'Different but of equal value' and gender

[soupycustard]

I'm interested in how many posters say they don't consider they have a gender. I am very GC and of course the 'genderwoo' is utter nonsense, and the misuse of language by TRAs has been cynical and deliberate, which makes this a difficult question/issue to put into words. But to try... :
Aside from physical sex characteristics, I wonder (but I'm doubting myself now!) whether at population level, women are different from men in their attitude to and approach to things,and I'm not sure that's 100% down to nurture rather than nature.
I studied feminism in the 90s and at that time, it was all about the sexes being 'different but of equal value' so I think that is what I'm influenced by. Because that seemed to encompass different behaviours, eg would females, at population level, be more interested in looking after children than males (irrespective of educational attainment/pay etc), and if so is that something to do with 'gender'?
I would also add that even if I do wonder about 'gender' and whether I have such a thing, that does not make any difference to my GC position, in that to me it's yet another reason why a man wouldn't know what a woman feels like!

Thank you, that would be interesting. The sexual offending rates are clearly down to sex differences.
And perhaps the greater risk-taking (at population level) which leads to more men committing more crime generally probably comes from a mix of nature and nurture.

There are gendered roles, gender sterotypes, gendered expectations (all of which amount to much the same thing).

Gender as a 'thing you have', that is innate but separate from your biological sex (and yet somehow linked to it)? Nobody has ever yet been able to explain to me what that is.

So, no. I don't have one. Any more than I have a thurble or a froouph.

OP I think I get what you mean. Initiatives to get boys into nursing, etc?

I'm me in a female body, that's the only way I do 'womaning'. I like what I like, I dress how I like to dress, and it's varied through my life because interests change and people grow and mature. I have a star sign which has probably about the same amount of interest for me and impact on me as any conscious notice or investigation of 'gender'. I don't feel the need to investigate and label and box up and sell myself, and frankly haven't had a life in which I had time or was encouraged to be that self-focused or insecure.

I meet young disabled people who spend a lot of time worrying about their disabled 'identities', as opposed to just getting on with life. I'm not sure it's a healthy or positive thing, or that I've lost anything or been less well developed as a person for not investigating and working out mine.

This may be my answer!
I think I'm over-complicating!

Yep.

Nail head.

This is one of these things which has been deliberately overcomplicated to try and confuse in order to disguise the inherent sexism at the heart of it.

We try and be nice to understand it, because it's apparently complex, and somehow we should be nice about it.

But actually once you realise it's just rebranded sexism with good PR you realise it's not complicated at all.

male violence is an interesting and useful one - the rates of sexual offending varies hugely across the world - less than 1 to nearly 200 rapes reported per 100000 people

now of course collection of this data is complicated by definitions and culture

Murder rates are perhaps easier to measure but again show a huge variability around the world

this suggests that whilst testosterone does influence male behaviour , the actual ability to men to behave well is strongly nurtured- cultural

so if we accept that the obvious male behaviour of violence is more nurture than nature I think we need to accept that the less obvious ( unproven) behaviours sometimes attributed to be female traits are likely also heavily nurtured based

Yes I think so.
Though that way round is useful precisely because having men doing something makes people respect that thing more. Whereas the other way, perhaps there's a sense of 'more women should be doing things that a patriarchy respects rather than things a patriarchy doesn't respect' .

How about this as an example of what I'm getting at:
Gender stereotype: girls tend to like arts subjects and boys tend to like STEM.
Possible misuses of that stereotype: (a) arts are a 'soft' subject and (b) more girls should do STEM.
Possible 'different but of equal value' take: more girls may like arts versus STEM and that is fine. Do we laud STEM because it is valued as a 'male' subject?
Again, to emphasise, I am not saying 'this is true'. I am asking a question

I'm not really sure what your question is, though.

If it's not true, then none of the rest follows.

If it is true, is that truth stable across time and place?

What is the cause, and the direction of causality - is there an innate reason why more girls like arts than sciences; are they encouraged more in one than the other; are the encouraged more in one because people think it's more 'suitable'; if so, why do they think that?

