RE: Where does gender come from? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/16/2011 8:18:13 PM)


quote:



What impact do the guevedoche have on theories of gender identity development? For mine, minimally, this evidence suggests a certain malleability/fluidity/open endedness in gender identities that were supposed to have become “fixed and immutable” many years previously.

quote:

VincentML
It occurs to me that the guevedoche do not cleanly support the gender identity fluidity you seem to champion. The guevedoche example fails because ultimately their GI is governed by chemical production and timing. I will agree that the Money/Ehrhardt model of ‘immutability’ was probably flawed, to put it kindly, and lead to many harmful surgeries committed upon innocent children.



It’s far from clear to me that I’m championing anything at the moment Vincent! [:D]

You make an excellent point when you say that the evidence doesn’t “cleanly support” that perspective. One can easily go further and assert the same for all and any evidence in this area. It is murky and confusing and seemingly contradictory and lots of it is inexplicable with the prevailing paradigm. The history of research into this area follows a pattern that reflects this. Every time a new variation of the orthodox model is proposed, along comes some evidence to contradict. For me that’s one of the things that makes this area so fascinating!

I suggested that at a minimum, the evidence of the guevedoche children “suggests a certain malleability/fluidity/open endedness in gender identities that were supposed to have become “fixed and immutable” many years previously”. I’m delighted to agree with you that “the Money/Ehrhardt [interactionist] model of ‘immutability’ was probably flawed”. I’d actually go a lot further and say it was flawed disastrously. And if gender identities are at some level or in some manner mutable, can we accurately think of them as complete? That doesn’t seem the case to me.

In the BBC video “The Fight to be Male”(sic), there’s an interview with the mother of one of the guevedoche kids. She tells us that her reaction to her ‘daughter’s’ transformation into her ‘son’ was one of delight. [Paraphrasing] It’s was God’s will. He went out and got a job and brought in money!” We might infer a few things from that. The villagers interpreted the transformations as “God’s will” – they didn’t see it as a problem, a crisis or a source of shame, which is how it might be seen in the West nowadays. They just accepted it and got along with life. Whether accidentally or deliberately, the villagers and the mother had developed a way of looking at things, a social mechanism, that allowed them to deal with the transformations benignly. We might also note that traditionally males enjoy a higher social status than females in traditional societies. There was an economic benefit too, and some feminist commentators have seized upon these two factors to explain away this “anomaly”.

Whatever the case, the villagers accepted the transformations, found a social mechanism to deal with it and that was that. This meant that there was no problem or crisis for the children to internalise, and they survived the episode – which involved two radical identity changes ‘gender’ and ‘sexual, both held to be immutable in orthodox models – without any noticeable damage. My feeling is this could be highly significant when we ask why catastrophes predicted by orthodox gender identity theory never materialised. Other interpretations are possible of course – that’s just my opinion.


quote:

[....] intersex does seem to be an anomaly of development, doesn’t it?


Sorry Vincent but I’m not prepared to let this evidence be swept away as anomalous. A good theory must explain ALL the relevant evidence. Granted the evidence doesn’t fit the theory, however that doesn’t mean that it is unworthy of consideration. It is relevant evidence and I see no good reason to exclude it. You can make a case for exclusion if you want to – I will definitely reject that. Ignoring this evidence is unscientific, it’s clearly an attempt to ‘doctor’ (pardon the pun) the evidence to suit the theory in my view. Which is precisely what conventional models do – and that’s precisely why they’re flawed IMHO.

quote:

Your hypothesis would prosper if we could get chemistry out of the way.


Leaving aside that I haven’t been proposing any hypothesis, I do agree that it clears the air somewhat to leave chemistry aside. And if it’s legitimate to assert that the evidence of transgendered and intersex people can be dismissed as an “anomaly”, then it’s surely equally legitimate to leave aside chemistry for a little while isn’t it? You can always return to it later if you wish, you’re not being asked to make any concessions.

My feeling is that we routinely make a number of assumptions in the notion of identity that are questionable. The question of mutability or change is one that we have seen to be flawed to one extent or another. Are there any others? I really urge you to leave chemistry aside for a moment as re-examine what the notion of ‘identity’ means to you.



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/17/2011 5:44:58 AM)

quote:

You must have missed it then. I'm sorry. I proposed that you were belittling a social approach to this case and unfairly demanding that it identify the factors supporting a social conclusion before you would countenance discussing such a notion, while continuing to ignore that prior restraint when issuing your own wholly unsupported conclusion in favor of genetic determinism.


I suggest you read about David Reimer's difficult life before you conclude that genetic determinsim is unsupported. I understand it is a singularity and cannot be generalized but it is indicative. Furthermore, the dramatic change of the guevedoche at puberty gives evidence of the chemical and hence genetic determinism. To say my conclusion is totally unsupported is far from correct. In the case above, it was reported that Nicole identified as female from the start despite being raised in the same environment as her brother. On the face of it, the environment appears not to have been a factor. Ishtarr raised the salient question in #14:

quote:

Where the definable differences in brain chemistry, hormone levels, brain usage and so on? And if so, to what extend where they different than the differences in other identical twins who aren't transexual.

If everything in the twins is the same, in every testable way, then there is apparently nothing in Nikki's body that tells her she should want to be a girl. If it's not the same, then what exactly is it that makes her different than her brother.


It seems to me the possibility of genetic determinism is a valid consideration for Nicole. Apparently, you can not sort the logic of that.

