Hi all,
I came upon this article, written by a 17-year old, on the nature of gender. It gives me hope that coming generations will refuse to be brainwashed by arbitrary and normative notions of gender. Any comments?
Love,
CJ
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m137 ... icle.jhtml
A Teenager Deconstructs Gender
Moderators: KimberlyS, CathyAnn
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
-
Beauty
- Retired Site Administrator
- Posts: 3662
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:30 am
- Location: Northern VA
- Contact:
Hi CJ,
I voted for Human Nature. Like the Madonnna's song, Human Nature.
Human Nature Lyrics - G rated Version
Beauty
I voted for Human Nature. Like the Madonnna's song, Human Nature.
Human Nature Lyrics - G rated Version
Beauty
-
Jessie
- Miss Ruby Goddess
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:44 pm
- Location: Eastern Washington
- Contact:
I have trouble making a choose (at this time) as I fill that it can also be a state of mind of one persons. It is hard for me to just say well that is what I think as I do not know all the facts in life. This is all metaphorically speaking.
Now if if your scientific where there are actuall Y/N right/wrong up/down left/right. Then science is a tell. But don't get me wrong science is not perfect it's just easier to except that a belief in my case that is why I like all the facts before making a choose.
Jessie
Now if if your scientific where there are actuall Y/N right/wrong up/down left/right. Then science is a tell. But don't get me wrong science is not perfect it's just easier to except that a belief in my case that is why I like all the facts before making a choose.
Jessie
-
Jamie Ann
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:10 pm
- Location: Athens, Georgia
I think gender feelings are inborn, but gender expression is a social construction. There was a documentary done by a Canadian TV station a few years ago called “The Remarkable Story of John/Joan.” Eight-month old baby John was the victim of an accident during circumcision that left him with almost no penis. The next year, when he was almost two, the family brought him to Dr. John Money at John Hopkins University Medical School, who advised them to have his testicles surgically removed. The theory was that John could be brought up as a girl, because learning rather than inborn feelings created gender, a theory that had gained some acceptance in the 1960s. Following the doctor’s advice, the family renamed him Joan, dressed him in frilly dresses and treated him like a little girl. However, beneath the curls and dresses, John/Joan was miserable. When John was an adolescent, he learned the truth about his birth. Angry at his fate, he made several suicide attempts and refused to continue to see Dr. Money. Fortunately, this story has a reasonably happy ending. Now middle-aged, he has put his life back together, having undergone reconstructive surgery that enables him to have a normal sex life. He is married and is helping to raise three stepchildren.
Clearly, his gender feelings were more than a social construction. Regarding gender expression, however, a glance at different cultures around the world quickly makes clear that the way we express femininity or masculinity is highly variable across cultures. Our own feminine feelings may lead us to wear pink dresses and makeup, but the same feelings would lead us to other expressions in other times and places. It would seem that culture defines the ways gender is expressed — gender is a social construction in the sense that how we express it resides in our cultural prescriptions. But the gut-level feeling reside in ourselves.
Clearly, his gender feelings were more than a social construction. Regarding gender expression, however, a glance at different cultures around the world quickly makes clear that the way we express femininity or masculinity is highly variable across cultures. Our own feminine feelings may lead us to wear pink dresses and makeup, but the same feelings would lead us to other expressions in other times and places. It would seem that culture defines the ways gender is expressed — gender is a social construction in the sense that how we express it resides in our cultural prescriptions. But the gut-level feeling reside in ourselves.
Take care,
Jamie Ann
Jamie Ann
-
Sally
- We Will Never Forget You - Rest in Peace
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:33 am
- Location: N.S.W. Australia
A teenager deconstrusts gender
I go with Julie on this one, I voted for number one as the main, but would have preferred the first two bracketed. It's no secret that I am a firm believer that between conception and the first 36 months of our life our gender is set by the hard wiring of our brain and other events as previously mentioned, but I also believe how we are reared does have some bearing on us as well.
