Differences Pt2

[Thingybob]

Ok I'll try to explain where I'm coming from.

I arrived here because I am a mature woman who is concerned about the trans issue and the brainwashing of our children.

When I was a child growing up in the 60's I was gender non conforming. I hated all the girly things of dolls, dresses and pink things and only played with the boys. I was way better at football than most of them and played with boys toys (guns, cars etc) and dressed like a boy. I'm sure I must have also said that I wanted to be a boy. Back in the day I was allowed to be a Tomboy and it scares me that a similar child would now be considered trans and started on a medical route.

Once I hit my teenage years I discovered boys in a different light and have been heterosexual all my adult life but I'm still gender non conforming in terms of my interests and the way I dress. I would have as much of a tantrum today if you made me wear a dress as I would have when I was 3.

Anyway, I got married and had kids, lots of them, less than a dozen but more than a half dozen. Obviously I've seen them grow from birth to adulthood and have also observed relatives children, my children's peers, my grandchildren and kids that I have worked with. With my own daughters I tried to encourage them to be gender non conforming and share the interests I had but from a young age they were girly girls. I found my sons much more fun to be around as they were more interested in the things I liked.

That's why I am convinced there are innate psychological differences between the sexes. Prior to last night, I hadn't realised how feminism denies this and considers all gender (psychological) differences a product of socialization and how that appears to be a such a central tenet for feminism.

If the socialisation theory were correct how would you explain the existence of gender non conforming children and why can there be such a difference between siblings ie one brother could be boisterous and macho and another soft and effiminate?

I want to align myself with you for the reason I set out in my first paragraph but does my concern about the innateness of gender automatically disqualify me from Feminism?

Regarding evidence there is lots out there if you look for it. Here is an example, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19016318

Btw I posted last night as neverbeenafeminist.

I'm not great at writing so I hope I've made myself clear enough x

I've just seen in the time it took me to write that I've had some good answers in the other thread, thanks

Haven't you already demonstrated the flaws in your argument if one son is "boisterous and macho", and the other "soft and effeminate"? (Bearing in mind that "macho" and "effeminate" are very subjective descriptions).

Wouldn't you expect, if your hypothesis was true, that two male children born into the same environment, would both exhibit stereotypical masculine behaviours?

Instead you have two different personalities, which suggest individual character differences, not expressions of innate gender.

I'm not sure your reference actually supports your thesis all that well. The sample size is very small, and I think, although I'm willing to be corrected by a proper scientist, that the difference in values is very small, and possibly not significant for the sample size.

There is also a spread of ages; socialisation starts early and I'd expect that by 8 months, babies are already advanced in being gendered.

In fact the study explicitly acknowledges this: "The existence of these innate preferences for object features coupled with well-documented social influences may explain why toy preferences are one of the earliest known manifestations of sex-linked social behaviour."

You need to distinguish between 'typical' behaviour and absolutes. I have seen studies like the one you linked to (full article here sites.oxy.edu/clint/physio/article/SexDifferencesinInfantsVisualInterestinToys.pdf), and what they generally show is that there may be a difference on average between what boys and girls are interested in.

What they don't show is an absolute difference - if you are shown the behaviour pattern of a child, without knowing their sex, you would not be able to say with any certainty whether that child was a boy or a girl.

In the study you linked to, the children were between 3 and 8 months old, so will almost certainly have received some gendered conditioning from their parents and others. 30 children is also a very small sample.

''That's why I am convinced there are innate psychological differences between the sexes. Prior to last night, I hadn't realised how feminism denies this and considers all gender (psychological) differences a product of socialization and how that appears to be a such a central tenet for feminism. ''
I think that's an example of B/W thinking and conformation bias.
I haven't heard feminists deny any such thing, there have been some interesting discussions around nature vs nurture and I think most people accept its a mixture. Also that we wont know until we can find a society that isn't patriarchal to act as a control.

Looking at other species of mammal, most have differences that only start once the sex hormones start to kick in around puberty. The differences tend to relate to courtship and mating rather than rearing the offspring. Other animals don't socialise their young differently by sex.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that sex hormones influence behaviour via temperament, which is why stallions are kept for breeding and geldings teach beginners to ride.

Why do you think all feminists are blank slatists?

Also: could someone post that Venn diagram?

I'd also add, that even if you are using your own children as an example, you have to fact in their influence on each other. Siblings frequently either identify with, compete with or revere an older sibling. And that might mean they develop similar interests. Conversely, some siblings deliberately seek to differentiate themselves from their sibling - making them deliberately choose very different interests and paths in life

factor in

I found my sons much more fun to be around as they were more interested in the things I liked.

🤔

I really remember a relative claiming my 6 month old son was a bully for taking a toy off his female cousin. A developmentally normal action for any baby, and yet the interpretation of it was already gendered. I'm sure any mother could give similar stories

Thingybob

You've obviously given this a lot of thought, and analysis, in terms of your experience.

I'm just not convinced that you comprehend quite how insidious gender stereotyping is.

It would make little difference, in a way, as to how you personally brought up your children. The messages are coming from literally everywhere.

The flick of an eyebrow, a throwaway comment, can affect a child for life. We know this. It's happens to most of us.

The relentless stereotyping of children is so strong, I'm amazed you even challenge it.

Please, read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. And watch the BBC programme no more girls and boys. Both are eye-opening.

From a personal point of view the entire concept around nature vs nurture is interesting, but, in my opinion as a feminist, not vital. As a concept.

It is vital as a tool.

The way that the 'female gender' has been used to oppress women is nothing short of scandalous.

And when you unpick it, it does absolutely change your mind about so much of what has historically been thought to be innate.

