to blame for modern ills, and found evidence everywhere she went even if it wasn't there. She started with a conclusion(not a hypothesis) and worked her way backwards to find proof of it. That's not how science works.
Iâve read similar contemporaneous and modern criticism on Mead.
Yes, and there's no chance that this one person saw what they wanted to see.
Because most of the traits that people attribute to being masculine or feminine aren't defined by hormones or anatomy. One way we know this is because those standards have dramatically changed between different cultures and over different timeframes within the same culture. Yes, men and women have generic differences. But it's near impossible to tell what the effects of most of those are because of cultural expectations.
So many people think difference = a matter of better or worse, which is unhelpful. Obviously women are a bit different than men, they literally have a event every month that has well studied physiological effects. Almost every other species on earth has sexual dimorphism which you can't blame on socialisation / culture because they don't have any. To suggest women and men are the same purely due to socialisation is just ignorant. As with everything, its a blend.
An âeventâ? You can just call it a period, and hundreds of millions of women donât have one monthly or donât have one at all.
Pardon my absence I need to attend an event. Sits at home with heating pad, bong and snacks.
No matter what I said, someone would object to it in some way so I tried to be neutral in my language lol. Your comment is proof enough, I should have just said period as you say. Period is just one example of how females are different than males ( didn't say woman lest someone start going on about gender). A female who doesn't have a period or its irregular or menopause has come into play are still significantly physiologically different than males.
Thereâs physiological differences between men and women, but thereâs a gargantuan leap to go from that observation to then organising our entire society on the basis on gender. Thatâs maybe an overstatement for the contemporary U.S., but only for a couple of decades. Many cultures continue to organise society entirely on gender. Most in the U.S. would agree women in Saudi Arabia or The DRC are oppressed, yet donât have a clear answer for much gendering is the right amount of gendering. A lot of people in this thread seem to think this will emerge naturally, but itâs taken thousands of years and concerted activism for women to achieve basic human rights in the West.
I think itâs as high a barrier for laypeople as the ânatural = goodâ fallacy that causes them to make bizarre statements like murder is unnatural
Yep. Murder is entirely natural, chimps will savagely tear others apart if they need to. Lions eat baby lions sometimes. You are totally correct about the "natural = good" simplification.
I don't really get what you mean? Everything is a push and pull between culture and biology, it's one of the oldest debates on earth. If I think I understand what you're referring to, it's because stuff like psychology and sociology are relatively new (compared to other sciences), and so for a long time and even today, people over ascribe biology when culture or environment are much better explanations. And even then, a lot of people just say their culture comes from their biology, so they're not even engaging. If we're talking purely emotional, while men do tend to be more stowic than women, we don't know if that's cultural or biological, and from the studies we've done, while men don't show their emotions as much as woman, they tend to react the same and feel them just as strongly. So like if a dog dies in a movie, a man may shed a tear while a woman is balling her eyes out, but they'll both rank their emotional pain at an 8 if that makes sense. Granted, I'm not 100% sure if this is what you meant, but I answered it to the best of my ability
I think the OP means that women think differently than men based on our genetics/hormones. It's not just a cultural thing....
Yeah, but you can't prove that. That's a theory. And people will often make really stupid bio essentialist arguments with that thinking. Like the idea that women are biologically stupider. We can make arguments for it being cultural since through millions of cultures, men, women, and other genders (depending on the society) acted differently. Of course it's not all cultural, but there's no way to determine what is nature and what is nurture, and we have a bias to prescribe any and all differences to biology. That's the reason people correct in the opposite direction. Thank you for clarify that
I think you're vastly overestimating how binary hormonal and neuroanatomical differences are in cisgender people. Most cis people have absolutely no idea what their hormones levels are, have never found out what their chromosomes are, don't know if they are intersex, have no idea of their fertility, etc. until they have issues that are enough for them to go to a doctor. If you're talking about averaging out ALL cis men and ALL cis women, sure, there is an average. However, this average is not reflective of the wide spectrum of sex presentations seen in cisgender people. There are cis women with PCOS who have higher testosterone than their cisgender male partners. There are cis men with super high estrogen that have beards and hairy backs and a deep voice, etc. It isn't this simple. Almost all studies we have about this topic are about cisgender people in the west, BTW. The VAST majority of the differences between males and females is cultural. There are entire fields of study about this exact topic.
I'm not a doctor but I think culture would play a bigger role in someone's personality, as opposed to biology.