I believe there is enough scientific evidence out there now to prove that the old belief that a cursory glance by the doctor at birth cannot determine a persons assigned sex, simply on the superficial genital appearance. There is a multi cascade of events starting from conception through to puberty which determine who we are as adults. Nature always makes males and females interconvertible at conception and really we are all intersexed at some level.
We all become who we are by factors which we are not consciously aware of or always in control of. I think the best proof of this is where we see a babe born and the doctors can't easily distinguish it's sex so they assign a sex to the babe by surgery. The child is then raised in it's assigned sex role but when the child reaches puberty nature then exerts her authority and the childs' brain tells him/her that how he/she appears is not how it was meant to be. Then the long complicated process begins to psychologically and surgically correct the teenagers life. There are hundreds of these cases around the world and if anyone has ever been in personal contact with such a teenager, you will know how traumatic it is for him/her.
I'm a firm believer that babes born with ambiguous genitalia should be left as they are born until nature tells them at puberty which is the right gender path for them.
My Kindest Regards.
Sally.
I believe there is enough scientific evidence out there now to prove that the old belief that a cursory glance by the doctor at birth cannot determine a persons assigned sex, simply on the superficial genital appearance. There is a multi cascade of events starting from conception through to puberty which determine who we are as adults. Nature always makes males and females interconvertible at conception and really we are all intersexed at some level.
We all become who we are by factors which we are not consciously aware of or always in control of. I think the best proof of this is where we see a babe born and the doctors can't easily distinguish it's sex so they assign a sex to the babe by surgery. The child is then raised in it's assigned sex role but when the child reaches puberty nature then exerts her authority and the childs' brain tells him/her that how he/she appears is not how it was meant to be. Then the long complicated process begins to psychologically and surgically correct the teenagers life. There are hundreds of these cases around the world and if anyone has ever been in personal contact with such a teenager, you will know how traumatic it is for him/her.
I'm a firm believer that babes born with ambiguous genitalia should be left as they are born until nature tells them at puberty which is the right gender path for them.
My Kindest Regards.
Sally.
Watch nature, because it’s our greatest teacher, it moves and flows and moves on again. We can never be free until we disengage, so allow life to flow as you find it. The way it is, is the way it is.
-
Jamie Ann
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:10 pm
- Location: Athens, Georgia
We Must Define Before Deconstructing!
There is a large semantic problem here that tends to encourage people to talk past each other. Feminist writers of the 1960s and early 1970s used the word “gender” to refer to those aspects of maleness/femaleness that are not inborn. Thus, by definition, “gender” was a product of culture and social processes, and “sex” was reserved for the inborn aspects of maleness/femaleness (essentially those associated with chromosome structure, XX or XY). Setting aside minor qualifications, “gender” was the socially acquired aspects of sex/gender, “sex” the genetic aspects. Anyone who accepts this conception hardly needs to provide evidence; the answer is given by the conception itself and is true by definition; it is not an issue to be decided by research.
When later writers began using “gender” to refer to a gut-level feeling of being male or female, however, problems arose, because research showed that most children have such feelings by 12 to 18 months, which is before they have the language and cognitive capacities to comprehend cultural schemas, much less to be shaped by them. This gut-level feeling could not be a social construction, because that would require that infants process cultural symbols before they have the cognitive skills to do that. Moreover, cruder hypotheses about physical abuse or the roles modeled by caretakers have not been supported by the best studies available. Also worth noting, the concept of gender dysphoria makes no sense unless we assume that gut-level gender identity is not something that is easily affected by social learning processes.
For those who use “gender” as a proxy for gender expression (the outward expression of maleness/femaleness), gender would be virtually 100% a social construction, because the way someone projects a claim that they are masculine or feminine depends on what people in their culture consider to be masculine or feminine. This could range from binding one’s feet to stretching one’s earlobes to shaving one’ legs or armpits (as well as other adornments, ways of walking, ways of talking, and so forth). There is nothing genetic about gender expressions; they are culturally prescribed and vary tremendously from culture to culture and from historical epoch to historical epoch. The early feminist thinking essentially equated gender with the outward expression of gender, although some writers fudged a bit as time passed.
