Gender Roles

[Emily Lake]

Still, my interest primarily leans towards eunuchs and those who express distress over testosterone in particular.

We are aware of where your interests lie. That said, your persistent focus on castration as an identity is often a barrier to discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Still, my interest primarily leans towards eunuchs and those who express distress over testosterone in particular.

We are aware of where your interests lie. That said, your persistent focus on castration as an identity is often a barrier to discussion.

We're in a thread on gender roles. It's directly on-topic.

Still, I actually showed receipts for my views on the neurostuctural realities of gender, and of its non-binary nature.

 

[Politesse]

Yep. Additionally, even within those cultures that accommodated nonconformity to social sex-based roles, that third role was not viewed as changing a person's sex in any way

Stuff and nonsense. The categories we paint around sex and gender have no direct analogue outside of our current social context, and the ethnographic profiles you paint in your post are all inaccurate or misleading in some way, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would expect that the actuality of gender is less spectrum-like than genitals, with more enumerated forms.

This is a completely unsupported assertion, based on no evidence or even solid reasoning. I'm floored that you seem to think that the socially constructed norms of behavior and comportment are somehow more distinct in differences between male and female expectations than the differences in the reproductive anatomies of males and females.

And AGAIN you discount actual research that indicates at least some trans brains are like neither "cis" presentation.

NEURAL PLASTICITY
You're very good at just ignoring the parts of your own references that call into question the inference that you've drawn. For example:

They noted several limitations to the research. For example, because the MRI scans came from several different sources, the data are heterogeneous. In addition, the researchers did not investigate any influences of culture or ethnicity.

Your prescriptivist essentialism is boring and droll and has been refuted a thousand times. Please stop.

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would expect that the actuality of gender is less spectrum-like than genitals, with more enumerated forms.

This is a completely unsupported assertion, based on no evidence or even solid reasoning. I'm floored that you seem to think that the socially constructed norms of behavior and comportment are somehow more distinct in differences between male and female expectations than the differences in the reproductive anatomies of males and females.

And AGAIN you discount actual research that indicates at least some trans brains are like neither "cis" presentation.

NEURAL PLASTICITY
You're very good at just ignoring the parts of your own references that call into question the inference that you've drawn. For example:

They noted several limitations to the research. For example, because the MRI scans came from several different sources, the data are heterogeneous. In addition, the researchers did not investigate any influences of culture or ethnicity.

That doesn't in any way create a question on what the research found.

Just like the poor quality of inference drawn in all the rest of your own bullshit propaganda, you make poor conclusions that the lack of heterogeneity in the scans implies a lack of leverage in the data on the conclusions. They report the conclusions in spite of your nitpicks over culture.

You haven't yet even started to produce a challenge to the conclusions.

Your prescriptivist essentialism is boring and droll and has been refuted a thousand times. Please stop.

You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Oh spare me your patronizing bullshit.

You say "humans are an anisotropic species" as if the norm prescribes outcomes.

That is prescriptivism.

As to the essentialism, your prescription of a monolithic nature is the very heart of essentialism.

Prescriptivist essentialism indeed.

Now getting back from those pointless quibbles, we have TWO convergent concepts, between cultural forces which managed to differentiate a third gender observationally, AND a study which further reinforces the hypothesis into a sound theory.

As it is, the comorbidity of neuro-atypical presentations and "atypical" gender presentations, it seems a fairly sound conclusion even without the explicit MRI research indicating a deep neurological difference.

This is further bolstered by studies indicating structural difference is readily identifiable, reliably identifying the gender of the respondent 90% of the time, indicating gender comes down to fixed and fairly consistent structure of the brain.

 

[Emily Lake]

You say "humans are an anisotropic species"

I have never said that.

 

[Jarhyn]

You say "humans are an anisotropic species"

I have never said that.

My bad you should use the exact language you used then so I can laugh at that instead. You described humans (badly), and then went on to say that this dominates and controls what MAY happen despite the fact that it does not.

You have repeatedly ignored research which indicates that gender is consistent and neurologically driven, and that there are more than two brain genders.

You are anti-science, pretending at scientism and sinking into prescriptivism whenever possible, leaning heavily on the naturalistic fallacy or even a deeper "normalistic" fallacy, in assigning "oughta" in the presence of mere trend ("is").

 

[TomC]

You say "humans are an anisotropic species"

I have never said that.

I was curious enough to Google it.
Apparently Jarhyn has repurposed the word. None of the meanings described had a darn thing to do with human characteristics or behavior.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

You say "humans are an anisotropic species"

I have never said that.

