PHYSIOLOGICAL SEX and GENDER - Not Mutually Determining.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SHallowvale
Jobs like plumbing or building, being a technician, etc. From my experience people tend to feel that only men are suitable for these jobs because men are generally larger and stronger, whereas a lot of women are perfectly able to do them as well.
As for mining, if you were to use machinery to help you (which most developed countries use anyways) then you don't need to be strong to work. Sure, if you were down a mine then it would come in handy.
As for mining, if you were to use machinery to help you (which most developed countries use anyways) then you don't need to be strong to work. Sure, if you were down a mine then it would come in handy.
There's a difference in being able to do a job, and being able to do a job well.
Of course, women can build a roof or whatever, nobody is denying that, but 9.9/10 a man can do it more effectively.
Original post by Kyber Ninja
It technically does when you consider the testosterone concentrations in men tend to be elevated which results in a difference in behaviour relative to women. So yes, gendered behaviour can result from it. Not to mention the interaction of Oestrogen, FSH, LH and progesterone in women.
gg
gg
But my claim was that physiological sexual status (as male or female) does not determine gendered behaviour. If it were the case then it would be absolutely impossible for a woman to do what any given society deems a 'man's job' and likewise for a man to do a 'woman's job'. Yet, women can drive tractors, men can knit baby booties. Hormones may well play a part in any given individual humans' preferences or orientations but my claim is that biology does not force men and women to take up behaviours or roles that are in any given society associated with their sex.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
...Men tend to be stronger. Jobs like mining require strength and stamina. Men have that more than women. Therefore, men are more likely to become and succeed in the mining sector.
That you acknowledge men tend to be stronger than women implies that you recognise that some women are also strong, indeed some women being stronger than some men. If you accept that a woman can be a miner despite it being perceived a 'man's role' then you are agreeing with my original claim, notwithstanding any reference to statistical facts about things like strength or activity preference.
Original post by Axiomasher
But my claim was that physiological sexual status (as male or female) does not determine gendered behaviour. If it were the case then it would be absolutely impossible for a woman to do what any given society seems a 'man's job' and likewise for a man to do a 'woman's job'. Yet, women can drive tractors, men can knit baby booties. Hormones may well play a part in any given individual humans' preferences or orientations but my claim is that biology does not force men and women to take up behaviours or roles that are in any given society associated with their sex.
Roles? No.
But physiological traits will always affect behaviour to some extent, along with the environment you're brought up in.
Men do not have a tendency to get hormonal during a period of time like women do. This physiology therefore does cause women to take up a behaviour that's associated with her sex.
Your point is generally right, it's just not completely consistent.
Original post by Kyber Ninja
...But physiological traits will always affect behaviour to some extent, along with the environment you're brought up in...
I'm sure that to some extent each individual's social and cultural behaviour will be influenced by the hormones associated with their sex but this doesn't easily translate into the denial that a man can knit jumpers or a woman drive tractors.
Original post by CookieButter
The point of that comment was that technology has enabled women to some extent to perform the same jobs as men...that without this technology women would revert to their normal gender defined roles. He gave the example of the tractor. Take that tractor away and ask a pregnant women to work the field...will she be able to perform this job effectively? If you are fair and honest with yourself, which I am certain you are not, you will say no. This is an example of how a limitation of woman drives them away from certain roles in society,....
I see. Gender roles aren't clearly defined. Culture defines our gender roles!! great!! name a culture where men become pregnant and start lactating....yeah...biology defines our roles not culture. Culture is limited in its influence by our different strengths and limitations. Culture cannot impose a role on a man that he cannot perform. similarly it cannot impose a role on a woman that she cannot perform effectively. Cultures play to our strengths and limitations. They are pawns to our biology.
...In which alternate reality were women considered to have been unable to work? ...women have been working since the dawn of man but in roles that cater to their biological strengths and limitations.
The author of this thread is arguing that men and women are the same. That women and men should be able to perform the same tasks in society....that they do not have specific roles.....that the only thing keeping women from doing the same job as men is discrimination....that if we remove discrimination from society women and men would have the same outcomes. My counterargument was OK...take this logic of yours to africa where there is no technology, where the biological differences between the genders become more pronounced and see how well it works there...of course it will fail because men and women have different strengths and limitations and they pursue roles that play to these strengths and limitations. A woman's strengths are in bearing children and providing immediate care for them. A male's strength is in providing for and protecting them.... put a pregnant woman on the front lines and you are bound to loose that women and maybe the war if your entire army was made up of women wielding spares up against men wielding spares. Hell put a pregnant women on the front line and she might just die from exposure within a couple of hours before the battle even starts.
I see. Gender roles aren't clearly defined. Culture defines our gender roles!! great!! name a culture where men become pregnant and start lactating....yeah...biology defines our roles not culture. Culture is limited in its influence by our different strengths and limitations. Culture cannot impose a role on a man that he cannot perform. similarly it cannot impose a role on a woman that she cannot perform effectively. Cultures play to our strengths and limitations. They are pawns to our biology.
