OK, let's talk about gender.

[GarlicRound]

Warning: I've just realised I've been up all night and really need to get some sleep - so this is a post-and-run (until the evening). Second warning added: I tend to ramble a bit when tired. Apologies for the length!

Gender. Not the linked concepts of gender identity or grammatical gender, but the cultural expectations and impositions placed by societies on their members according to sex.

Like everyone else, I live in a society so am not free of externally applied or socially internalised gender. I have tried to resist it, personally and politically, since childhood. Since discovering feminism at 17, I've recognised it as a tool of patriarchal oppression.

I really hope people will run with it. Please raise questions, issues and share perspectives. We do this topic from time to time, so I'll kick off with a less-discussed angle: men 😄

A young male may grow up in a warlike society, which expects and requires men to be warriors. He may not feel himself to be warrior material, despite all his training. He may be distressed by violence, reluctant to hurt people, and far better suited to tending the wounded due to his irrepressibly kind disposition.

In a warrior society, violence defines a man. Our chap isn't violent, therefore he is not a man. He's kind and nurturing: qualities expected of a woman. By the logic of his culture, then, he is a woman - a woman with a penis (unless they cut it off to make sure). To make sense of him, they dress him in women's clothes and send him to do women's work, living with the women.

There is an obvious intersection here with gender identity and genderism. He might, if he were aware of the concept, 'identify as a woman' because this is the only explanation his society provides for a peace-loving male. We have evidence of this happening in Native American cultures with 'two-spirits' and archaeological finds of male skeletons with feminine trappings, among others.

It only means the guy 'is a woman' in terms of his people's highly prescriptive sex roles. The warrior stereotype for men still pertains in more flexible societies like ours: men are bigger, stronger than women, and more likely to be violent; in many ways the more physically dominant of men still overrule the gentler types.

It's one of the routes by which gender disadvantages males. There are others. By and large, though, sex stereotypes disadvantage women more widely and profoundly.

I don't find "just so" stories about hypothetical prehistoric ancestral social structures terribly illuminating about the modern world tbh.

But for what it's worth, there's more history of men adopting female-typical dress and mannerisms because they're gay and because their society is homophobic than there is of your hypothesised 'too nice to hurt anyone' blokes.

Its as if Devil Woman had never been written

So are you going to tell us where this ‘warrior society’ is then?

The most charitable response to this charming theory is ‘naive’.

The rhetoric of today’s transactivism is more like colonial aggression. It’s not at all gentle and nurturing towards women.

Yes dear the principle is correct but why start from a warrior society

why not start from today’s society ? Today, gentle and kind men are seriously in demand, more likely to get a decent woman to love?

of course I could also ask you to start from the female perspective ….

But, but, but... why would they assume he (kind man) must therefore be a woman, not just a different kind of man? That society would know that other mammals can't change sex (don't mention the bloody clownfish) so why would they think this about humans?

Its such a weird, extreme pov to jump to.

Also re man being buried with women's things - we cannot know the reason for that. Again, jumping to the extreme genderist pov that he must have been seen as a women is bizarre and extreme. Why not just a man who liked women's stuff?

I do like your phrase 'externally applied gender' though. I've never heard that and it seems to describe what I think of as gender (I accept there is a social expectation of gender but I think its utterly unhelpful to buy into it, and would describe myself as 'agender' if that didn't align me with the alphabet people).

Ultimately, though, all stereotypes most likely have their roots in observable and functional/physical differences between the sexes. 'Gender' is the social and cultural extrapolation of biology - and can vary between cultures and over time...though certain predictable symbols and images remain.

Males tend to be bigger and stronger and so in a purely primitive way have tended to dominate. Females have certain vulnerabilities due to their role in pregnancy and reproduction.

I find referring to "sex-based stereotypes" is a better term than "gender."

I also find looking at actual historical examples, structures, and institutions better than made up stories. Read Mary Wollstonecraft; read John Stuart & Harriet Taylor Mill for a start.

Made up stories got us where we are ...

Agreed. Stereotypes don't come from nowhere, especially the ones that keep popping up accross different societies.

Females have certain vulnerabilities due to their role in pregnancy and reproduction.

Also: hormones. From my own experience and that of other trans people of both sexes I've talked to, an honest study of the psychological effects on trans people of taking cross-sex hormones would reveal, uh, rather unpalatable results about the role of hormones in male and female stereotypical behaviours...

Made up stories got us where we are ...
They helped the human race develop exploration, industry, medical care and to the moon. . . . .
Males do take more risks and the developments above which (I admire) came sooner because of risk taking.

I'm not sure the average transwoman is massively "feminine" in attitude or behaviour as defined by gender as societal expectations. In fact the very action of invading female only spaces and giving not a fuck for the feelings of the women that may be in there is really quite... erm... what's the words? Oh yeah male pattern abusive behaviour.

sterotypes - what like girls like pink and high heels ? Which depend on what century you are living in

Gender is defined as the:

"behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

So it's not strictly defined as being created by social expectations.

While gender is certainly influenced by social expectations its also influenced by genes & hormones. Therefore the idea that gender differences between the sexes is changeable isn't entirely possible because they are a naturally occurring biological phenomenon whose typical associations also create gender stereotypes.

I assume by the warrior example you gave that its societal expectations that cause trans identification which is a fair point as just because a man has typical behavioural associations to women doesn't make him a 'woman' as women & men share behavioural inclinations. But that doesn't account for those who organically reject their biological disposition & feel more comfortable expressing their naturally occurring gendered behaviour in presentation that is more commonly associated with the opposite sex.