My bad you should use the exact language you used then so I can laugh at that instead. You described humans (badly), and then went on to say that this dominates and controls what MAY happen despite the fact that it does not.

I did not.

You have repeatedly ignored research which indicates that gender is consistent and neurologically driven, and that there are more than two brain genders.

I've ignored pseudoscience and incomplete stuff that tries to insist that there are pink brains and blue brains and sometimes green brains, and that those magical brains therefore supercede the reality of our sexed bodies, and justify males exposing themselves to unconsenting women being a "right".

On the other hand, I accept actual well designed tests and research that demonstrate that for a specific and clearly defined subset of males with persistent and stable expressed distress about their sexed bodies, they have identifiable activity in the part of their brain associated with self-perception.

You are anti-science, pretending at scientism and sinking into prescriptivism whenever possible, leaning heavily on the naturalistic fallacy or even a deeper "normalistic" fallacy, in assigning "oughta" in the presence of mere trend ("is").

Nonsense. I am not at all anti-science, I'm anti-pseudoscience that begs the question, and I do not hold a view based on "ought" - that is your province.

 

[Jarhyn]

I did not

You did. Blastula even commented that it was sexy to them.

I've ignored pseudoscience and incomplete stuff that tries to insist that there are pink brains and blue brains and sometimes green brains, and that those magical brains therefore supercede the reality of our sexed bodies, and justify males exposing themselves to unconsenting women being a "right".

And now we can observe in this statement a pointed rejection of actual science that shows actual evidence and calling it pseudoscience.

You're like a flerfer claiming "perspective!!!" As if saying it loud enough makes your flawed understanding true when it does not.

Yes, there are "pink" and "blue" and "green" brains, and maybe others. This is a reality born out by now-replicated research.

These are PART of our "sexed" bodies, the gender part, and sex is not a monolith.

 

[Emily Lake]

I did not

You did. Blastula even commented that it was sexy to them.

I have never said what you have attributed to me. You, however, consistently mischaracterize my views and put false words in my mouth.

I've ignored pseudoscience and incomplete stuff that tries to insist that there are pink brains and blue brains and sometimes green brains, and that those magical brains therefore supercede the reality of our sexed bodies, and justify males exposing themselves to unconsenting women being a "right".

And now we can observe in this statement a pointed rejection of actual science that shows actual evidence and calling it pseudoscience.

You're like a flerfer claiming "perspective!!!" As if saying it loud enough makes your flawed understanding true when it does not.

Yes, there are "pink" and "blue" and "green" brains, and maybe others. This is a reality born out by now-replicated research.

These are PART of our "sexed" bodies, the gender part, and sex is not a monolith.

I love how you trim out the references to science that I *do* accept, so you can pretend that I behave in a manner I don't. It's disingenuous and obvious. Do you actually think that if YOU ignore a part of my post, it somehow doesn't exist? Contrary to your implied beliefs, you don't control reality for other people.

But hey, if you want to go preach the "science" that "proves" that black people have different brains than white people - with all of the social consequences of that flawed belief, you go right ahead.

You're busy trying to insist that my objective, well-supported scientific information regarding the evolution of sex and the results of that evolution is somehow a fallacious and "prescriptive" position... and meanwhile, you're here trying to shout from the rooftops that "girls brains are just different, you know, they're totally scientifically different" which is EXACTLY the essentialist bullshit that you claim to be railing against.

You don't give a fuck about actual science, so far as I can tell. All you care about is whatever flimsy biased information you can find that will let you justify your blatant disregard for reality and continue to uphold your subjective and baseless beliefs as being the "real truth".

 

[Jarhyn]

I love how you trim out the references to science that I *do* accept

Except that you DON'T actually accept scientific views. You instead rely on "sciency" views, views presented as if they are science but are not.

Every time you say Humans have only two sexes and deny the research that brains are gender-coded.

you don't control reality for other people

Neither do you. Nobody controls reality for anyone. Reality will be what it is regardless of whatever whoever claims, says about it, or discovers among "normal" examples.

You're busy trying to insist that my objective, well-supported scientific information regarding the evolution of sex and the results of that evolution is somehow a fallacious and "prescriptive" position

It is, because what evolutionary pressures exist do not exclude any of my claims, because you have described a "normal", not the continuous population.

You cannot even support "ought" because Darwinistic evolution does not play in that court of "ought".

What I HAVE argued is that yes, girls tend to have consistent brain differences from boys. I haven't said they MUST, though I think when you locate a girl with a brain that operates just like a boy's you will find suspiciously boy like behavior, and that this may happen. This is the opposite of essentialism.

