Gender Roles

[Emily Lake]

I dismiss it because it's a baseless assertion that you've made that has no scientific support

Where do you think body modification starts? The meme had to come from somewhere, and it was started by someone who obviously wanted to modify their body without anyone else apparently having done it, of we are going to study the emergent case.

According to your assertion, the entirety of fashion is evolutionary in nature. So high heels are evolutionarily motivated, as are corsets, and steel toed boots, and cumberbunds. Hair dye is evolutionary in nature. Fingernail polish.

You made the baseless assertion that a desire for body modification is the result of evolution. I dismiss it because it's baseless.

 

[Emily Lake]

A lot of it is learned behaviors. However, if the learned behaviors were all of it people would have no desire to modify their bodies.

Please explain the innate evolutionary trait that makes people desire to get tattoos, pierce their ears, and perform circumcisions.

The stuff you list is for appearance. Gender surgery isn't really for an appearance because it's generally not seen.

Hard disagree.

In females, by far the most common gender-related surgery is bilateral mastectomy, and it is 100% done for appearance. Extremely few females have phalloplasties - they're extremely difficult, have very high rates of complication, and they just don't work. An artificially created penis doesn't function like a penis at all, and the regret rate is very high.

In males, the most common gender-related surgery is breast implants, and it is 100% done for appearance. A higher percentage of males who identify as transgender get facial feminization surgery than get penectomies and vaginoplasties.

 

[Jarhyn]

According to your assertion, the entirety of fashion is evolutionary in nature

It is, but it evolved in a different "system of evolution" than genetic evolution is modified by. That's neither here nor there. We wear clothes because that behavior did evolve as intrinsic to the human.

Enough humans do have a "bug" to adorn themselves.

I think you fail to really understand how much of human behavior is baked right into our genetics, triggered to emerge as often as necessary to make beneficial behaviors ubiquitous.

The clothing articles themselves get to enjoy evolution through time in a more lamarckian way, while the propensity to do the things that cause that evolution happened among biology in a more darwinian way.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about such hybrid traits, in which we are biologically evolved to create and cleave to certain social structures, even if those structures can change over time.

This is in fact the very concept of the "pointer", a hardened, persostent place for holding some path to or location of something that can change. It's one of the most important aspects of software engineering (and thus "behavioral systems design"), for all people suck at understanding it

 

[Jarhyn]

A lot of it is learned behaviors. However, if the learned behaviors were all of it people would have no desire to modify their bodies.

Please explain the innate evolutionary trait that makes people desire to get tattoos, pierce their ears, and perform circumcisions.

The stuff you list is for appearance. Gender surgery isn't really for an appearance because it's generally not seen.

Hard disagree.

In females, by far the most common gender-related surgery is bilateral mastectomy, and it is 100% done for appearance. Extremely few females have phalloplasties - they're extremely difficult, have very high rates of complication, and they just don't work. An artificially created penis doesn't function like a penis at all, and the regret rate is very high.

In males, the most common gender-related surgery is breast implants, and it is 100% done for appearance. A higher percentage of males who identify as transgender get facial feminization surgery than get penectomies and vaginoplasties.

That's not the kind of surgery being addressed in the post. The surgery being addressed in the post is gonadectomy.

I support breast augmentation and removal for anyone who wants to change what their breasts look like, regardless of what gender they are. That's not so much a "gender issue" so much as an "I want breasts" or "I don't want breasts", thing, and seeing as we seem fine as a species with some members having breasts and some not, we should be fine with these people having breasts or not as their dint.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fact Check: No, A New Study Does Not Show "Being Trans Is Just A Phase"

News and discussion on trans legislation and life.

www.erininthemorning.com

Also, posting this to get this out there before the bad penny turns up.. The daily mail has posted yet another agitprop piece, and it's just as trash as would be expected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A lot of it is learned behaviors. However, if the learned behaviors were all of it people would have no desire to modify their bodies.

Please explain the innate evolutionary trait that makes people desire to get tattoos, pierce their ears, and perform circumcisions.

The stuff you list is for appearance. Gender surgery isn't really for an appearance because it's generally not seen.

Hard disagree.