As for your debate "proposal," please show me specifically where I "belittled" the social determinative model when I expressed my opinion in #10. You again misrepresent what I said. You just can't help yourself. Additionally, it is not an acceptable debate proposition to say "you're wrong." That is a criticism pure and simple. What you always do, it seems. Are you not able to make an affirmative remark on the issue at hand instead?



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/17/2011 9:57:28 AM)

quote:

And if gender identities are at some level or in some manner mutable, can we accurately think of them as complete? That doesn’t seem the case to me.


In pursuing the issue of anomaly I came upon this list of variations and frequencies of GI. So many appear to have underlying genetic issues. So, the definition of intersex is murky.

For the sake of a meaningful discussion it is necessary, I agree, to lay aside chemistry and statistics. I can do so if we focus on that cohort who without any significant ambiguity of genitalia report that they have felt since early childhood that their psychic gender identity did not comport with their physical anatomy, including even those who after puberty began to self-identify as the “other” gender. I would exclude crossdressers who are chasing an erotic thrill. Given that, I do not know what the research informs of the experiences of those in the narrowed cohort. But the question is still begged: Why? or How? Whence comes this “unexpected” self-identity.

I can see how the conventional paradigm may need to be altered by even one exceptional case. However, the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions are important. It is an historical characteristic of our species to seek such answers: magic? cultural? heredity? The guevedoche mother in the BBC documentary chose magic [god’s will] and that along with the history and familiarity of the gender changes provides an atmosphere of success for the children in transition.

Here is what I am asking: How can we explain the gender identity of a transexual? How does that decision come about? If it is just ‘I am what I feel I am’ then why do they feel that way?

And how does mutability enter into our understanding of the phenomenon? What is your logic suggesting?

Additionally, may I ask what you mean by: “can we accurately think of them as complete?” Does that concept address the transexual experience, and in what way in your thinking?

quote:

My feeling is that we routinely make a number of assumptions in the notion of identity that are questionable.


Does this in your mind provide an imperative to the acceptance of a third sex? Or a spectrum of sex?

I did notice the Foucault-like title of Alice Dreger’s book. Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex. Loved that! [:D]

Regards,
vincent



tweakabelle -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/18/2011 2:12:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Both Lorenza and David were what they felt and felt what they were despite their chemistry... what leads these seemingly genetic and anatomical men to self-identify as females? And vice-versa of course.

These kinds of facts seem to implicate something beyond either social or genetic determinism. I don't know what that might be, but the answer to the question of where our gender identity comes from appears to be getting farther and farther from having a neat answer.

K.


This kind of evidence - of ambiguity suppressed or medically policed - is available throughout the field. At every level - whether we talk about physiology, behaviour or psyches - and in plentiful detail.

A lot of recent analysis by non-medical commentators finds that gender ambiguity presents a threat to the patients culture ...not the health or gender identity of the individuals concerned. This seems crystal clear in the case of (biologically correct) micropenis boys who are turned into girls solely because the doctors are of the view that the infants penises are too small to allow "normal male functioning". Biology is irrelevant in sex-'determination' in these cases. A cultural idea of what constitutes an anatomically correct male is being promoted and protected.

Your intuition seems spot on to me. Is it time to consider whether these problems are set up by the prevailing paradigm? ... that they will remain insoluble within that paradigm? Is it time to begin contemplating a new paradigm?



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/19/2011 1:42:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Both Lorenza and David were what they felt and felt what they were despite their chemistry... what leads these seemingly genetic and anatomical men to self-identify as females? And vice-versa of course.

These kinds of facts seem to implicate something beyond either social or genetic determinism. I don't know what that might be, but the answer to the question of where our gender identity comes from appears to be getting farther and farther from having a neat answer.

K.


This kind of evidence - of ambiguity suppressed or medically policed - is available throughout the field. At every level - whether we talk about physiology, behaviour or psyches - and in plentiful detail.

A lot of recent analysis by non-medical commentators finds that gender ambiguity presents a threat to the patients culture ...not the health or gender identity of the individuals concerned. This seems crystal clear in the case of (biologically correct) micropenis boys who are turned into girls solely because the doctors are of the view that the infants penises are too small to allow "normal male functioning". Biology is irrelevant in sex-'determination' in these cases. A cultural idea of what constitutes an anatomically correct male is being promoted and protected.

Your intuition seems spot on to me. Is it time to consider whether these problems are set up by the prevailing paradigm? ... that they will remain insoluble within that paradigm? Is it time to begin contemplating a new paradigm?


I agree that paradigm should always be open to challenge. Unfortunately, as you have suggested elsewhere if I remember correctly and as the trial of Galileo teaches, there are too many invested in existing paradigm who offer resistence and there are so many who are immutable [to borrow a phrase] because they just could not give a damn. Big group that.

Not sure I can agree with: gender ambiguity presents a threat to the patients culture ...not the health or gender identity of the individuals concerned Here is an article of interest waning of MtF SRS that might suggest otherwise. Seems that acting to correct the ambiguity may have harmful effects. I thought the comments of Dani Berry were particularly poignant. Wonder what you make of them.

Regards [:)]



tweakabelle -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/19/2011 4:36:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Both Lorenza and David were what they felt and felt what they were despite their chemistry... what leads these seemingly genetic and anatomical men to self-identify as females? And vice-versa of course.