You are yet again claiming being trans is being taken in by a fucking meme, when we have all sorts of evidence of substantive neurostructural differences.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In some circles, boys are not supposed to be competitive and aggressive. Back in the 90s, an area preschool banned construction toys for boys because it was considered too aggressive and competitive.

Is it possible to have a gender-neutral functioning society?

Should men be less competitive and aggressive to allow women easier success?

I think it's extremely weird that you consider aggression to be a good thing. Aggression by and large is used as a negative thing, but probably also does have some use in an abstract way. I mean, we have wars of aggression--like what Russia did to Ukraine--those are bad. We have aggressions in sports, typically called unsportsmanlike or fouls because they are essentially cheating by going against the rules. We have aggressive behaviors against other people such as rapes, sexual assaults, murders, assaults, armed robberies, ...

Now, on the other hand, in an abstract way, we can imagine a person who is high energy, strong, and competitive. Would this person be a salesman? Do aggressive salesmen get the job done with high sales? Probably, but they are usually douchebags, liars, and pressure salesmen.

So exactly why is the word aggressive needed for this complaint? Why not stick to competitive, high energy, strong, assertive, etc?

Now, here is a story from me. Years ago, my son was on the soccer field, maybe 5 years old. Nearby, on another field, an even younger age bracket was being trained for soccer. A three year old was leaning up on the soccer ball, maybe trying to kick it, not sure. His father was on the sideline screaming at him, "BE AGGRESSIVE!!!!1111!1 GET ALL OVER THAT BALL! BE AGGRESSIVE!!!!!"

Do you think the father was right? I mean, what if he didn't yell at his son (aggressively) and decades later his son turned into a metrosexual? Maybe deep down inside, the father was also a metrosexual but closeted and was afraid he passed something down genetically to his son.

Okay, now imagine, you are there in that situation. How would you use your aggression to help the father keep the male in line with his social role? Would you use your aggression to spank the boy? Or maybe you could also start screaming "YEAH! HE'S RIGHT YOU LITTLE WIMP! BE AGGRESSIVE LIKE YOUR ALPHA DAD! DO IT! RAAAWWWRRR!!!"

As for me, personally, I was just kinda like, wtf.

 

[Emily Lake]

I love how you trim out the references to science that I *do* accept

Except that you DON'T actually accept scientific views. You instead rely on "sciency" views, views presented as if they are science but are not.

Fine - YOU go tell Sigma that the study she posted some time back is not real science. Have fun with that.

Every time you say Humans have only two sexes and deny the research that brains are gender-coded.

I deny that sex and gender are the same thing. You insist upon conflating the two.

you don't control reality for other people

Neither do you. Nobody controls reality for anyone. Reality will be what it is regardless of whatever whoever claims, says about it, or discovers among "normal" examples.

You're busy trying to insist that my objective, well-supported scientific information regarding the evolution of sex and the results of that evolution is somehow a fallacious and "prescriptive" position

It is, because what evolutionary pressures exist do not exclude any of my claims, because you have described a "normal", not the continuous population.

Get back to me when you find a sperg or a completely novel third gamete in mammals.

You cannot even support "ought" because Darwinistic evolution does not play in that court of "ought".

What I HAVE argued is that yes, girls tend to have consistent brain differences from boys. I haven't said they MUST, though I think when you locate a girl with a brain that operates just like a boy's you will find suspiciously boy like behavior, and that this may happen. This is the opposite of essentialism.

"Boy behavior" is fucking prescriptive regressive bullshit, Jarhyn.

 

[Emily Lake]

In some circles, boys are not supposed to be competitive and aggressive. Back in the 90s, an area preschool banned construction toys for boys because it was considered too aggressive and competitive.

Is it possible to have a gender-neutral functioning society?

Should men be less competitive and aggressive to allow women easier success?

I think it's extremely weird that you consider aggression to be a good thing. Aggression by and large is used as a negative thing, but probably also does have some use in an abstract way. I mean, we have wars of aggression--like what Russia did to Ukraine--those are bad. We have aggressions in sports, typically called unsportsmanlike or fouls because they are essentially cheating by going against the rules. We have aggressive behaviors against other people such as rapes, sexual assaults, murders, assaults, armed robberies, ...

I think you're conflating aggression with violence.

The two are linked, certainly. But they're not the same. What you're doing is essentially the same as if you'd presented "nurturing" as being "submissive".