In my answer to the poll question, I was equating “gender” with a gut-level feeling of being male or female (or somewhere in between). Children have such feelings very early in life, long before much social learning has taken place, so we must take as our best educated guess that there is a heavy genetic component. I think some others were using the term “gender” in the early feminist sense, or (in one case) in another sense, and based on those different usages of the English language, they arrived at a different answers. Any way you cut it, there is a very large semantic aspect to the whole question, and if we do not recognize that, we wind up talking past each other!
When later writers began using “gender” to refer to a gut-level feeling of being male or female, however, problems arose, because research showed that most children have such feelings by 12 to 18 months, which is before they have the language and cognitive capacities to comprehend cultural schemas, much less to be shaped by them. This gut-level feeling could not be a social construction, because that would require that infants process cultural symbols before they have the cognitive skills to do that. Moreover, cruder hypotheses about physical abuse or the roles modeled by caretakers have not been supported by the best studies available. Also worth noting, the concept of gender dysphoria makes no sense unless we assume that gut-level gender identity is not something that is easily affected by social learning processes.
For those who use “gender” as a proxy for gender expression (the outward expression of maleness/femaleness), gender would be virtually 100% a social construction, because the way someone projects a claim that they are masculine or feminine depends on what people in their culture consider to be masculine or feminine. This could range from binding one’s feet to stretching one’s earlobes to shaving one’ legs or armpits (as well as other adornments, ways of walking, ways of talking, and so forth). There is nothing genetic about gender expressions; they are culturally prescribed and vary tremendously from culture to culture and from historical epoch to historical epoch. The early feminist thinking essentially equated gender with the outward expression of gender, although some writers fudged a bit as time passed.
In my answer to the poll question, I was equating “gender” with a gut-level feeling of being male or female (or somewhere in between). Children have such feelings very early in life, long before much social learning has taken place, so we must take as our best educated guess that there is a heavy genetic component. I think some others were using the term “gender” in the early feminist sense, or (in one case) in another sense, and based on those different usages of the English language, they arrived at a different answers. Any way you cut it, there is a very large semantic aspect to the whole question, and if we do not recognize that, we wind up talking past each other!
Take care,
Jamie Ann
Jamie Ann
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful replies. They were a joy to read. I'll define my own terms, here: I use the word "gender" in the old school sense used by the feminists, as a complex of social roles, rules, and expectations based on one's sex at birth. Thanks for pointing out the semantics of it all, Jamie Ann.
I'm not sure we can categorically affirm that children are incapable of processing cultural symbols before age 2... it seems "maturocentric" on our part. Probably, that's true--the brain needs a bit of time to make connections (both literally and figuratively). Clear evidence for issues of hardwiring timeframes come from the research of neurolinguists, of all things; it would appear that gender (Jamie Ann's "gut-level feeling of being male or female") is fairly crystallized at about the same time as are language skills, about age 4 or 5. Oddly enough (or maybe not), many crossdressers or transsexuals recall experiencing a budding disenchantment with their gender (CJ's "social roles, rules, and expectations") or their physiological sex at this age. One thing is clear enough: we need more research into this area.
I'll put my cards on the table, here, and reveal my own bias regarding all this. I'm very disturbed by a trend over the past 25 years or so, and this is the unquestioned adherence to the "medical model" of pathology when looking at psychological issues. There's a great "deresponsibilization" going on. This frenzied quest for a physiological basis for every single one of our behaviours, good or bad, leaves too little room for environmental factors--social, economic, psychological--and does nothing to increase our desire to take responsibility for who we are. I'm not saying I think there's no physiological basis to why we are who we are and why we do what we do. Far from it! I just think we're peering into one Petri dish to the exclusion of all the others. It's a matter of focus and emphasis. I'm just not so certain I'll ever be comfortable telling someone (an SO, say, or a friend), "yes, I enjoy dressing up like a woman... but it's okay, a gene makes me do it." I can't see myself saying that. Especially not after all I've learned from my mother and my family about the circumstances surrounding my very early childhood.