These kinds of facts seem to implicate something beyond either social or genetic determinism. I don't know what that might be, but the answer to the question of where our gender identity comes from appears to be getting farther and farther from having a neat answer.

K.


This kind of evidence - of ambiguity suppressed or medically policed - is available throughout the field. At every level - whether we talk about physiology, behaviour or psyches - and in plentiful detail.

A lot of recent analysis by non-medical commentators finds that gender ambiguity presents a threat to the patients culture ...not the health or gender identity of the individuals concerned. This seems crystal clear in the case of (biologically correct) micropenis boys who are turned into girls solely because the doctors are of the view that the infants penises are too small to allow "normal male functioning". Biology is irrelevant in sex-'determination' in these cases. A cultural idea of what constitutes an anatomically correct male is being promoted and protected.

Your intuition seems spot on to me. Is it time to consider whether these problems are set up by the prevailing paradigm? ... that they will remain insoluble within that paradigm? Is it time to begin contemplating a new paradigm?


I agree that paradigm should always be open to challenge. Unfortunately, as you have suggested elsewhere if I remember correctly and as the trial of Galileo teaches, there are too many invested in existing paradigm who offer resistence and there are so many who are immutable [to borrow a phrase] because they just could not give a damn. Big group that.

Not sure I can agree with: gender ambiguity presents a threat to the patients culture ...not the health or gender identity of the individuals concerned Here is an article of interest waning of MtF SRS that might suggest otherwise. Seems that acting to correct the ambiguity may have harmful effects. I thought the comments of Dani Berry were particularly poignant. Wonder what you make of them.

Regards [:)]

In my own research I came across a few M2F tranys who told me stories like the ones mentioned in your link. While there's little doubt that SRS helps many tranys resolve their personal issues, I tend to agree that the success rates are greatly exaggerated for political, professional and economic reasons by the medicos. This is hardly surprising - the entire TS-doctor relationship is characterised by self serving lies, distrust and deceit by both sides (just as the David Reimer case was). And the theoretical models and literature on which it's all based are largely fictitious IMHO. It's really child's play to tear these crude models (largely based on the work of Money, Stoller and a few more) apart.

It seems to me that, just like the political Intersex movement, the political transgender movement is largely a reaction to this. Increasing numbers of tranys are rejecting medical models, and wresting back control of their lives and bodies from the medicos, just as women and queers did (and are still doing). They are developing their own models and understandings based on their experiences. Their experiences lead them to the view that gender more a social phenomenon than any particular set of physical or psychological qualities.* One put this view to me very succinctly: "I don't have a problem living with me, all my problems start the minute I go out the front door". Kate Bornstein's "Gender Outlaw" is a lucid and illuminating account of what the world looks like from the point of view of someone who "has experienced both genders and concluded that neither was worth the trouble". Fascinating read if you're interested.

Is it possible to create an individual gender or even be genderless as Norrie May-Welby claims? In a world first, Norrie successfully persuaded the Govt here to issue a birth certificate with "neuter' listed as Norrie's 'Sex' instead of male or female. The Govt reversed its decision (chickened out according to Norrie) when it all became public and the case is still being litigated. Norrie has advised me zie intends taking hir case to the UN if necessary.

For mine, the accounts of their gender experiences from the few people who have experienced both halves of the gender spectrum offer great potential to inform the understandings we all have of gender. The more theoretically sophisticated of these accounts are informed by a variety of influences such as feminism, psychoanalysis, sociology and post-modernism. Feminism alone can boast of almost half a century of investigating gender, which has produced a large body of theoretical work that is infinitely more sophisticated and coherent than any of the orthodox models IMHO. The problem with this is precisely as you have identified - there are far too many vested interests opposing non-orthodox views of gender.

As we have seen previously the evidence from the gender ambiguous has always been ignored, suppressed or literally doctored out of existence. Historically the gender ambiguous have been ruthlessly policed and silenced. Whether transgender and intersex people succeed in having their evidence included in the discussion and conceptualisation of gender as valid is something only the future will tell us. But I do believe that it's time we accepted this evidence as valid and given the weight it deserves. When we do that we will find that evidence has the potential to revolutionise understandings of sex/gender.

All this may sound quite remote from your life or mine. It's worth noting that our understandings of sexuality (especially the hetero-/homo-/bi-sexual model) are utterly dependent on a prior gender distinction at a conceptual level . We couldn't conceive of sexuality as we currently do without binary gender. So perhaps not quite as remote as it might first sound .......


* Many feminist analyses of gender came to this conclusion decades ago



Aswad -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/19/2011 6:39:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It seems difficult to explain this story within a framework of genetic determination of gender.


Not really.

As was touched on by BanthaSamantha, what happened is being analyzed all backwards.

He's just identifying, accurately, his place in the prevailing binary caste system.

Part of the problem is that females have been confined to the woman-caste since the agricultural revolution, and so the caste has been equated with that particular kind of livestock. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the woman-caste which was created then, later split into a slave-caste and a woman-caste. Modernity has changed some things, but certainly it hasn't changed all of them. Women are still significantly confined by the stereotypes of their caste, and boys like Wyatt are still running into the problem that the woman-caste is precisely that: a caste of women.

If I read this correctly, he's not- originally- identifying with the female gender, but rather with the caste archetype that is imposed on the female gender (to the point of being conflated with it). As a result, the rigidity of the caste system, and the fixation on sexuality in Christendom, and the very high level of conformity pressure, culminates in accepting that there is something wrong with his body, when in fact there's nothing wrong with either his body or his character.