Aggression is not by itself a bad thing. And while we term it "war of aggression", that's a bit of a misnomer in this context - when we say "war of aggression", what we mean is an offensive war - someone STARTED some shit. Aggression plays a vital role in competition, vying for status, protection and defensiveness, etc. Aggression it the "fight" component of the fight-or-flight instinct.

 

[Jarhyn]

I love how you trim out the references to science that I *do* accept

Except that you DON'T actually accept scientific views. You instead rely on "sciency" views, views presented as if they are science but are not.

Fine - YOU go tell Sigma that the study she posted some time back is not real science. Have fun with that.

Every time you say Humans have only two sexes and deny the research that brains are gender-coded.

I deny that sex and gender are the same thing. You insist upon conflating the two.

I insist that sex is not real in the way you treat it, and that gender is a part of sexual differentiation.

You insist on dishonestly twisting that into an accusation of "conflating the two".

you don't control reality for other people

Neither do you. Nobody controls reality for anyone. Reality will be what it is regardless of whatever whoever claims, says about it, or discovers among "normal" examples.

You're busy trying to insist that my objective, well-supported scientific information regarding the evolution of sex and the results of that evolution is somehow a fallacious and "prescriptive" position

It is, because what evolutionary pressures exist do not exclude any of my claims, because you have described a "normal", not the continuous population.

Get back to me when you find a sperg or a completely novel third gamete in mammals.

This sounds suspiciously to me like "get back to me when you find the missing link". Nothing will ever satisfy you.

You cannot even support "ought" because Darwinistic evolution does not play in that court of "ought".

What I HAVE argued is that yes, girls tend to have consistent brain differences from boys. I haven't said they MUST, though I think when you locate a girl with a brain that operates just like a boy's you will find suspiciously boy like behavior, and that this may happen. This is the opposite of essentialism.

"Boy behavior" is fucking prescriptive regressive bullshit, Jarhyn.

Boy-like. Not "boy". Yes, there are "normal tendencies" and yes you can identify whatever that is in any cultural context. This does not imply the prescriptivist position that "boys" must conform nor that I think there are any such things as "true boys" or "true girls".

I posted what I think about gender at this point in my life in the "feeling a gender" thread. If you want to update yourself and shake some of that ignorance off, that's up to you.

 

[Emily Lake]

I insist that sex is not real in the way you treat it,

How do you think babies happen?

and that gender is a part of sexual differentiation.

What part of performing social stereotypes is responsible for development of a zygote?

 

[Emily Lake]

If you want to update yourself and shake some of that ignorance off, that's up to you.

I rejected the sexist stereotypes that you subscribe to when I was a kid. And I'm not about to willfully undergo the brainwashing required to adopt your view.

 

[Jarhyn]

How do you think babies happen?

I insist that sex is not real in the way you treat it, and that gender is a part of sexual differentiation.

You insist on dishonestly twisting that into an accusation of "conflating the two".

To quote a recent reddit post I made some days ago:

Biological sex *in the way she (J.K. Rowlings) is trying to treat it* is not real.

The problem is when people try to use descriptive language of biology in prescriptive ways.

Actual biologists generally don't say "the human species has two mutually exclusive sexes". This is something that "gender critical" folks say so as to sound scientific. This is called "scientism" or "sciencey" rather than *science*.

Rather, *the biologist* says "the human species has two principal biological sexual expressions that tend strongly towards mutual exclusion between which there is great variance."

Note that this is not the same as the above: the former excludes the exceptions in the language of the later, hiding a lie within the truth.

In this way "male" and "female" are not actually fixed binary representations at all, and they have no absolute reality. Some people conform well enough to one that they produce "eggs" compatible with some example sperm, some people conform well enough to the other that they produce "sperm" compatible with some example egg, some people's bodies conform to neither, and some rare individuals produce both, and some individuals I would assume produce some cells that are more or less gamete-like but not functionally compatible with any other more-or-less gamete-like cell produced by anyone else (or is only compatible for that purpose with a similarly weird cell that it will never see pairing with).

To that end, biology is in many senses "analogical": many things differ by degrees such that the analogy is only as applicable as the similarities, and there is no "correct" at all.

So while the family of "sex related differences" are real, *"sex" as thought of by the political anti-trans movement is not*, because *sex is not monolithic* and *norms are imaginary*.

Edit: to the guy beneath me yet again: **Definitions are (at best) descriptive, not prescriptive**.

See also **Argumentum ad Dictum**

 

[Emily Lake]

Nothing you wrote is true, Jarhyn.