In females, by far the most common gender-related surgery is bilateral mastectomy, and it is 100% done for appearance. Extremely few females have phalloplasties - they're extremely difficult, have very high rates of complication, and they just don't work. An artificially created penis doesn't function like a penis at all, and the regret rate is very high.

In males, the most common gender-related surgery is breast implants, and it is 100% done for appearance. A higher percentage of males who identify as transgender get facial feminization surgery than get penectomies and vaginoplasties.

Very few people will be in a position to verify whether those are implants or simply wearing falsies.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's not the kind of surgery being addressed in the post. The surgery being addressed in the post is gonadectomy.

This is false. Neither Loren Pechtel nor I were limiting the discussion to the removal of gonads.
It's not up to you to dictate the boundaries of what other people discuss.

 

[Emily Lake]

A lot of it is learned behaviors. However, if the learned behaviors were all of it people would have no desire to modify their bodies.

Please explain the innate evolutionary trait that makes people desire to get tattoos, pierce their ears, and perform circumcisions.

The stuff you list is for appearance. Gender surgery isn't really for an appearance because it's generally not seen.

Hard disagree.

In females, by far the most common gender-related surgery is bilateral mastectomy, and it is 100% done for appearance. Extremely few females have phalloplasties - they're extremely difficult, have very high rates of complication, and they just don't work. An artificially created penis doesn't function like a penis at all, and the regret rate is very high.

In males, the most common gender-related surgery is breast implants, and it is 100% done for appearance. A higher percentage of males who identify as transgender get facial feminization surgery than get penectomies and vaginoplasties.

Very few people will be in a position to verify whether those are implants or simply wearing falsies.

That's a silly rejoinder, Loren. We're talking specifically about people who have had surgery - we're not talking about people stuffing a bra or wearing binders. The premise of this is people who have had surgery.

The reality is that, contrary to your assumption, the majority of people who have surgeries that are related to their gender presentation are getting those surgeries specifically because they are seen.

 

[Jokodo]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

I'll counter with:

Sexed features:

• Primary sex characteristics (binary): the reproductive system, comprised of gonads, internal and external genitals

[/QUOTE]
Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

 

[TomC]

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion is the tendency to bring up vanishingly rare anomalies as though they are particularly relevant to the human situation.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion is the tendency to bring up vanishingly rare anomalies as though they are particularly relevant to the human situation.
Tom

"Anomalies" are a cultural concept. The raw data doesn't discriminate among data points. A binary distribution is by definition one without outliers that are hard to fit into either category. Everything else is a (strongly) bimodal distribution.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Minorities count in classifications. When we describe what a mammal is, we do not leave out platypuses just because they are rare. We do not claim there are only two types of mammals: placental mammals and marsupials just because monotremes are rare.

Minorities also count as being human. If we have religions of the world we do not leave out Zoroastrianism just because there are about 120K adherents worldwide, i.e. 0.0015% of people.

We do not make claims that minority groups do not exist when they observably do.

 

[Emily Lake]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

I'll counter with:

Sexed features:

• Primary sex characteristics (binary): the reproductive system, comprised of gonads, internal and external genitals

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

What are the two peaks on the bimodal distribution of uteruses? What does the organ in the trough look like for the bimodal distribution between a penis and a uterus? Can you describe the 95th percentile gonad on the ovarian side of the bimodal distribution, and does it make super-eggs? Can you describe the 5th percentile gonad on the testicular side of the bimodal distribution, and does it make ultra-sperm? What gamete is made by whatever gonad evolved to be in the trough between the two peaks?

 

[Emily Lake]

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion is the tendency to bring up vanishingly rare anomalies as though they are particularly relevant to the human situation.
Tom

And to present those anomalies as if they represent elements of a bimodal distribution. I've grown tired of asking, but genuinely - all that needs to be done to change my mind is to show me a sperg, and provide an explanation of the reproductive system that evolved to produce those sperg.

 

[Emily Lake]

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion is the tendency to bring up vanishingly rare anomalies as though they are particularly relevant to the human situation.
Tom

"Anomalies" are a cultural concept. The raw data doesn't discriminate among data points. A binary distribution is by definition one without outliers that are hard to fit into either category. Everything else is a (strongly) bimodal distribution.

Disorders of sexual development aren't cultural concepts, no more than conjoint twins are a cultural concept, or downs syndrome is a cultural concept.