Among the Vikings, both men and women could change their "gender caste", forsaking the responsibilities and privileges of the caste typical of their gender, in favor of those of the opposite gender. This was, as now, more likely to attract scorn when men changed over than when women did. Regardless of the level of credibility one ascribes to the notion that the shieldmaidens were more than an occasional oddity, the fundamental mechanism is attested well enough. In men, it was commonly associated with the practice of seiđ, a branch of folk magic reserved for the female volú. The more typical male would use galđr, as seiđ was at odds with the norms of the man-caste. But some would rather forsake the man-caste and become seiđmænnr, adopting the relevant mannerisms etc. in the process, such as wearing skirts.

These days, some of the strict barriers to caste mobility are being challenged, but it'll be a while before one can reliably distinguish between induced GID (where the social expectation of identity between the traditional woman-caste and the female gender is the cause of the distress that leads to the disorder element) and inherent GID (where there is an actual disparity between the physical and mental gender, beyond that of caste affinity).

Epigenetics readily account for some aspects of the affinity of the genders for specific castes, and most our interactions are so thoroughly shaped into a set of a few stereotypes that it doesn't take much of a shift in order for the interactions to divert a sensitive individual (e.g. a child, those being intended to rapidly assimilate from their environment and adapt to it, after all) to a sufficient degree that those interactions become stuck in a pattern. Some more fundamental aspects are a lot more difficult to change, but these are difficult to seperate from the culture conditioned analyses (this used to be one of my pet peeves on the Gor boards- the need to distinguish between what history has made women into, and what they could be when paying attention only to what is inherent, as well as the difficulties in distinguishing the inherent from the deeply ingrained).

What you must bear in mind about genetics and epigenetics is that it's rather similar to a computer. Using the analogy, your genome would be all your programs and documents and so forth, while your epigenome would be the set you're currently working with. When you close your word processor, it doesn't disappear from your computer, nor do the documents you've been working on. An ovum opens a program package that is for building babies, and configures a lot of settings; maybe it likes white text on black background, or lefthandedness. If there's a virus running in the background, spamming your kidneys with ads about how VI4GR4 will do absolutely nothing interesting for your clit, then obviously this has an effect on the end result.

Another analogy is that cells are like people. They have a nature, a past and a present. Their future is determined by all of these things. And what holds for the individual cells, holds doubly so for the complex interplay between them. When the cell interacts with its environment, some genes are expressed more, others less. Some commands are repeated often, and others rarely. The right input will even tell the cell to grab a gun and go postal, or to put the gun to its analogous head, IF it happens to be in the right "frame of mind", and have the right "makeup" for it.

Nature vs nurture is a simplistic debate on the level of "Is BDSM about spanking or about promiscuity?"

The interesting question for just about anyone outside fields that deal with gene therapy is whether there are identifiable correlates between desireable or undesireable outcomes and specific controllable factors. For instance, regardless of the genetics, having few outlooks in life is strongly correlated with a criminal life path, but intelligence is inhibitory on this correlation and has a positive effect on outlooks in life, and intelligence is correlated with nutrition, parenting style, race and several other features. If we wanted to minimize crime, it would be effective to provide healthy meals in schools, to educate parents on parenting skills, to provide jobs with a low barrier to entry, to provide jobs that are flexible as regards partial disabilities, to have a well developed public health system, and to have a reasonable welfare system which favors the carrot over the stick as regards incentives to earn an income. This is why I say being fiscally conservative can mean something entirely different than minimum spending, namely optimal spending with efficient management. You needn't give a rat's ass about the poor or the disabled to benefit from ensuring their lives are better without crime, because your life will be better without them as criminals. These are things we can learn from genetics, epigenetics and so on.

As for gender, it is the binary caste system and the equating of caste with gender that is most interesting, in my opinion. As BanthaSamantha said, it shouldn't matter if a guy wants to wear dresses (I may find it less than aesthetically pleasant with a ballet dress and furry legs, but that's a different matter, and maybe just a question of what I'm used to) or a woman wants to drive a tank (we have women on the front lines, including infantry, marines, rangers, pilots, dragoons and even a sub captain; my first 'aha!' moment regarding dominance and kink was with a marine).

My dear played with both dolls and tools, brawled with the boys, skipped rope with the girls, and so forth. She isn't a bit confused about her gender, but some women don't feel comfortable with being unable to 'peg' her, while others are very comfortable with her comparatively straight forward manner, and the men tend to be less flirtatious and more inclined to treat her as 'one of the guys' with all that entails, but I've also had discreet inquiries about three- and foursomes from the men. You wouldn't mistake her gender, despite everything from dress to mannerisms and interests being far closer to the centerline than for most (and ranging from the decidedly classical feminine to the decidedly classical masculine).

I don't think a lot of useful information will come out of looking at potential 'causes' of GID at this point, because we still haven't addressed the question of gender properly as a society and a culture, and because it seems likely that much of the GID issue is a disorder of that society and that culture (in many, if not most, cases), rather than being a disorder of that person.

Like most things in psychology, it's a crippled field until some fundamental issues are addressed.

Did you know Obama is the only presidential candidate in the USA that wouldn't qualify for a mental health diagnosis of some severity, had they been living in Norway? We use the DSM criterion, same as the USA, but the criterion are highly dependent on the social context. Some views, fairly prevalent in the USA, would qualify as paranoid schizophrenia here. Some views and personality traits, fairly prevalent here, would qualify as a number of diagnoses over there. All with the same professional basis.