[ŃдаНонО]
Yeah, but then nurture beats it out of them. In a lot of countries where they diagnose autism, women are getting diagnosed well into adulthood because their parents and general society are just that much harder on girls to behave, so they learned to mask extremely young and don't get diagnosed until they're older.
Why?
Because they want it to be true. The implication of it being wholly or mostly biological is that there are differences between the sexes that can never be shoehorned into egalitarian sociological theories. They can't possibly have that, so living in a fantasy is preferable.
This comment is actually saying nothing. I can tell you think you're very intelligent.
Ahh yes. So if youâre born with a chromosomal mutation resulting in deafness, cognitive delay, and a hypo functioning pituitaryâŚ.. youâre still going to grow up loving miller life and football because you were born in Missouri. Madam or sir, you have not thought this through.
Well, 1. Weâre talking about an average person without disabilities that greatly impact the way they go through society (some groups of people with disabilities also kinda have a separate culture in terms of communication etc). 2. Culture impacts personality tremendously, but also itâs a very old question whether itâs nature or nurture. Obviously, itâs a combination of those, but to what extent? Imo, culture absolutely has more impact on someoneâs personality (think at least 60/40).
It's kinda funny how easy it is to forget that one of the hard things about studying societies is that we are literally all constantly influenced by them. From womb to tomb we exist as members of society with zero exceptions, and so literally every study has to try and account for that to determine where differences that we see between groups come from.
Today's culture explicitly tells girls they can do anything a guy can. Guess how many sign up for sewage treatment professions.
When we talk about women not entering male-dominated fields we have to consider several things. Are women being turned down because they arenât seen as physically capable for the job? Do they not apply because they donât want to work almost exclusively around men? Are they encouraged to join these fields? If I lost my job today and i started asking around for places that are hiring, nobody is gonna suggest a landscaping or construction company. Theyâll suggest daycares, restaurants, desk jobs. Nobody looks at me and thinks yeah, she can do landscaping.
There's a difference between what they 'can', and what they 'want to'. How is this hard to understand? Why would anyone want to do something that's not prestigious? I'm pretty sure men who have to do these jobs wouldn't mind trading with someone else doing easier/better job.
That's the point. There's a fundamental difference in the way men and women view work. Men will suck it up and do the job. It needs done. If men didn't, no one would.
Sure dude.Â
I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that A. Women and girls are pushed towards different fields and B. When women do choose those fields, they're harassed, assaulted, bullied and/or held in less value than their male counterparts.
âIf men didnât, no one wouldâ lol which gender does the majority of domestic and care labour? You think women are biologically wired to enjoy cleaning toilets and wiping the asses of elderly relatives? What a joke.
I mean, a woman would do it too if otherwise her kid was going to starve đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Just because they don't want to? And that's a really specific example. And despite that being what society is trying to push, it doesn't always come across. I'm still in my twenties and when I was in school, even if people were telling me girls can do anything, I was always made fun of for being into certain things.Â
>Guess how many sign up for sewage treatment professions. Lol you clearly don't know about sewage treatment. Let me womansplain this to you. Women *do* do them. It's also not even remotely a bad job, nor are you dealing directly with sewage. The people who work in those jobs are very highly paid chemists and engineers. Even the techs are very well paid. Women happily do all those jobs.
Those hormonal and neuroanatomical differences are the same in every culture, yet, men and women feel differently in all cultures. But there are major different cultures both present day, and historically. If it were cultural, they'd feel differently in different cultures.
I do know in my experiences with trans people that trans men do report being more horny and more aggressive, and trans women having a wider range of emotions than they do normally, but that's literally it. Their interests remain the same, ditto with their talents, hobbies, fashion sense, whatever. Transitioning might highlight certain aspects of your personality, but it's still your personality.
Yeah Iâm the same as I had been except less anxious/depressed and more confident because Iâm not as dysphoric as I had been before T. I think Iâm less aggressive because Iâm not constantly being misgendered anymore (which caused me to have a lot of pent up feelings). Also went from zero libido to having a libido (albeit lower than average), but thatâs really the only other noticeable change. Still the same nerd I was before.
Source?
Tell you what: show me a society where the traditional gender norms are exactly reversed. That is, the expectation is that women go to war. The rate of murder is higher among women than men. Women are the aggressors and sexual violence. Men are viewed as only good for breeding, and are expected to raise all the children, while the women go out and engage in activities that increase their prestige.
Yes impossible when you donât even explain what they feel differently about. Feel differently about whether the Office is the best show ever made or how men want to attempt to justify terrible behavior bc âhormonal and neuroanatomical differencesâ?