So I am less bothered about the possibly 2 or 3% of preferences that may, overall, be more prevalent in a man or a woman, and far more bothered about the 98% that society insists upon.

LadybirdsAreBirds

There was that observation that a strongly kicking fetus will be predicted a footballer if they are known to be male, and trouble if they're known to be female.

Oh yes. I can believe that.

Something that struck me very much on the last thread was the example of emotions.
It's well known that women are emotional and men aren't (stay with me I'm talking stereotypes here) but I'd never made the link with men being angry and therefore emotional.
I think that because of socialization we see the same characteristics in girls and boys and attribute different meanings to them because of their sex.

I think it would be helpful for you to tease out some of the strands in your thinking there. Just because such a thing as 'gender non conforming' exists, is no proof at all that gender is innate, for example.

I don't know of any feminist who thinks babies are born as completely empty templates who are then imprinted upon by society in totality. Innate personality differences certainly exist, but conditioning is a tremendously powerful social element in the mix.

Wilhamenawonka

Once you start to see this stuff, you realise how prevalent it is.

Aggressive men are 'strong' in business, whereas women who display the same traits are ball breakers, or bitches.

Look at how we celebrate male aggression and lack of empathy in films. There are numerous examples, but the one I'm thinking of is the Wolf of Wall Street.

Socialisation is huge. And it's endemic.

OP could I recommend the book 'Lean In'. The first few chapters contain a lot of references to gender socialisation in babyhood and early childhood.

E.g. research shows that:

• even before a baby's sex is knows parents talk about it differently depending on whether they imagine having a boy or a girl. Women talk about having an emotionally close relationship with daughters, men talk about passing on their love of sport (or whatever) to their sons.

• parents are much more likely to use the word "proud" to describe having a son than a daughter in birth announcements. And they are more likely to publish a birth announcement in a newspaper if they have a son.

• mothers consistently underestimate their baby daughters' physical capabilities and overestimate their sons - measured in a research experiment which asked mothers if their baby would be able to crawl down an incline.

• by the age of 6 children have defined views of what they are and are not good at, affected by how their gender is viewed. Girls are less likely to view themselves as "good at" sport than boys.

Gender socialisation is everywhere, it's impossible to avoid. It's not about giving boys dolls and girls toy cars. Add to that the plasticity of our brains, especially aged 0-3 but right up to early adulthood. All those neural pathways are literally created in a gendered society.

So, gendered personalities are innate even though you yourself have never had one?

I'm not really seeing the logic there.

Thank-you all for your comments and thanks for not calling me a troll. I have taken it all onboard

OldCrone

is that there may be a difference on average between what boys and girls are interested in.

Yes I'd agree it is all about averages

LangCleg

Why do you think all feminists are blank slatists?

That's the impression I got from last nights thread and maybe they do defend that stance so as not to concede to the lady brain theory of the TRAs?

Datun

Please, read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. And watch the BBC programme no more girls and boys. Both are eye-opening

Thanks, I will

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea

OP could I recommend the book 'Lean In'. The first few chapters contain a lot of references to gender socialisation in babyhood and early childhood.

I'll look at that too

AngryAttackKittens

So, gendered personalities are innate even though you yourself have never had one?

I'm not really seeing the logic there.

Yes on average but I think I'm one of the odd ones, the blue brain stuck in the female body (hope you don't mind me describing it like that) So why did it work out ok for me but is apparently a source of such great angst for the younger generations now? My personal observation is that the social norms regarding gender in children are so much more rigid today than they were for me 50 years ago. Which is crazy!

I'm off to bed now to watch 'no more boys and girls' and have my reading list ready. Thanks again

Thanks again

I think you have extremely narrow views. You seem very rigid on what is a thing for girls and a thing for boys and come across as a bit smug about your preference for what you consider "boys' stuff"

I would place money on your list of "boys' stuff " including perfectly neutral stuf likebikes and lego, just to prove how much of a tom boy you were, and your "girls' stuff" including neutral stuff like music or dance or art.

I found my sons much more fun to be around as they were more interested in the things I liked

If I were your daughter I probably would not want to spend much time with you.

I'd caution anyone against assuming that they themselves are some sort of unusual exception to a general rule of other people being "naturally" (insert stereotype here). Remember that you don't have access to anyone else's inner life, and things that you may be assuming come naturally to them may not have done so at all.

I think I'm one of the odd ones, the blue brain stuck in the female body

That's the wrong way to think of it. There are no male and female brains, just brains in either male or female bodies.

So why did it work out ok for me but is apparently a source of such great angst for the younger generations now? My personal observation is that the social norms regarding gender in children are so much more rigid today than they were for me 50 years ago. Which is crazy!

You've answered your own question. We seem to have gone backwards into some sort of Victorian era where things are 'for girls' or 'for boys'. In the 60s and 70s things did seem to be progressing towards not making those distinctions. I don't know why it changed and we went backwards.

I want to align myself with you for the reason I set out in my first paragraph but does my concern about the innateness of gender automatically disqualify me from Feminism?

Yes. Please hand in your 'real feminist' badge, leave your dungarees, pick up your bra from the front desk do not pass go on your way out.

That's why I am convinced there are innate psychological differences between the sexes. Prior to last night, I hadn't realised how feminism denies this and considers all gender (psychological) differences a product of socialization and how that appears to be a such a central tenet for feminism.

This is a nonsense statement. You are declaring 'gender' to be psychological differences, when what you are talking about is personality.
Gender is a social construct. The proof of this is that it varies from one culture to another.

It has become common for people to say gender when they mean personality. All that does is confuse the issue even more.

Read Delusions of Gender and you may understand it better.