So long as society is one of the patients in forming a diagnosis, that field has bigger problems, and the sooner those are addressed, the less we will have had time to build on a rotten foundation, meaning more actual progress in less net time. No amount of purportedly 'objective' research will change that, as the objectivity of that research is still subject to the inherent assumptions and context of the paradigm, which itself is neither objective, nor- arguably- sane.

Health,
al-Aswad.



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/20/2011 12:10:24 PM)



quote:

Increasing numbers of tranys are rejecting medical models, and wresting back control of their lives and bodies from the medicos, just as women and queers did (and are still doing). They are developing their own models and understandings based on their experiences


And that’s a good thing b/c as indicated below they have to live with their GI.

quote:

Their experiences lead them to the view that gender more a social phenomenon than any particular set of physical or psychological qualities.*


Are you not ignoring the physical and genetic imperative to mate and produce offspring? Seems to me that is the major factor in the historical development of the binary gender model. There are very particular sets of physical and psychological qualities to be considered: the production of sperm and egg cells respectively; the ability to nurture a fetus in utero and at the breast. Sex/reproductive roles have dictated our conception of gender identity, doncha think?

quote:

Historically the gender ambiguous have been ruthlessly policed and silenced.


As have people of color, women, immigrant groups, and religious minorities. Trannys have become more visible in the media, although not yet so well accepted as homosexuals, in the States at least.

quote:

But I do believe that it's time we accepted this evidence as valid and given the weight it deserves. When we do that we will find that evidence has the potential to revolutionise understandings of sex/gender.


I wish I could share your optimism, but I cannot. I think biology is an immovable barrier, especially when coupled with certain theological/political doctrines and a degree of fear/ignorance of the unusual. The best I can conceive is the growth of some degree of humane tolerance. I seriously doubt if the evidence will revolutionize our understanding of gender to any significant degree, because my guess is it will not be widely disseminated nor accepted.

Regards [:)]



tweakabelle -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/21/2011 8:19:08 PM)

quote:

what happened is being analyzed all backwards.

He's just identifying, accurately, his place in the prevailing binary caste system.


What I found so interesting about this post was that, despite taking very different paths to get there, both Aswad and I end up at the more or less the same place. In particular, I like the conclusions Aswad arrived at:

quote:

I don't think a lot of useful information will come out of looking at potential 'causes' of GID at this point, because we still haven't addressed the question of gender properly as a society and a culture, and because it seems likely that much of the GID issue is a disorder of that society and that culture (in many, if not most, cases), rather than being a disorder of that person.

Like most things in psychology, it's a crippled field until some fundamental issues are addressed.

Did you know Obama is the only presidential candidate in the USA that wouldn't qualify for a mental health diagnosis of some severity, had they been living in Norway? We use the DSM criterion, same as the USA, but the criterion are highly dependent on the social context. Some views, fairly prevalent in the USA, would qualify as paranoid schizophrenia here. Some views and personality traits, fairly prevalent here, would qualify as a number of diagnoses over there. All with the same professional basis.

So long as society is one of the patients in forming a diagnosis, that field has bigger problems, and the sooner those are addressed, the less we will have had time to build on a rotten foundation, meaning more actual progress in less net time. No amount of purportedly 'objective' research will change that, as the objectivity of that research is still subject to the inherent assumptions and context of the paradigm, which itself is neither objective, nor- arguably- sane


It does seem rather pointless to look for alleged causes of Gender Identity Disorder (GID), until such time as we have developed a pretty accurate understanding of what gender (and for that matter ‘identity’) is. Until we do, how can we distinguish between what is ‘ordered’ and ‘disordered’?

The idea of using Obama et al as an example to demonstrate the profoundly social origins of some notions of ‘mental disorder’ (a la DSM) is for mine, incisive. If one looks at the various mental disorders as the DSM* defines them, the only qualifying standard that is common to all disorders is the condition results in significant social dysfunction in the patient. There is a huge element of social function implied here, and with it, as Aswad points out, cultural variation. Clearly psychiatry is using ‘mental disorder’ to enforce a kind of social control or policing, as many critics of pyschiatry have long argued. See, for instance, the work of Jeffrey Masson or Thomas Szacz or check out the 'Anti-Psychiatry Movement'.

Precisely the same argument applies to gender ambiguity. The social status of the gender ambiguous depends utterly on where and when that gender ambiguous person lives. In many traditional societies scattered across the globe, people we in the West dismiss as suffering GID occupy an exalted place in the local scheme of things. Commonly they are perceived as possessing both male and female aspects, and therefore being more complete and nearer to the gods. This adds weight the arguments above that gender is a social phenomenon to my way of thinking.

I sometimes wonder if the feminine-looking robes worn by Christian priests as they perform their religious rituals is a reflection of this. I do know that I did get into terrible trouble once for describing the then-Pope as an elderly Polish drag queen. (Drag queens were horrified at the comparison and objected – quite justifiably I might add). [:D]

All this seems to me to compromise the notion of ‘identity’ somewhat. It is commnly assumed that our identities are wholly owned internal personal possessions. Is this so? Perhaps this becomes clearer if we look at the idea of a ‘religious identity’ for a moment. A religious identity can affect a person in the deepest most profound ways – the way they see themselves as a human being, as a member of this gender or that, as a moral person, how they ought to behave and so on. Yet the single best predictor of religious identity is the social environment a person was brought up in – the religious beliefs of the parents being the single most important component of that. The belief system the child is exposed to and inculcated in is internalised and adopted by the adult as their personal ‘truth’ or identity. It seems crystal clear that there’s a large social component in religious identity.