Anyway, your views are all very much appreciated, gals! Again, this is the beauty of this forum, that we can exchange on this with nary a flame in sight. Kudos to all!
By the way, here's the case Jamie Ann refers to:
http://www.phil-books.com/As_Nature_Mad ... 29596.html
For a slightly different take:
http://www.noharmm.org/canadianboy.htm
Love,
CJ (who is a boy, who is a girl, who is a self)
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful replies. They were a joy to read. I'll define my own terms, here: I use the word "gender" in the old school sense used by the feminists, as a complex of social roles, rules, and expectations based on one's sex at birth. Thanks for pointing out the semantics of it all, Jamie Ann.
I'm not sure we can categorically affirm that children are incapable of processing cultural symbols before age 2... it seems "maturocentric" on our part. Probably, that's true--the brain needs a bit of time to make connections (both literally and figuratively). Clear evidence for issues of hardwiring timeframes come from the research of neurolinguists, of all things; it would appear that gender (Jamie Ann's "gut-level feeling of being male or female") is fairly crystallized at about the same time as are language skills, about age 4 or 5. Oddly enough (or maybe not), many crossdressers or transsexuals recall experiencing a budding disenchantment with their gender (CJ's "social roles, rules, and expectations") or their physiological sex at this age. One thing is clear enough: we need more research into this area.
I'll put my cards on the table, here, and reveal my own bias regarding all this. I'm very disturbed by a trend over the past 25 years or so, and this is the unquestioned adherence to the "medical model" of pathology when looking at psychological issues. There's a great "deresponsibilization" going on. This frenzied quest for a physiological basis for every single one of our behaviours, good or bad, leaves too little room for environmental factors--social, economic, psychological--and does nothing to increase our desire to take responsibility for who we are. I'm not saying I think there's no physiological basis to why we are who we are and why we do what we do. Far from it! I just think we're peering into one Petri dish to the exclusion of all the others. It's a matter of focus and emphasis. I'm just not so certain I'll ever be comfortable telling someone (an SO, say, or a friend), "yes, I enjoy dressing up like a woman... but it's okay, a gene makes me do it." I can't see myself saying that. Especially not after all I've learned from my mother and my family about the circumstances surrounding my very early childhood.
Anyway, your views are all very much appreciated, gals! Again, this is the beauty of this forum, that we can exchange on this with nary a flame in sight. Kudos to all!
By the way, here's the case Jamie Ann refers to:
http://www.phil-books.com/As_Nature_Mad ... 29596.html
For a slightly different take:
http://www.noharmm.org/canadianboy.htm
Love,
CJ (who is a boy, who is a girl, who is a self)
-
RikkiOfLA
- Miss Platinum Goddess
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 11:39 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
CJ writes (in a brilliantly balanced little essay 
)
So I have good reason to blame DES for my condition. And then what, feel sorry for myself for the rest of my life? "Poor me, a drug made me weird!"
That wouldn't do me any good.
It seems much healthier to accept my condition. It's interesting that it might have been caused by a drug, but I'm still the one who has to develop the coping strategies to live with it.
Acceptance is a lot more fun than feeling sorry for ourselves!
)
I don't know if I'd ever say that either. Although I do recall my mother telling me at one point that when she was pregnant with me, the doctor "gave her something for morning sickness." I think she mentioned that they later took it off the market because of complications. From the time scale, it might likely have been Diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen that was later taken off the market because it caused birth defects such as enlarged breast tissue, and feminization including transsexuality and crossdressing in males, and many more serious birth defects such as msiformed genitals, and so on.I'm just not so certain I'll ever be comfortable telling someone (an SO, say, or a friend), "yes, I enjoy dressing up like a woman... but it's okay, a gene makes me do it." I can't see myself saying that.