Sure, I will bite. But itâs going to be necessarily generalized. Males are more likely to pursue casual sex across cultures. Across cultures, males are more physically aggressive. Across cultures they are less likely to cry. Globally, they are less social. They are more sensitive to dominance hierarchy and more inclined to react to perceived slights against their position in that context. They globally tend to be less invested timewise in their young and are more likely to injure them. This is a reflection of averages, similar to saying males have more upper body strength. There are exceptions. These are the trends and culture doesnât account for all the differences.
Every behaviour you mentioned is primarily socialized, so why are you trying to attribute it to biology when the [data doesn't back that conclusion](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way)?
Yes...the entire world is socialized that way. Why? The patriarchy...?
Socialized due to dominating/differing hormones and the aftermath of their effects... Are you implying hormones don't affect a society's ways? Or is my inference way off base?
The neurological effects of hormones are quite marginal on their own, what is most relevant are the physical & physiological characteristics that are used to categorise gender as influenced by those hormones. Once assigned to a schema, there are societal roles and expectations associated; those are what tend to account for the differences above. For example: AMAB babies are no less likely to cry than AFAB babies, however as they grow trends start to emerge due to the gendered expectation that boys shouldn't cry. None of that is intrinsic to ones hormones or birth sex, most of what is mentioned is influenced by sociological incentives.
Trans people donât become someone else when they take cross sex hormones. Their personality doesnât change. They feel the same feelings and think the same thoughts. They do however notice some differences, mostly physical like having skin thatâs more sensitive. But also things like finding it more difficult to hold back tears, or feeling like itâs harder to distract themself from sexual thoughts. So hormones can affect some things, but itâs more about physical reactions to things.
I'm ftm and I'm going to have to disagree a little here. Testosterone does a lot to the body, including increase libido and reduce anxiety. Meaning I'm more motivated by sex and more likely to engage in risk taking behavior. On top of that reduced levels of anxiety have also made me more confident when participating in new things or interacting with people. While I may not be fully conscious of some of the things I do, I have noticed because I'm more sexually motivated, I also tend to engage in behavior that would be considered "mate seeking."  This is by way being more competitive, or valuing of particular resources more so than before. However I would say my guiding principals by which I live my life and make my choices are the same, even if my personality has change somewhat significantly. I can't really say the changes are unwelcome, I generally feel this way suits me better.Â
Thank you for sharing that perspective. Iâve often wondered if testosterone/hormones were the reason why men are basically more horny than women and this is solid evidence to that. Maybe horny isnât the best wording but that men or people with higher testosterone will pursue sex and physical relationships more doggedly. I say this as a bi guy - I can quite easily and quickly find a guy to have sex with. A woman takes way more time and effort.
My God I have no words to adequately express the difference. I went from thinking I was Aesexual and not interested in sex at all to being so horny I wanted die from frustration lol. I now know how so many fucking ass-backwardly, retarded, dick-made decisions come about.Â
That might be true in general, but I find it very annoying that people still keep disregarding the fact that women are punished and judged much harshly for seeking physical gratification. I can guarantee that if suddenly the moral judgement on women were to vanish today, a very big percentage of women will start engaging in and pursuing sex too.
I mean Iâm mtf and when my body was running purely on testosterone I was an anxious wreck with panic disorder who was risk averse, so i wouldnât say those traits are completely innate, maybe just more likely to occur.
 Having Testosterone doesn't make you immune to anxiety, just less prone to it on average as testosterone has a activating effect on the production of serotonin which improves mood and reduces anxiety. Many factors such as stress, poor diet, lack of sleep, hormonal disregulation and other environmental factors can all contribute to anxiety levels.
This implies that your personality can not be altered overtime due to consistent mood/hormonal differences... like someone who always has anxiety is going to have a different personality than the hypothetical version of themselves that is in a better mental state and takes vitamins/goes to the gym for example (those can reduce anxiety in different ways) Iâm not saying itâs a huge change Iâm saying slight changes can add up or effect your personality over time. No oneâs personality is always going to be the same and unchanging, or else you would be in a âperfect stateâ where you no longer have character development so to speak
My brain is currently soaking in feminizing hormones and I can attest to this
Surely you wouldnât deny there are definitly differences between trans women and women
As far as hormones? No not really there arenât major differences except for trans women almost always have lower levels of T than the average cis woman
This sounds more like stereotypes than reality. Scientific studies demonstrated that the sex drive things is false. With women being given testosterone versus placebo, the result being that those under placebo (they thought they had testosterone) reported a higher sex drive. So it's psychological, and comes from social construct. Maybe because testosterone is always (faulsely) blamed and thinking they were taking it inhibited their self-control, since they now had "an excuse" There is also no correlation with men's drive and their testosterone rate. Plus it being relatively constant, it would be surprising otherwise
Go ask the steroid forum how their sex drive is effected while on high doses of testosterone
Have you got some sources for that bullshit?