To the extent that this social component is influential, we must concede, it seems to me, that the identity is subject to external influence, that it is ‘outside the body’ and it cannot be conceived of as, wholly and solely, an internal personal possession. Precisely the same could be argued if we look at linguistic identity. Even racial identity is dependent to the extent that race is an issue in that particular society. A gay identity is impossible in a society that doesn’t have a concept of homosexuality or heterosexuality (such as the West prior to the development of a definition for homosexuality c1870)

It seems to me that culture and society are deeply implicated in the construction of identities, so deeply that I doubt whether they can be seperated. And that surely has profound consequences for the notions of gender and gender identity.


* The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatry Association (APA). It lists and attempts to define all mental disorders psychiatrists are permitted to use as diagnostic tools. It is a controversial text - the inclusion or exclusion of a given disorder is decided by popular vote by the members of the APA, not by an objective standard. Obviously any criterion of sanity/insanity that relies on a referendum for its authenticity is highly questionable. And that's just one of the innumerable criticisms that can be laid at the DSM. None theless it is highly influential both in the practice of psychiatry and the operations of the law, which tends to rely on the DSM to set the relevant criteria for mental competence.



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/22/2011 1:08:36 PM)

quote:

It does seem rather pointless to look for alleged causes of Gender Identity Disorder (GID), until such time as we have developed a pretty accurate understanding of what gender (and for that matter ‘identity’) is. Until we do, how can we distinguish between what is ‘ordered’ and ‘disordered’?


I think this is the first time I have seen you refer to GI as a "disorder." This leads me to Aswad's statement: "it seems likely that much of the GID issue is a disorder of that society and that culture (in many, if not most, cases), rather than being a disorder of that person." This raises the question: by what measure do we account a culture disordered? Is there some universal standard to be applied? Or are the characteristics of a culture just those that have evolved through history, force, and social persuasion? Then are those individuals who do not conform to those characteristics not in fact "disordered?"

quote:

Clearly psychiatry is using ‘mental disorder’ to enforce a kind of social control or policing,


Well yes! And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

quote:

A religious identity can affect a person in the deepest most profound ways – the way they see themselves as a human being, as a member of this gender or that, as a moral person, how they ought to behave and so on. Yet the single best predictor of religious identity is the social environment a person was brought up in – the religious beliefs of the parents being the single most important component of that. The belief system


If both GID and religious identity are socially determined phenomena do we really have much free will then?



tweakabelle -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/23/2011 8:53:38 PM)

Yes Vincent ideedies! Very searching questions it seems to me. What is a 'disorder'?

I'm afraid I don't have any easy answers either. In this particular area, it seems clear enough to me that, if gender is a social phenomenon, then cultural standards are being used to define 'disorder' and individuals are punished for no more than refusing to conform to artificial norms. The problem then lies in the sloppy assumption that 'Normal = healthy, abnormal = unhealthy'. Unfortunately this equation is used routinely in medical discourse, and medical discourses have inspired conventional notions of gender. Getting doctors out of the area might be the first step towards remedying this unfortunate situation. Or better still, abandoning those conventional conceptions of gender that have originated in medical discourse and research.

It's easy to draw parallels with homosexuality here. For decades, homosexuality was thought to be a disorder, a perversion, a mental illness and so on. It was listed in the DSM and removed after a long very political campaign by activists and enlightened psychiatrists. Oddly enough, homophobia has never made it into the DSM, despite the many murders, phobias, and the amount of unnecessary hatred that vile neurosis has created over time. How close is this parallel? Are we seeing a duplication of this, a case of history repeating itself in the area of gender with the notion of Gender Identity Disorder?

quote:

If both GID and religious identity are socially determined phenomena do we really have much free will then?


I do admire the persistence with which you inject that term 'determined' into everything! [:D]

We ought to note that the same tensions with the notion of 'free will' occur in any deterministic explanation - be it biological, social or whatever.

If we agree that gender is a social phenomenon, the an individual's gender can be seen as less of 100% personal possession and to some extent at least, as a relation between two dynamic entities - that individual and the culture in which they reside. This is a far more fluid, dynamic approach to gender - in this paradigm it becomes difficult to see gender as being fully determined.



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/24/2011 12:25:22 PM)

[:D] Hi, tweak!!!


quote:

I do admire the persistence with which you inject that term 'determined' into everything!


I suspect we are not so free-willed as we boast; that in fact free-will may be “an illusion” or a “mental construct..” Much of what we think of as conscious choice is really subconsciously decided from experiential references. We rationalize our decisions afterwards, and then we are not very good at identifying the thought that leads to the decision.

Reference the work of the following individuals: Bargh ; Nesbitt; and Wegner.