So I have good reason to blame DES for my condition. And then what, feel sorry for myself for the rest of my life? "Poor me, a drug made me weird!"
That wouldn't do me any good.
It seems much healthier to accept my condition. It's interesting that it might have been caused by a drug, but I'm still the one who has to develop the coping strategies to live with it.
Acceptance is a lot more fun than feeling sorry for ourselves!
Love and respect,
Rikki
Rikki
-
CJ
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:12 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi all,
Rikki,
Thanks for the kind words, girl! Yes, I've heard of DES; not a pretty drug. I'm just thankful it hasn't had any more of a destructive effect on you.
One thing I have to clear up, though. I don't necessarily equate the search for a physiological basis to gender feelings with a refusal to accept who we are or with feeling sorry for ourselves. No, no, no, not at all. I just think that, finding such a reason for my being who I am, shouldn't necessarily be linked to my ability to enjoy and to accept and to love who I am.
A disquieting corollary to this search for a genetic, neurological, or endocrinological etiology is that we run the risk of putting ourselves in the unenviable position of making of such a discovery our best (and, for many, our only) argument for social change and TG civil rights. Psychological realities are just as valid an impetus to fight for tolerance and justice as are physiological ones. They're just more difficult to get people to accept. Saying, "the colour of my skin is no good reason for you to discriminate against me" is one thing; it's quite another to say, "my subjective feelings are no good reason for you to discriminate against me." In the end, that's what we must do, though. That's what everyone, TG or not, must do. The recognition of, the acknowledgement of, and the respect and tolerance for, our individuality is everyone's concern, regardless of whether our individuality is rooted in the body or in the mind, and insofar as it doesn't prevent others from obtaining the same.
We labour under a heavy load, though; it's in the pharmaceutical cartel's interests to brainwash us into believing that everything human under the sun has its origins in the body, because only then can they ever offer hope of a cure (or, at least, for a remedial of symptoms). I find this kind of propagandizing more insidious than anything a mere politician can say because it plays directly on our desire for personal health and happiness. And, yes, "normalcy," too. It's scary.
We can't manufacture happiness; it's a process, continuously changing, continuously evolving, that we participate in by not fearing to explore who we are, again, regardless of how we were made this way.
Anyway, this is coming out sounding much more dogmatic than I intended it to be. Sorry. It's just how I feel. Comments, y'all?
Love,
CJ
Rikki,
Thanks for the kind words, girl!
Yes, I've heard of DES; not a pretty drug. I'm just thankful it hasn't had any more of a destructive effect on you.One thing I have to clear up, though. I don't necessarily equate the search for a physiological basis to gender feelings with a refusal to accept who we are or with feeling sorry for ourselves. No, no, no, not at all. I just think that, finding such a reason for my being who I am, shouldn't necessarily be linked to my ability to enjoy and to accept and to love who I am.
A disquieting corollary to this search for a genetic, neurological, or endocrinological etiology is that we run the risk of putting ourselves in the unenviable position of making of such a discovery our best (and, for many, our only) argument for social change and TG civil rights. Psychological realities are just as valid an impetus to fight for tolerance and justice as are physiological ones. They're just more difficult to get people to accept. Saying, "the colour of my skin is no good reason for you to discriminate against me" is one thing; it's quite another to say, "my subjective feelings are no good reason for you to discriminate against me." In the end, that's what we must do, though. That's what everyone, TG or not, must do. The recognition of, the acknowledgement of, and the respect and tolerance for, our individuality is everyone's concern, regardless of whether our individuality is rooted in the body or in the mind, and insofar as it doesn't prevent others from obtaining the same.
We labour under a heavy load, though; it's in the pharmaceutical cartel's interests to brainwash us into believing that everything human under the sun has its origins in the body, because only then can they ever offer hope of a cure (or, at least, for a remedial of symptoms). I find this kind of propagandizing more insidious than anything a mere politician can say because it plays directly on our desire for personal health and happiness. And, yes, "normalcy," too. It's scary.
