Toxic femininity

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think Toni hit the nail squarely on the head

I agree. And I continue to reject the very concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" being good concepts, which is implied in the terms "Toxic Masculinity" and "Toxic Feminitity", as if they can be non-toxic.

 

[Toni]

I've been a direct observer to fully fledged adults experiencing female puberty. I can say unequivocally that there are aspects of the experience of becoming, and arguably being a woman that are clearly toxic.

The first, whenever they were on their hormones (and they went on, then went off their hormones, for medical reasons), they went all kinds of crazy. I'm talking accusing people of rape, among other things. And when they stopped, that just stopped as well. Another person (currently on hormones) also started lying about people when it was to their advantage.

Of course these aren't behaviors I encounter in most adult women. And I have first hand experience of other kinds of hyper-agressive behavior among trans-men. Usually it calms down, and normalcy returns.

But you couldn't convince me for a second that hormones don't negatively impact decision-making during puberty, and for those who fail to learn to cope, for a lifetime.

When you are talking about individuals who are transitioning from one gender to another, you need to keep in mind that an individual who was born biologically male and is transitioning to female isn't simply being suddenly subjected to dramatically increased levels of female hormones but is also experiencing a dramatic decrease in male hormones. The reverse is true of an individual born biologically female and transitioning to male. It's at least a double whammy.

Pre-natally, individuals are affected by minute amounts of a variety of hormones, including sex hormones, that affect brain structure as well as other physiology. When individuals transition from childhood to adulthood, this influence is greatly ramped up, and it takes some years for the individual's brain and behavior and other organs to catch up and to reach a balance. For women, hormonal cycles are much more pronounced than they are for males and this influences a great deal--not just emotionally but physiologically as well. Sleep patterns change, which also influences mood and mental acuity. Even digestion is affected. Most women adapt as these changes occur naturally over many years, culminating in full adulthood (and then shift again during menopause). For someone who is transitioning, these changes are much more dramatic and occur over a much shorter time frame. It's a lot to learn to cope with. This is not even considering the very real stress and required adaptation of such a radical change in one's body and identity, no matter how welcome or longed for or necessary the changes.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've been a direct observer to fully fledged adults experiencing female puberty. I can say unequivocally that there are aspects of the experience of becoming, and arguably being a woman that are clearly toxic.

The first, whenever they were on their hormones (and they went on, then went off their hormones, for medical reasons), they went all kinds of crazy. I'm talking accusing people of rape, among other things. And when they stopped, that just stopped as well. Another person (currently on hormones) also started lying about people when it was to their advantage.

Of course these aren't behaviors I encounter in most adult women. And I have first hand experience of other kinds of hyper-agressive behavior among trans-men. Usually it calms down, and normalcy returns.

But you couldn't convince me for a second that hormones don't negatively impact decision-making during puberty, and for those who fail to learn to cope, for a lifetime.

When you are talking about individuals who are transitioning from one gender to another, you need to keep in mind that an individual who was born biologically male and is transitioning to female isn't simply being suddenly subjected to dramatically increased levels of female hormones but is also experiencing a dramatic decrease in male hormones. The reverse is true of an individual born biologically female and transitioning to male. It's at least a double whammy.

Pre-natally, individuals are affected by minute amounts of a variety of hormones, including sex hormones, that affect brain structure as well as other physiology. When individuals transition from childhood to adulthood, this influence is greatly ramped up, and it takes some years for the individual's brain and behavior and other organs to catch up and to reach a balance. For women, hormonal cycles are much more pronounced than they are for males and this influences a great deal--not just emotionally but physiologically as well. Sleep patterns change, which also influences mood and mental acuity. Even digestion is affected. Most women adapt as these changes occur naturally over many years, culminating in full adulthood (and then shift again during menopause). For someone who is transitioning, these changes are much more dramatic and occur over a much shorter time frame. It's a lot to learn to cope with. This is not even considering the very real stress and required adaptation of such a radical change in one's body and identity, no matter how welcome or longed for or necessary the changes.