Take computer programming for example. Invented by a woman who was brilliant at maths. 'Computing' in the sense of 'doing lots of mathematical calculations' when it was done by hand rather than machine tended to be a job for women because they were considered more patient and with a better eye for detail (19th century astronomy used loads of women for logging star positions and calculating astronomical movements, and right into the 1960s and 70s NASA was using women as 'computers' for the Apollo programme) and to programme and check the results of the early electronic computers. Then in the 1970s and 80s programming and computer tech suddenly became a 'man thing' and women were pushed out.

So based on that women are neither different, nor given equal value. They are just as good, just as interested, but when there's cash and prestige to be had the men take over.

All of us have a range of stereotypical masculine and feminine stereotypes which are to an degree inherent. Some people are inherently logical and good at maths. Some people are inherently intuitive and good at reading people. Some people are inherently caring to a much greater degree than others. Some people are natural born leaders. People have interests and hobbies that may align with stereotypes associated with one sex or the other - dancing, fishing, model trains, crochet etc. We are all equally likely or unlikely to have these talents, traits, and interests (or lack them) but there’s nothing like gendered socialisation for bringing them out or squashing them. The caring girls is encouraged and directed towards nursing or childcare, the caring boy is ridiculed. The girl who is a good leader is told off for being bossy, the boy gets a degree apprenticeship with a ftse 100. On top, womens biology influences how we walk through the world. We have less physical strength so age out of interests that require it while boys get better and better. We are more physically vulnerable to violence, especially sexual violence, so our conflict resolution response is different. We stay away from careers like construction where sexual banter is rife and every single pice of equipment is designed to be used by a man af average size and above average male strength. We opt out of things that are dangerous to us (Stephen Fry famously said women must not like sex as if they did they would engage in cottaging - absolutely oblivious to the danger of pregnancy, disease, sexual and physical violence and social penalty if women did do that), or that are a pita and outrageous changing bodies through puberty, pregnancy and menopause change what we can do. So many sporty girls get put off as teenagers by letches and perverts and stop altogether during pregnancy and then find they have no time for hobbies when they have small children, especially team sports when you need to commit to a time and place. Sporty boys get better as teens and young men with no obstacles and suddenly it’s because sportiness is a masculine trait. It’s no co-incidence that the gendered traits we label as masculine and encourage in our boys are the ones that are valued - logic, leadership, STEM, team sports etc whereas the ones we don’t - caring, crafty, good at making the sandwiches, emotional etc are seen as feminine. Gender is a hierarchy, imposed from without, to keep men at the top and women at the bottom. I have never understood gender as an inherent, internal feeling at all. I don’t have it. It is done to me.

Interesting. Links in with the idea that asking 'why do people commit crime' is the wrong question; instead 'why don't more people commit crime?'
I would expect though that in the societies where the male crime rates are very low, they would be even lower for females?

I believe there are innate, population level behavioral differences between the sexes which are, at least in part, driven by testosterone. There are also socially driven differences. It is impossible to separate out which are which as socialisation of babies according to their sex begins at the moment they are born.

That doesn’t mean that we should be bound by them, nor does it mean that you can tell who is a woman and who is a man, by looking at individual behaviour.

Ironically, I suspect that, if we look at behaviour patterns of people who claim a trans identity, they broadly adhere to those behaviour norms for their sex, despite their claim that they feel like the opposite sex.

Thus despite the increased aggression FtM transitioners demonstrate when on testosterone, they retain, on average, more empathy and understanding of women than their MtF counterparts.

And an outstanding number of MtF transitioners (especially those pushing themselves into prominent positions) are both aggressive and abusive in patterns that are commonly associated with other male abusers. Interesting to note that (in dogs at least) reducing testosterone in aggressive dogs can render them more aggressive. It’s not a straightforward equation as it is for FtMs when testosterone is added in.

I wish those early feminists pushing for women to be accepted as they are, but also as equal had prevailed. Instead, women have been pushed into competing in a world that was set up for men and it hasn’t worked well for many of us, especially once we had children.

Trying to find true equality/equity when we are physically different, bear children and started from a position of less power to influence, is going to be a very long battle that I suspect we will never achieve.

That said, I find it fascinating online when arguing with men. Their power is reduced when physicality and fear of them is removed. It certainly makes a lot of men very angry when they can’t control the conversation as they would in the boardroom, so to speak.

There are two sexes, men and women. I’m a woman, not a gender identity some bloke with a fetish has made up in his head, GI has been purposely constructed to make boring people appear more interesting than they actually are. It hasn’t worked.