Stop using people's deleterious medical conditions to prop up an unscientific ideology.

 

[Emily Lake]

Minorities count in classifications. When we describe what a mammal is, we do not leave out platypuses just because they are rare. We do not claim there are only two types of mammals: placental mammals and marsupials just because monotremes are rare.

Minorities also count as being human. If we have religions of the world we do not leave out Zoroastrianism just because there are about 120K adherents worldwide, i.e. 0.0015% of people.

We do not make claims that minority groups do not exist when they observably do.

How exactly do you think this is relevant?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Minorities count in classifications. When we describe what a mammal is, we do not leave out platypuses just because they are rare. We do not claim there are only two types of mammals: placental mammals and marsupials just because monotremes are rare.

Minorities also count as being human. If we have religions of the world we do not leave out Zoroastrianism just because there are about 120K adherents worldwide, i.e. 0.0015% of people.

We do not make claims that minority groups do not exist when they observably do.

How exactly do you think this is relevant?

Just because things are rare doesn't mean you can take everything else and call it binary.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion is the tendency to bring up vanishingly rare anomalies as though they are particularly relevant to the human situation.
Tom

And to present those anomalies as if they represent elements of a bimodal distribution. I've grown tired of asking, but genuinely - all that needs to be done to change my mind is to show me a sperg, and provide an explanation of the reproductive system that evolved to produce those sperg.

Your requirement of a sperg is not a logical requirement and never has been a logical requirement in this discussion.

 

[Jokodo]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

I'll counter with:

Sexed features:

• Primary sex characteristics (binary): the reproductive system, comprised of gonads, internal and external genitals

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

What are the two peaks on the bimodal distribution of uteruses? What does the organ in the trough look like for the bimodal distribution between a penis and a uterus? Can you describe the 95th percentile gonad on the ovarian side of the bimodal distribution, and does it make super-eggs? Can you describe the 5th percentile gonad on the testicular side of the bimodal distribution, and does it make ultra-sperm? What gamete is made by whatever gonad evolved to be in the trough between the two peaks?

You're shifting goalposts. You said "Primary sex characteristics (binary)". You didn't say "the presence or absence of a uterus (binary)." The presence or absence of a uterus can be a binary feature while "the reproductive system, comprised of gonads, internal and external genitals" has a bimodal distribution, as indeed seems to be the case.

Of course, you can always say that the presence or absence of a uterus is the only thing that really matters, and someone with a uterus will always be a woman, and someone without a man, whether or not the labia are fused, whatever shape and size the penis/clitoris and what, if any (viable or not) gametes are produced in the gonads. If you do that, the statement "There are biological realities that clearly define who is and who isn't a woman" becomes true, but it becomes almost tautological: in effect, you and up saying that thanks to biology, we can sweetening whether someone is a uterus-haver by checking whether they have a uterus. Sure, you can do that, it's beside the point of any scientifically informed discussion of even just biological sex.

 

[Jokodo]

Genitals are not binary, they are bimodal. And genitals do not always correlate with gonads the way we expect. Individual with internal gonads and unfused labia but under the microscope, the gonads look like testes are rare, but they exist.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this discussion is the tendency to bring up vanishingly rare anomalies as though they are particularly relevant to the human situation.
Tom

"Anomalies" are a cultural concept. The raw data doesn't discriminate among data points. A binary distribution is by definition one without outliers that are hard to fit into either category. Everything else is a (strongly) bimodal distribution.

Disorders of sexual development aren't cultural concepts,

The existence of the condition isn't a cultural concept. Classifying it as a disorder is. Ignoring its existence in a description of the human condition overall is both a cultural concept and unscientific. You won't find a biology textbook saying that human females give birth to no more than one child a time with a separation of at least 2 years because twins and getting pregnant while nursing are "disorders" of the reproductive mechanism and not breastfeeding for at least a year is creating an artificial environment.

no more than conjoint twins are a cultural concept, or downs syndrome is a cultural concept.

You really think that's a useful analogy, don't you?

Any individual cell either does or doesn't have an extra copy of chromosome 21. Barring chimeric individuals, this a person either has 46 or 47 chromosomes in their cells. This is not in general how atypical development of gonads and genitals works.