Additionally, I am struck by the compulsions described and exhibited in the behaviors of fetishists, cross-dressers, and by the extreme outliers: child molesters, rapists and serial killers. To my knowledge no one has satisfactorily explained how and why fantasies in some individuals become uncontrollable compulsions. I don’t think free-will can explain the cannibalism of Jeffrey Dahmer. To say that these cases are far from the norm only begs the questions: why? and really, how far? I acknowledge the horror of some of these behaviors but while reflecting upon my own predilections I have a degree of sympathy for these men who cannot stop acting out their obsessions. I think there but for the grace of whatever go I. So, I view the purpetrators as victims as well.

quote:

[a relation between two dynamic entities - that individual and the culture in which they reside. This is a far more fluid, dynamic approach to gender - in this paradigm it becomes difficult to see gender as being fully determined.]


But surely you are not saying that gender identity is consciously sorted and one decides their own gender. Isn’t it more accurate to say recognition occurs from a priori feelings? Which then leaves the question of whence commeth the feelings. Whatever their origins the feelings determine self-identity, I think. I was eight and nine years old playing childhood games and acting out my identity before I could make a conscious decision or recognition. Was not until after puberty that it occurred to me that a portion of my identity was not socially acceptable.

The determinism/free-will tension aside, you are spot on in stating that: “cultural standards are being used to define 'disorder' and individuals are punished for no more than refusing to conform to artificial norms.” Thanks to you, I am aware of the coersion of the individual in society through medicalization, measurment, and examination ala Foucault. The cuckoo nest syndrome. I agree medicalization of behavior has been unfortunate for those individuals. For all of us, really. But how can norms be artificial? They are what they are, and yet they are not immutable. They are derivatives of group opinions. They are fluid and subject to political pressure. In the case of the APA the members changed their norms because as you say of pressure from activists and maybe, I speculate, because homosexuals embraced their identities and stopped going for counseling. Whereas homophobes, feeling cultural righteousness, never went for counseling. The members of the APA who vote on the DSM might simply be reflecting the norms of the larger culture which has a long history of homophobia to this day. Well, part of the culture does. As you know in the States we are in the midst of a long culture war which seems to be ‘determined’ [:D] by the intensity of religious faith, or not. We are a bicultural people, it seems. Our norms are bifurcated. The phenomenon is clearly manifested on these Boards.

Happy Holidays, tweakabelle. I celebrate the Season of Lights [:)]







xssve -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/25/2011 8:01:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Rule
So, there is no problem genetics-wise. But now we know more precisely where to look for the cause of this change



It seems that you have abandoned any claim to genetic determination of ‘gender identity’. In its place, you appear to be proposing some kind of allele determination of gender identity theory.

As you state “we know more precisely where to look for the cause of this change” I am getting the impression that your proposal is a theoretical one. Have the specific alleles you are asserting are responsible for gender identity determination (not physiological differentiation or feminisation/masculinisation) and/or the exact sequence of events that unfolds been identified yet?



It would be a mistake to think of DNA as destiny, i.e., everthing is determined at the moment of recombination - RNA plays a significant role and the genetic code is modifiable "on the fly", in a manner of speaking, a neo-Lamarkian process called stationary phase mutation, i.e., like any other aspect of morphology, DNA possesses some ability to adapt to stressors to some degree.

In this case, it may be enhancing the reproductive potential of one twin by causing the other one to take a dive, triggered by some stressor - probably true of gender orientation alleles to begin with, if there is such a thing, gender being basically a morphological thing, i.e., literally, what genitalia do you possess, whereas gender identity is much more amorphous and mutable within limits, partly psychological, partly physiological.

Nature is seldom so binary, most of the animal kingdom could be considered bisexual, it's all random mutations after all, whatever works is perpetuated - it can even be a reproductive advantage to have a more flexible sexual identity, don't you know girl?

The gender bender might end up doing better than his brother, in other words, it's been known to happen.



vincentML -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/26/2011 6:25:20 AM)

quote:

In this case, it may be enhancing the reproductive potential of one twin by causing the other one to take a dive, triggered by some stressor - probably true of gender orientation alleles to begin with, if there is such a thing, gender being basically a morphological thing, i.e., literally, what genitalia do you possess, whereas gender identity is much more amorphous and mutable within limits, partly psychological, partly physiological.


You make some interesting points. May I add this too obvious observation made often by writers in the field and by philosophers: Nature is quite disorderly in the process of evolution. There is no need for a reason. Stuff just happens. The variants in alleles are what they are. Evolution gives the illusion of being purposful only in hindsight.



xssve -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/26/2011 7:49:23 AM)

Right, it is random, but if it happens more than once, likelihood it's an inherited random mutation rises dramatically, and alleles or interrelated groups of alleles subjected to evolutionary change (a random mutation proved beneficial and was passed on) may result in an inherited instability in those alleles that accelerates the rate of mutation (see that paper on stationary phase mutation), most of which will be deleterious as a matter of simple mathematical odds, but also increases the chances of more related beneficial mutations.

i.e., gender bending is nothing new, in comparison to other species of mammal, one even be forced to conclude that strict heterosexuality/monogamy is the recent mutation - as you say, nature is seldom so orderly, heterosexual monogamy has certain advantages, material and social enrichment for the offspring, etc., at the price of diversity, but it is a particular adaptation that we've had enough generations to effect.

Still, it doesn't look anything like a 100% thing, more of a ratio really, and population density looks to me like it can be a trigger for certain behavioral adaptations to surface as density increases certain social complexities, rewards more social behaviors and cna tolerate fewer forms of aggressive ones that might be of more value in conditions of lower density.

In a sense, gender bending is a socially benign behavior, not an aggressive one, i.e., it would serve to reduce aggression between competing males.

