'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!

gitls and boys are different because you expect them to be so

as proven in a lovely experiment with nursery staff describing the children

the girls were so caring and loved the dolls
fhe boys were so much more boisterous

the big reveal was that the girls were actually boys dressed as girls and vice verse

the nursery staffs expectations led to them reinforcing certain behaviours - faces smiling when the children did what they were expected

children pick these things up very easily

boys and girls are noticeably different groups from a very early age.

Groups, yes. individuals, no. If you compare the traits of mine, one is more typically boy traits, the other has more typically girl - although both are mixed, and a lot of it is framed by how you perceive, compare and contrast the traits (bossy? Is she a diva or is he a leader? Is she obedient and studious while he is a typical nerd?).

They are the same sex.

Plenty of boys don't go round shoving and being boisterous either. I know tons that aren't like that and don't like playing those sorts of games. And male siblings who are polar opposites in that regard.
It helps no-one to generalise in that way.

define ‘Gender’?

I certainly don’t have a gender identity. I am a female adult so I am a woman. I have no idea what it means to “feel like a woman”, it’s just my verifiable, material reality.

My case as anecdotal evidence: yes, though not by much, but then I have extreme issues with getting angry, let alone violent. I imagine that someone who doesn't have my problems might get more easily angry and violent.

Another thing to consider, in my case at least, is how taking T changed my view on women. I'm not attracted to women, so I was very surprised when suddenly, they became very heavily sexed beings to me.

Testosterone is one hell of a drug.

I definitely don’t have a gender but I would like to be your friend!

You sound amazing.

That's exactly what I said - why did you cut out the first half of my sentence? And I'm not here to "help" people, I'm here to say what I think.

@soupycustard, have you read Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain? If not, I think you'd find it quite revealing on a lot of this.

Gender is external and societal.

If females are instinctively more interested in caring for children, that is sex.

I don’t know about gender. I think people are

1. their body
2. their personality
3. the stuff life throws at them.

sometimes the stuff life throws at you is due to your body, ie being a woman leads to certain experiences like childbirth or infertility.
Sometimes it’s family dynamics and more general experiences.

I’m hard pressed to categorise into two genders according to many traits, although it would make life much easier if everyone would fit into a predictable A or B box.

Yes, that wasn't an accusation (of not helping), just a general observation! Or saying what I think!

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.

Sorry, it sounded like you were saying "while each child is different, but if you have them yourself you will have noticed sex differences". Then talking about shoving in the playground being relevant to being, or not being, a boy - can you explain what you meant by that as I'm now not clear?

I'm saying probably pretty much what you are saying. That we can observe differences in behaviour on a group level. That's it. My own belief is that we see this so early, it's got to be largely innate. To me, the position that this is purely nurture/adult expectations seems absolutist. But that's something we could debate for all eternity.

My own belief is that we see this so early, it's got to be largely innate.

Babies are treated differently from day 1 - long before they're capable of much in the way of observable behaviour. And adults interpret and react to their behaviours differently from day 1.

The only difference that's been reliably demonstrated in really, really young babies who have minimal outside influence is the amount of time looking at faces (girls consistently do it slightly more). But even that requires a few days after birth before they have the muscle coordination (and before scientists can get their hands on them), and during that time adults spend more time making eye contact with girls, so it could still be a reactive rather than innate difference.

Unless they're actually doing something as they emerge from the birth canal/cesarean incision, it's impossible to be sure.

"That we can observe differences in behaviour on a group level."

Well yes... But then as soon as you see individuals within that group who don't fit those expected behaviour types, the logical thing to do is to adjust the set of expected behaviour types for that group, to include what we do observe.

I've heard of such studies, but with something so fundamental I can't base my opinion on having heard of certain studies. I seem to be coming across as the resident sex role absolutist or something, which is not how I see the world! I don't think this is a settled science - I'm sure other studies will say different things, and I believe studies of psychology and social science can be hard to replicate too - and as I'm not am academic, a researcher or an expert in this area, I would not be able to base my opinion on this or that study (maybe you are more qualified than me!). So, basically, I don't have a satisfying argument to address any given study, but I'm comfortable with the view that, since there are physical differences between the sexes and since the brain is also part of our physiology, it is not unreasonable to allow for the possibility that this too might vary broadly between the sexes. For example, I just cannot believe that it's simply social conditioning that stops women from committing violent crime. Do I have a study to back that up? No, but if something like that is true across all of history and geography, I'm happy to accept it as a fact of life. (Also, I'm a bit sad thinking of babies who have "minimal outside influence"?! And even I don't claim to have observed difference between male and female newborns!)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying "this group tends to be a bit more like that", not "OMG what do we do if someone in the group is not super typical of the group?". I have no investment in there being behaviour traits more associated with one sex or another, but if there are such traits, and if such traits are nature rather than nurture, so be it. If I observe, let's say, an girl who is unusually fond of play-fighting in the playground, at most I might think "oh, usually more of a boy thing", which ime it is. My main reason for replying to this thread was to agree with this OP that this in no way correlates to transgenderism, as those people often seem to retain behaviour widely recognised as typical of their sex!