...In which alternate reality were women considered to have been unable to work? ...women have been working since the dawn of man but in roles that cater to their biological strengths and limitations.
The author of this thread is arguing that men and women are the same. That women and men should be able to perform the same tasks in society....that they do not have specific roles.....that the only thing keeping women from doing the same job as men is discrimination....that if we remove discrimination from society women and men would have the same outcomes. My counterargument was OK...take this logic of yours to africa where there is no technology, where the biological differences between the genders become more pronounced and see how well it works there...of course it will fail because men and women have different strengths and limitations and they pursue roles that play to these strengths and limitations. A woman's strengths are in bearing children and providing immediate care for them. A male's strength is in providing for and protecting them.... put a pregnant woman on the front lines and you are bound to loose that women and maybe the war if your entire army was made up of women wielding spares up against men wielding spares. Hell put a pregnant women on the front line and she might just die from exposure within a couple of hours before the battle even starts.
I think people who continuously spout this farce that gender is a social/cultural construct need to watch more nature documentaries. In just about every animal species, the males and females have their own roles and behavioural characteristics. I can't even recall a human society that ever existed where men and women were no different. Surprise! We have different brains, hormones, reproductive roles, etc.
Original post by Axiomasher
Men can feed children, change nappies and knit (among other things). Women can drive tractors, fix engines and drink beer (among other things). Being born as any particular sex doesn't impose a gendered behaviour.
It’s you who’s assuming that knitting and and drinking beer are things reserved for certain genders, I think most people acknowledge either gender can do those things
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
There's a difference in being able to do a job, and being able to do a job well.
Of course, women can build a roof or whatever, nobody is denying that, but 9.9/10 a man can do it more effectively.
Of course, women can build a roof or whatever, nobody is denying that, but 9.9/10 a man can do it more effectively.
Are men 9.9/10 times more able than women to do physical activity?
Original post by Dandaman1
I think people who continuously spout this farce that gender is a social/cultural construct need to watch more nature documentaries. In just about every animal species, the males and females have their own roles and behavioural characteristics. I can't even recall a human society that ever existed where men and women were no different. Surprise! We have different brains, hormones, reproductive roles, etc.
You'll find that most animals are not capable of abstract thinking.
I guess we should refrain from debate, complex thought and challenging pre-established beliefs as those are not seen on Planet Earth.
Original post by Underscore__
It’s you who’s assuming that knitting and and drinking beer are things reserved for certain genders, I think most people acknowledge either gender can do those things
I don't assume that they are reserved but pick them as examples of traditionally conceived gendered behaviour. I very much agree that both sexes can engage in activities that are associated with specific genders, that's kinda my whole point for this thread.
Original post by Dandaman1
I think people who continuously spout this farce that gender is a social/cultural construct need to watch more nature documentaries. In just about every animal species, the males and females have their own roles and behavioural characteristics. I can't even recall a human society that ever existed where men and women were no different. Surprise! We have different brains, hormones, reproductive roles, etc.
Are baby females born wearing a skirt? Are baby males born wearing trousers? This is one rather obvious albeit simple example of gender being a social/cultural construction. Dressing children in a certain way helps shape their perception of themselves and therefore their behavioural orientations. It's not rocket science.
Original post by Conceited
You'll find that most animals are not capable of abstract thinking.
I guess we should refrain from debate, complex thought and challenging pre-established beliefs as those are not seen on Planet Earth.
I guess we should refrain from debate, complex thought and challenging pre-established beliefs as those are not seen on Planet Earth.
Missing the point entirely. I'm not saying we should refrain from debating and challenging beliefs; I'm saying our gender divisions are rooted in nature and aren't some arbitrary human invention we can just change overnight. There are socio-biological and neurological reasons for men and women behaving differently, and similar reasons affect other species too.
Original post by Axiomasher
Are baby females born wearing a skirt? Are baby males born wearing trousers? This is one rather obvious albeit simple example of gender being a social/cultural construction. Dressing children in a certain way helps shape their perception of themselves and therefore their behavioural orientations. It's not rocket science.
Christ, somebody's missing the bigger picture. Gender encompasses far more than personal fashion. Men and women innately think and behave differently and this shapes our cultural and societal expressions. While the norms around skirts are a human invention, the driving reasons behind our many social divisions and inequalities between men and women are not, especially when it relates to our psychology and physiological dimorphism. That's where gender comes from.
And remember: gender is only a 'social construct' until the transgendered become involved. Try telling them the gender they innately feel they are is just an arbitrary cultural invention and a product of social conditioning.
Original post by Dandaman1
...Christ....
You've failed to demonstrate that by virtue of being physiologically male or female an individual must behave or take on a role that is gendered. Also, the fact that transgression from expected gendered behaviour has so widely been taboo and subject to societal inhibition and/or penalty shows your position to be false. If our biology universally dictated our behaviour to fit a gender then there surely would be no such transgressions, taboos or penalties. Your frustrations here are of your own making.
Original post by Axiomasher
Men can feed children, change nappies and knit (among other things). Women can drive tractors, fix engines and drink beer (among other things). Being born as any particular sex doesn't impose a gendered behaviour.