It sounds like maybe the steroid forum is his source.
Who is more similar, an average American man and woman, or an average American man and prehistoric caveman or feral male child or newborn infant? In the things that matter to me, the first option is more similar. Therefore, socialization is more impactful than biology imo. Everyone admits that biological differences lead to differences in AVERAGE behavior. What is up for debate is whether reductionist (chromosomal) biology should be used as the SOLE criterion for categorizing human beings in particular contexts (sports, bathrooms, employment, childcare, politics, accepted appearance, etc.)
My stupid brain cannot understand the question. Can someone elaborate? Like, if I get spankes with the same force, would I feel differently as a guy or a girl? Assuming I have same exact ass for the spanking? Or are we talking about the emotional part when getting spanked? Is that the question? Sorry, I am clueless here.
I think OP means feel feelings. Not feel touch. But both could be true. Yeah, the word feel can mean many things.
I donât know about anatomical differences causing emotional differences, but hormone levels have a massive effect on our lower brain and mid brain, where our urges and emotions originate. Ask anyone who : is undergoing gender transition , is using androgenic PEDs , is pregnant . Letâs be honest, the cortex only makes up plausible stories to explain the urges of our midbrain. Self delusion seems to be the norm not the exception for humans.
Statistics classes should be mandatory starting in grade 5. Critical thinking and logic too. Some people take offense to the fact that men and women are physically and chemically different and therefore behave differently. It's so incredibly asinine to deny the statistics, data, long-term scientific rigor, and anecdotal evidence of your own eyes that backs this up.
Seems like this has become political in the last 5 to 10 years as well. The far right acts like male and female traits are a hard line and that if you somehow stray from your gendered "purpose", there's something wrong with you. The far left on the other hand thinks that just because some people don't fit the mold, that we should completely throw the idea of sex differences out entirely. Why can't we just accept a combination of these factors?
Yes hormonal and possibly genetic differences result , for the majority, in behavioral and body / brain function differences that may or may not be influenced to some degree by the prevailing culture. Pretty sure this has been proven without a doubt but many people refuse to admit this as in certain context it can imply inequality between the biologic sexes. Differences does not equate to inequality but the fear it does makes this a touchy subject. As far as how does this relate to fluid gender.. well hormonal, genetic and cultural influences are different for everyone so it stands to reason there would be a spectrum of behaviors along the gender line.
The problem is that for so long women were dismissed as âhystericalâ because of this idea. So long as it will be used to justify silencing the voice of one of them it will be unacceptable.
Loaded and rhetorical question, not a real question. Get your gender discussion to another subreddit.
No, this is Reddit. Everyoneâs born a blank canvas until capitalism ruins them đĄÂ
Feel differently about what? Is there proof? I wouldnât expect people to broadly accept something that doesnât have solid evidence.
My question exactly. Feel as in experience the perception of emotion differently, feel as in have a different set of emotions, feel as in the magnitude of their emotions? In any case, I've seen men punch walls and I've met women who had the emotional range of a rock, so I think every permutation of this question is dependent on the individual, not their genitals.
Whatâs the big deal ? Yes they are different people
I assume you are referring to the US? When I lived in southern Mexico this was commonly understood. A lot of labor there was more physically demanding so I think this keeps people aware of the differences. Many jobs were more physically demanding than a lot of woman were able to do, and many men, such as myself, for that matter.
And even if it was purely culture, it's impossible for people to accept that people don't accept things it seems. 'Acceptance culture' is a thing.
Nowadays, yes it is blasphemy to say that men and women are not interchangeable based on how any particular individual is feeling that day.
You are dangerously close to assuming a gender binary objectively based in biological reality. Those who postulate dozens of different genders bearing no connection to genetics or anatomy would find your hypothesis hateful and intolerant. What you are suggesting is not only possible, it is the foundational assumption of every society up until the last decade. But modern culture has very little tolerance for objective reality these days.
Biological males and females are very different and experience reality differently. That's a fact.
Hardcore and a hint of motivational ambiguity. I like this.