I mean, hypothetically speaking, when it comes to my old lady getting knocked up, the guy I'm worried about isn't the effeminate flamer, it's the kosher Bull, and that creates a potential for violence.



xssve -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/26/2011 8:10:15 AM)

To rephrase that a bit, it's random mutation, but it occurs in an organized system, i.e., alleles that already favor particular adaptations via selection.

This particualar mutation has a lot to do with intraspecies and particularly, intragroup violence, which tends to decrease group fitness if not limited in some way, through ritualization, etc., D/S for example - one of the combatants has to back down before the violence reaches lethal levels, which could negatively affect the breeding fitness of both.

Reason is a particular adaptation that humans posses that allow us to make conscious choice here, i.e., we have many forms of ritualized violence, team sports, boxing, etc, even PE itself, that confine violence to a particular set of conditions with a set of rules that minimizes potential negative effects on group fitness - but when you're dealing with behavior in the absence of reason, it's largely a function of the testosterone/estrogen ratios (and related proteins, oxytocin, vassopressin, etc.) - that's all genes have to work with, hormone levels.



tweakabelle -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/26/2011 3:41:20 PM)

xssve, the perspective you're promoting has already been exposed as unproven speculation earlier in the thread. Yet in your posts, it is being presented as fact again.

IF you want to be taken seriously you'll have to identify the specific alleles you're claiming are responsible, outline the process whereby these alleles produce gender/gender identity and provide credible citations to support your claims. I say credible because the last time I asked you for citations to support your opinions about biological determinism, I remember you provided (among others) a report from the UK paper the Daily Mail. That is not credible evidence. Credible means something that would be acceptable at academic level.

Until you do, I for one am not going to take your opinions terribly seriously for reasons I've already explained to you a few times.

If you wish to make the case for biological determinism, please do so - using credible evidence and specific examples, not by pretending personal opinions, wholesale generalisations and speculation are established facts. The first thing you need to do is: establish a causal relationship between genes/alleles or whatever and human behaviour. Without that, your case cannot proceed.



xssve -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/27/2011 6:42:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

xssve, the perspective you're promoting has already been exposed as unproven speculation earlier in the thread. Yet in your posts, it is being presented as fact again.

IF you want to be taken seriously you'll have to identify the specific alleles you're claiming are responsible, outline the process whereby these alleles produce gender/gender identity and provide credible citations to support your claims. I say credible because the last time I asked you for citations to support your opinions about biological determinism, I remember you provided (among others) a report from the UK paper the Daily Mail. That is not credible evidence. Credible means something that would be acceptable at academic level.

Until you do, I for one am not going to take your opinions terribly seriously for reasons I've already explained to you a few times.

If you wish to make the case for biological determinism, please do so - using credible evidence and specific examples, not by pretending personal opinions, wholesale generalisations and speculation are established facts. The first thing you need to do is: establish a causal relationship between genes/alleles or whatever and human behavior. Without that, your case cannot proceed.
I can't recall you ever debunking anything I ever said.

Testosterone and estrogen are largely responsible for "sexual identity", but alleles cannot tell you whether to wear a dress and play with dolls or jeans and play baseball - only people can tell you to do that, your testosterone/estrogen ratio only predicts how comfortable you might or might not be with those respective choices.

Gender identity itself is a social construct, genetics doesn't construct abstract concepts, it expresses proteins.

The facts here are we have boys that act like girls, girls that act like boys - that's not speculation, it's an empirical phenomena, so there is an empirical expanaiton for it. And when you're talking about evolution, and a stable phenomena, i.e., with a predictable recurrence, in a a predictable ratio, chances are very good it's not an accident, it has some sort of utility and has been selected for.

Until somebody finds an allele clearly labelled, "sexual identity, do not fold tamper or mutilate" then speculation is what you got to work with, it's assumed.

I could be wrong, sure, but I doubt it.



xssve -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/27/2011 7:00:27 AM)

In a way, all you've got with alleles is generalizations: estrogen and oxytocin make you generally less aggressive and more nurturing, testosterone and vassopressin make you generally more aggressive and competitive, that's about it, that's all they can do.

The rest is a matter of social/linguistic construction, assigning those traits to a particular gender in an abstract social construct, an ideal of masculine and feminine. It's more complex than that, but those are the high points - sexual attraction itself is largely a visual, aural, and olfactory phenomena for example: hip to waist ratio, pheromones, and the timber of the voice, we conceal genitalia, so we tend to identify potential reproductive partners by secondary sexual characteristics - you attracted to people with broad shoulders and deep voices, or big round asses and soft voices?

Another oversimplification of course, but again, those are the high points.

If there were an ideal, an acceptable social archetype for a caring nurturing, non-aggressive male, this kid might not think he was a girl, but that's a feminine ideal, boys aren't supposed to be that way.

There is a bit of a double standard there, girls can play softball or rollerderby, and they might be accused of being masculine, but nobody really questions the fact that they're still women, or even if they're heterosexual - but if a boy plays with dolls, then he's not a man, he's gay, period, there's no going back, and no middle ground, not in the "official" narrative anyway.

Not real sure why that is, but one can only surmise it's probably a matter of either utility or convenience for those who believe it's their job to assign and enforce social constructs, gender or otherwise.



xssve -> RE: Where does gender come from? (12/27/2011 7:32:26 AM)

So the kid's real problem is that he's represents a more complex archetype, unrecognized in a social construct that only recognizes binary archetypes.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625