We can't manufacture happiness; it's a process, continuously changing, continuously evolving, that we participate in by not fearing to explore who we are, again, regardless of how we were made this way.
Anyway, this is coming out sounding much more dogmatic than I intended it to be. Sorry. It's just how I feel. Comments, y'all?
Love,
CJ
-
Virginia
- Goddess of the Universe
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: Strange Magic Hill
Jamie Ann, CJ, Sally, who did miss?? Sorry, but now I have a headache. It is like reading medical journals - I for one am impressed as usual with the insight, research, intelligence that you girls emit, but confused - I am!?
Can I take my position in understanding this about myself? I was born with this gift, it has been trying to manifest itself all my life and based on given cultural guidelines I have been "required" to repress IT ( this feminine side of me) because they don't like college football players to wear dresses and Uncle Sam says," ain't no way your wearing high heels and a mini skirt in my F-8 Crusader." Then a wife says, "be a man, make me have children, throw the ball, earn the money, love me, protect me, shelter me and your family from harm *repress those, those, (genes, those imbiguities in yourself, that urge to "get in touch with your feminine side." You have responsibilities and that does not include wearing high heels and a dress. Now my repressed WHATEVERS" say "that's it!! enough is enough we are coming out - like it or not." so I let them out and and I love it!!!! I am happy with myself and when/if someone asks why, I say what? It is a genenticallyculturalsocialenviromnentalsemanticmoray?
Hey girls, we are what we are and to quote that great stoic philosopher, Yogi Bear: " I'm better than the average bear."
I still love you all and me too!
Deborah
Can I take my position in understanding this about myself? I was born with this gift, it has been trying to manifest itself all my life and based on given cultural guidelines I have been "required" to repress IT ( this feminine side of me) because they don't like college football players to wear dresses and Uncle Sam says," ain't no way your wearing high heels and a mini skirt in my F-8 Crusader." Then a wife says, "be a man, make me have children, throw the ball, earn the money, love me, protect me, shelter me and your family from harm *repress those, those, (genes, those imbiguities in yourself, that urge to "get in touch with your feminine side." You have responsibilities and that does not include wearing high heels and a dress. Now my repressed WHATEVERS" say "that's it!! enough is enough we are coming out - like it or not." so I let them out and and I love it!!!! I am happy with myself and when/if someone asks why, I say what? It is a genenticallyculturalsocialenviromnentalsemanticmoray?
Hey girls, we are what we are and to quote that great stoic philosopher, Yogi Bear: " I'm better than the average bear."
I still love you all and me too!
Deborah
First star to the right, then straight on 'till mornin!
-
Lorna
- Miss Diamond Goddess
- Posts: 2739
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:41 pm
- Location: NY
-
Tara
- Miss Silver Goddess
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:09 pm
- Location: Reno, Nevada
Hmmmm...... I voted for Social Construction, but I do lean toward personal choice as well. IMHO, Fiction does kinda fit in with Social Construction because if gender is just an abstract catagory thought up by human beings (and not an essential, unchangable charactaristic of human beings) then it is in some sense a fiction that "hey, we just made it all up".
But as much as a adore Post Modernist/Structuralist theory, I know I didn't wake up one day and said:
"You know, being a guy is really boring, I think I'll be a Transexual from now on and complicate my life in a huge way!"
But that aside, I can't speak for every CD/TS out there, maybe there are some people have chosen thier gender indentity? There are answers out there somewhere and we may never find them, but nevertheless we will keep searching until the end of time.
-Tara
But as much as a adore Post Modernist/Structuralist theory, I know I didn't wake up one day and said:
"You know, being a guy is really boring, I think I'll be a Transexual from now on and complicate my life in a huge way!"
But that aside, I can't speak for every CD/TS out there, maybe there are some people have chosen thier gender indentity? There are answers out there somewhere and we may never find them, but nevertheless we will keep searching until the end of time.
-Tara
"(I'm) man enough to be a woman."--- Jayne County