What I'm trying to say here is trans people are categorically different from those who are gender non conforming & that's why the 'warrior' example isn't relevant to them.

I'm a bit confused, OP. Are you saying that his warrior society deem him to be one of the women because he doesn't like fighting? Do they then tell him to wear a dress and do the cooking and childcare? Does he lose his manly rights (almost certainly a privileged position in law as against women)? Is he expected to marry a woman, marry a man or not marry? What happens about any children he has with an actual woman - is he deemed to be the father, a second mother or something else? Is he allowed into the communal bathing pond with the women because he is deemed to be unable to rape / impregnate women due to being a woman? I just don't see that you have answered any questions with your example. And what about the men who really don't like fighting and don't want to fight but back down under pressure and do a bit of fighting but then head home as soon as they can get away with it? Are they men or women? Or are they non-binary?

One of the oldest forms of propaganda:
Harnessing ideas about the past, twisting them to meet present day politics in order to legitimise and try and control the future.

These reinterpretations have fuck all to do with past societies and everything to do with present day politics.

For examples:
See every era in history. Forever.

In other words, don't try this shit here and think it will fool or impress anyone can we can see straight through the bullcrap.

Gender = a way of framing sexism and sexist ideas and stereotypes as somehow legitimate or even progressive.

Na. It's still just sexism with better PR.

OK. I did think twice about mentioning genderism in my story, but it felt such an obvious connection that I decided to make it or everyone else would!

Some interesting replies today - thanks. I wanted to raise the subject of gender as its own topic, which used to happen a lot in feminism but seems at present to have been subsumed by 'trans'. There can't be anything like a meaningful concept of gender identity or transgender without a clear idea of what gender means, though.

It's impossible to know how much of human behaviour is innately gendered because experiments to find out would be unethical; natural observation's unavailable because no gender-free societies exist. While my views are quite hard-line compared to most, I don't believe that all gendered qualities are socially constructed. Some, in my opinion, are hardwired or hormonally driven: mostly geared towards mating and reproduction.

Some of the things we might read as behavioural/psychological are actually linked to sexual dimorphism, such as differences in vision, hearing and smell. Plus, of course, there's no neat dividing line - though I would point out that men with more female-typical sensory abilities are lauded for their amazing skills, male perfumery 'noses', for example, and paid more than women. That's gender!

It's quite obviously nonsense that girls prefer pink, makeup and heels. Our current society tells us they do. There's so much more of this crap to pick through. It's important work, both for ourselves and the children we influence.

My insomnia segued into yet more insomnia; I now have so much brain fog I can barely read, let alone think and type coherently! Trying again ... maybe I'll have helpfully gendery dreams 😴

The warrior story isn't absurd. There is sufficient evidence. I obviously don't have firm answers to 'what if' questions about gentle boys who would try and fight, etc. Most of us can make a good guess, I should think, at least if we've paid attention to other cultures beside our own. And, yes, 'not a proper man' in most societies means 'kind of a woman'. There's a book's worth on that in the sexual mores of the ancient world and many societies today, before we even get to the wider social, domestic, religious and political structures.

It's quite obviously nonsense that girls prefer pink, makeup and heels. Our current society tells us they do.

Not always. Presentation that's influenced by a desire to be more attractive to the opposite sex, as a power play or aesthetics preference isn't necessarily societally induced. A lot of women enjoy make up & heels many of which aren't the 'type' to conform to societal demands.

You're missing the point, @Gretel346.
The female sex has no natural affinity to pink.
At various times in European history, men wore more makeup than women. They still do in some places.
Same with ornate clothes & jewellery.

The warrior story isn't absurd. There is sufficient evidence. I obviously don't have firm answers to 'what if' questions about gentle boys who would try and fight, etc. Most of us can make a good guess, I should think, at least if we've paid attention to other cultures beside our own. And, yes, 'not a proper man' in most societies means 'kind of a woman'.

Any actual specific examples of that? I totally disagree that in most societies 'not a proper man' means 'kind of a woman'. 'Not a proper man' just means 'Does not embody the stereotypes that I or my society consider manly'. There is a big difference between, for example, being a kind, gentle man and deliberately adopting the stereotypical trappings of femaleness.

One obvious refutation of ‘not a proper man’ meaning ‘kind of a woman’ in various societies in the past is the position of eunuchs - they could hold political power and be educated etc.
Societies may make a distinction between men and ‘not men’ but that doesn’t mean they’re treated as women.

An awful lot of men in warrior societies don’t like fighting - because they might die or be injured and die. The way such societies recognise this is by forcing them to fight or make an example of them and killing them so others do not try to avoid fighting too. Such societies do not have the luxury of having men pretend they are women; every able bodied man represents the difference between living or losing the battle and death or slavery for all of them. They can’t pretend they are women anyway as the role of a woman is reproduction. Women are married young and expected to produce more fighting men.

If we are talking about a society where only a proportion of men fight, then other men take of other male roles such as farmers, smiths, wrights, scribes, advisors, entertainers, priests…

In other words, don't try this shit here and think it will fool or impress anyone can we can see straight through the bullcrap.
This

And some men clearly like them too, but plenty of us women couldn’t care less about makeup & heels.

A truly progressive society would be one where whether someone was a woman / girl or man / boy was simply decided by their observed sex at birth, and had nothing to do with their tastes, their personality, how they viewed themselves or how they chose to present.

It’s the regressive sex-based stereotypes, suggesting that a male in a dress & makeup must actually be a woman, that we need to get rid of.

And which toilets, changing rooms etc they use would be purely dictated by their sex, so that seeing males in dresses using the men’s would be unremarkable.