I think my very distant and being-thought-out-as-I-write point is that
"oh, usually more of a boy thing"

there is a subtle but crucial difference in that thought meaning
"where that behaviour occurs, it's more likely to be a boy doing it than a girl"
vs
"a boy is more likely to do that thing than not do that thing"

Clearly you mean the first, but I think it's very commonly confused with the second. I.e. going back to assuming any individual within that group will have the characteristics of that overall group.

I think this is the harmful thing. Some observe that 'where X occurs, it's more likely to be a boy doing it' and assume it to mean 'boys do this because they are boys'.

(This is where gender id people start thinking 'but I don't do that, therefore I'm not 'really' a boy'. )

I'm not trying to argue, btw, just thinking through my points.

in the 70s the emancipation theory suggested that as women gained equality, we would offend in the same ways and at the same rate as men.

This is really interesting by the way, and I'd like to hear more!

I'm a bit sad thinking of babies who have "minimal outside influence"?!

Don't be. It's a matter of time, not neglect.

A baby tested 5 days after birth will have had much less outside influence than one tested at 3 months, or a year, or schoolchildren in a playground. So are more likely to show an innate reaction than a learnt one that has been influenced by others.

but I'm comfortable with the view that, since there are physical differences between the sexes and since the brain is also part of our physiology, it is not unreasonable to allow for the possibility that this too might vary broadly between the sexes.

Yes, I think this too.

As for crime rates, that difference between men and women is one that is stable across time and cultures. So it is showing something 'real' that is innate rather than just culture.

But it's only stable the sense that men's rates in a given time and culture are always higher than women's rates in the same time and culture. There are high-crime cultures where women commit more crime than men in low-crime cultures. So there must be significant cultural influence in play as well.

And we don't know the reason for the innate part.

Is it testosterone? If so, that's sex not gender. Is it that men - being larger, stronger, faster - are more capable of committing certain physical crimes, and of getting away with them? Sex again.

Is it that men have more social power and greater sense of entitlement, and better odds of being acquitted if prosecuted because their testimony is more likely to be believed? That would be gender in the sense of external expectations and assumptions, but (except maybe the sense of entitlement part) not the internal sense of having a gender that the OP is about.

Thanks for the constructive response @potpourree :-)

I do see your point about the danger that people might then think "if I do this then I must really be the opposite sex". I think that's probably particularly the case with younger child transitions, where the kid has said something innocuous and the parent has gone to town with it thanks to genderology.

It seems like it's not so much the case with teens onwards - it really strikes me how detransitioners often talk about a sense of not fitting in (due to various non-gender-related factors) and how, despite no prior history of "gender non-conforming" or discomfort with their sex, they then seized upon transitioning as the answer when it was presented to them on Tumblr or at school. Which is completely illogical, but then so is anorexia and self-harm, which many would say are the precursors to this trend where teen girls are concerned.

And obviously AGP is another kettle of fish altogether! Unless you mean they harness the logic of "women wear nighties and I wear nighties, therefore I'm a woman and you can't say I'm not", which calls to mind Dr Upton's "I'm biological and I'm obv totes a woman, therefore I'm a biological woman"...

Phew!

And food for thought about crime rates (in your later post).

While we're sort of on the topic of testing babies - the following is not really anything to do with the thread topic but it's an amazing bit of developmental neurology that deserves to be better known.

Research on babies' ability to recognise faces (as in face vs not-face, rather than recognising individuals) looked at how mimimal a drawing can be before it triggers the 'that's a face' response. And at how early that response is seen.

It found that a point-down triangle, suggesting a forehead and a chin, is enough for the brain to go 'looks like a face, need to pay attention to this' whereas a triangle with the point up doesn't. A baby of either sex will look for longer at the 'face' than the 'not-face'.

And this response isn't learnt from interacting with people and learning 'this shape means face'. It's definitely innate. We know that because it happens before the baby has seen a single face. It's been tested a few days before birth.

How? Don't worry, it's not harmful and not invasive - it's essentially shadow puppetry - shining lights of different shapes onto the outside of the mother's belly.

I don't know about having a gender. I'm very aware I'm female and always have been.
I'm not sure if I would instinctively be better at looking after children than a man. If I didn't know that it was kind of expected of me due to my sex, then I doubt I'd be gravitating towards it. I certainly would avoid having to be pregnant or give birth. Maybe I'm not so 'typical'?