What are you arguing, that there is no causative link between stereotypical gendered behavior and biological sex.
Your premise is true that biology doesn't always lead to traditional gender behavior. But your seem to be arguing more that there is no link between biology and individuals doing traditional gender behavior.
Of course we can't fully know which effects gender behavior more socialization or biology. But we can examine the behavior of babies and extrapolate the results to adulthood in order to make a guess. Such research has shown that babies before a large degree of socialization show certain gender behavior that aligns with gender stereotypes. (Look at the research of UCL and Gad Saad: https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2016/july/infants-prefer-toys-typed-to-their-gender,-says-study and https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201212/sex-specific-toy-preferences-learned-or-innate)
It is unfounded to say that biology is not predictive of gender behavior even in a world free of gender socialization.
Also don't give me the not all argument that is a silly argument. Of course we expect overlaps between two population on gender preferences. There will naturally be variance between populations but that can easily be understand as random chance from the mean. The issue here is what would the mean gender preference be for bio males and females if socialization was removed.
The research says that we should observe the populations exhibiting attraction towards stereotypical gender preference. But the populations might be closer together in a world without socialization.
Also in some of the cases socialization may affect someone such that it overrides their biological preference. But you are only assuming the opposite that socialization can only act to reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. Before you mis-understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that all men are born with the traditional gender preferences, and that the fact that some men knit is due to socialization. No i'm not saying that, i'm saying that your view of socialization is limited, as you only view it as reinforcing the roles, when in fact in modern society they can counteract them.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Dandaman1
Missing the point entirely. I'm not saying we should refrain from debating and challenging beliefs; I'm saying our gender divisions are rooted in nature and aren't some arbitrary human invention we can just change overnight. There are socio-biological and neurological reasons for men and women behaving differently, and similar reasons affect other species too.
Christ, somebody's missing the bigger picture. Gender encompasses far more than personal fashion. Men and women innately think and behave differently and this shapes our cultural and societal expressions. While the norms around skirts are a human invention, the driving reasons behind our many social divisions and inequalities between men and women are not, especially when it relates to our psychology and physiological dimorphism. That's where gender comes from.
And remember: gender is only a 'social construct' until the transgendered become involved. Try telling them the gender they innately feel they are is just an arbitrary cultural invention and a product of social conditioning.
Christ, somebody's missing the bigger picture. Gender encompasses far more than personal fashion. Men and women innately think and behave differently and this shapes our cultural and societal expressions. While the norms around skirts are a human invention, the driving reasons behind our many social divisions and inequalities between men and women are not, especially when it relates to our psychology and physiological dimorphism. That's where gender comes from.
And remember: gender is only a 'social construct' until the transgendered become involved. Try telling them the gender they innately feel they are is just an arbitrary cultural invention and a product of social conditioning.
You are wasting your time with these people my friend. The former does not have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what you wrote. The latter is intelligent, but unwilling to accept that they are wrong. No amount of logic that you throw at these people will change their mind.
Original post by Axiomasher
I don't assume that they are reserved but pick them as examples of traditionally conceived gendered behaviour. I very much agree that both sexes can engage in activities that are associated with specific genders, that's kinda my whole point for this thread.
So if we agree anyone can do what they like surely that invalidates your idea of gender?
Original post by RohanYnaik
...Your premise is true that biology doesn't always lead to traditional gender behavior. But your seem to be arguing more that there is no link between biology and individuals doing traditional gender behavior...
I'm arguing that by virtue of being a biological male or female we are not compelled (and nor should we be) to behave or role-act so as to fit 'male' or 'female' gender expectations or norms. I think you're trying too hard to find fault with my claim.
Original post by Underscore__
So if we agree anyone can do what they like surely that invalidates your idea of gender?
But these aren't my ideas of gender, I'm picking out simple examples of gender expectation that have long stood and challenging them. I think you might have the wrong end of the stick with me. I agree that all people should be free to adopt, reject, mix-up or self-create whatever 'gender' makes them happy.
Original post by limetang
Where on earth do you think gender roles come from? There wasn’t s committee meeting one day where we’d decided to arbitrarily decided that we wanted to invent them.
They are a direct consequence of the general physiological differences between men and women.
They are a direct consequence of the general physiological differences between men and women.
There's a very important distinction to be made between any statistical tendencies based in the biology of men and women to gravitate towards some behaviours and roles on the one hand and the social/cultural (and ultimately political) formalisation of such tendencies into expectations and requirements for all. Might a girl randomly choose to wear pink socks and a boy blue? Maybe, but we know that it doesn't actually work that way, norms and expectations direct gendered behaviour, shaming, chastising or punishing transgression. In many other instances such transgression has simply been outlawed, such as female access to education, in this case on the basis that they weren't considered biologically suited to it.
Observing statistical patterns in how humans behave by virtue of their sex (assuming such behaviour can be disentangled from gender conditioning) is not the same as creating formal and informal rules to try and ensure everyone fits those patterns.
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