Of course women are different from men, in many ways, but that still doesn’t support anyone having a GI and doesn’t change the fact that there are only TW sexes.

@NoBinturongsHereMate Yes I don't know quite what I'm asking either! I think that's why I'm (failing to!) ask it.
I'm a cold creature of logic and having this weird dissonance was bugging me. Your post is very helpful.

@Arseynal I very much like your last sentence.
@PriOn1 Yes sometimes it feels as if equality is a very long way off.

Precisely.
Take away the word gender and what are in effect sex stereotypes.
Your childcare example is precisely the one which matters to valuing women as equal but different.
Women at a population level are the sex who carry and birth children. Women as the bearers and birthers of children need a range of protections which men do not. This does not make women of less value to society.
However, in a capitalist and patriarchal society, reproductive labour has very little value (even though it is necessary to keep the whole thing going) and what is valued is financial independence and autonomy and the ability to contribute to production and the economy. Therefore, women’s protections tend to be skewed towards enabling them to be productive (in economic terms) members of society and not enabling them to focus on child rearing (which is devalued and outsourced), and to participate in a workplace which has been historically constructed along traditionally male lines.
It’s the argument that women will not have equality in the public and civic sphere until there is also equality in the domestic sphere; whereas what we have is the illusion of equality but in fact a double burden. At a population level, women who are more successful in the workplace than their menfolk also tend to do a greater proportion of the housework.

A more interesting question is why don’t women murder? And yes, I’m aware that there are female murderers, but it’s a tiny percentage compared to men, and female serial killers are practically non existent. That can’t be about nurture can it? There is a violence inherent in the male sex that is absent in women, why?

It’s obviously meant to say ‘two sexes at the end of that post! 🤪

Thank you for the really interesting and considered responses.
I agree wholeheartedly about the interlink with capitalism and that reminds me of the argument that women, at population level, have been /are in the private sphere and men in the public sphere, and from the latter comes politics, war and 'history', and so the patriarchy produces all the terms of reference under which society functions because men have historically been the ones 'out there' making their voices (and weapons) heard.

Yes.
My view is that men at population level are inherently more violent, and more criminal than women. Which supports the view that everything is based on sex differences.
So I think I've talked myself round on the issue of 'is gender difference a thing?' The answer has got to be either 'no', or 'even if it were, it's pointless at best and unhelpful at worst because it is impossible to tease out what it could be over and above sex differences and patriarchy (helped along by a dollop of capitalism)' .

People used to think that testosterone was linked to male violence, though these days people don't think it's a straightforward connection. However, do Transmen become more aggressive when they take it?

Yes I understand women on testosterone do become a little more aggressive

sorry haven’t done an in depth study of male vs female violence around the world

Yes, transwomen do become more aggressive.

A 2011 Swedish study found that male transexuals ( they had evenhad surgery) retained make patterns of criminality, female transexuals became more like them

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043071/

If you read this account by detransitioner Helena, you’ll see her describe some of how testosterone made her feel.
https://lacroicsz.substack.com/p/by-any-other-name?s=r

No doubt testosterone may more innocently help with self -confidence too (judging by how men seem to have more of it).

Which supports the view that everything is based on sex differences.

That doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

Male violence is the glaring outlier when you look at traits in men and women.

Can you think of any other behaviour which is 98% carried out by one sex or the other? (Unrelated to direct bodily functions).

I like to imagine a world in which men commit violent crime at the same rate as women. How much of our resources would be free for other things? Police, hospitals, shelters. It's absolutely mad really that the male (population) level of violence is "the norm" and entire societies are built around accommodating this.

I think anyone who's ever had a child, and watched them grow up alongside their peers, knows that while every child is unique, boys and girls are noticeably different groups from a very early age.

I also don't think there is any correlation between this and transgender identification. Like you, OP, I see this as evidence that genderism is nonsense. The transmen I know (and those whose stories I have read) were not roaring round the infant school playground pushing and shoving each other with glee, and I don't think TWs spent their childhood caught up in elaborate friendship politics and imaginary social worlds. That's what puts the Rapid Onset in ROGD.

There's also another thread tonight by a transman, who attests to classic gender dynamics between TMs and TWs in mixed trans groups (i.e. they behave as per sex roles, not as per their new "gender").