None of this changes the reality that there are clearly biologically driven behavioral impacts caused by hormones, these behavioral elements can definitely be toxic, that adjustment to these changes is learned, and not everyone is going to learn these adjustments successfully. Thus we end up with all manner of toxic indivuduals who have failed to adjust to varying levels to the changes of puberty. Certainly not every woman, and certainly not every man, but definitely enough that the behaviors are excused and normalized to some extent within society, including active agression and callousness among men and passive/social agression and backbiting among women.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've been a direct observer to fully fledged adults experiencing female puberty. I can say unequivocally that there are aspects of the experience of becoming, and arguably being a woman that are clearly toxic.

The first, whenever they were on their hormones (and they went on, then went off their hormones, for medical reasons), they went all kinds of crazy. I'm talking accusing people of rape, among other things. And when they stopped, that just stopped as well. Another person (currently on hormones) also started lying about people when it was to their advantage.

Of course these aren't behaviors I encounter in most adult women. And I have first hand experience of other kinds of hyper-agressive behavior among trans-men. Usually it calms down, and normalcy returns.

But you couldn't convince me for a second that hormones don't negatively impact decision-making during puberty, and for those who fail to learn to cope, for a lifetime.

When you are talking about individuals who are transitioning from one gender to another, you need to keep in mind that an individual who was born biologically male and is transitioning to female isn't simply being suddenly subjected to dramatically increased levels of female hormones but is also experiencing a dramatic decrease in male hormones. The reverse is true of an individual born biologically female and transitioning to male. It's at least a double whammy.

Pre-natally, individuals are affected by minute amounts of a variety of hormones, including sex hormones, that affect brain structure as well as other physiology. When individuals transition from childhood to adulthood, this influence is greatly ramped up, and it takes some years for the individual's brain and behavior and other organs to catch up and to reach a balance. For women, hormonal cycles are much more pronounced than they are for males and this influences a great deal--not just emotionally but physiologically as well. Sleep patterns change, which also influences mood and mental acuity. Even digestion is affected. Most women adapt as these changes occur naturally over many years, culminating in full adulthood (and then shift again during menopause). For someone who is transitioning, these changes are much more dramatic and occur over a much shorter time frame. It's a lot to learn to cope with. This is not even considering the very real stress and required adaptation of such a radical change in one's body and identity, no matter how welcome or longed for or necessary the changes.

None of this changes the reality that there are clearly biologically driven behavioral impacts caused by hormones, these behavioral elements can definitely be toxic, that adjustment to these changes is learned, and not everyone is going to learn these adjustments successfully. Thus we end up with all manner of toxic indivuduals who have failed to adjust to varying levels to the changes of puberty.

I again think we are in dire need of clearer definitions. What is "Masculinity" and "Femininity" here? Is it biological hormones and behaviour resulting from them, or is it cultural expectation (like boys to wear blue and girls pink)? This difference in definition can swing the discussion entirely.

 

[Jarhyn]

None of this changes the reality that there are clearly biologically driven behavioral impacts caused by hormones, these behavioral elements can definitely be toxic, that adjustment to these changes is learned, and not everyone is going to learn these adjustments successfully. Thus we end up with all manner of toxic indivuduals who have failed to adjust to varying levels to the changes of puberty.

I again think we are in dire need of clearer definitions. What is "Masculinity" and "Femininity" here? Is it biological hormones and behaviour resulting from them, or is it cultural expectation (like boys to wear blue and girls pink)? This difference in definition can swing the discussion entirely.

I would say that there are elements of toxicity in both, cro. The cultural acceptability of toxoc behaviors arising from hormonal differences/impacts, and toxic pigeonholing arising from cultural norms. Both are indeed toxic. The first is combatted by cultural norms that place an emphasis on the inappropriateness of those behaviors targeted at those who need to learn that, and the latter from a reduction in signalling that gender *implies* social roles.

 

[Toni]

I've been a direct observer to fully fledged adults experiencing female puberty. I can say unequivocally that there are aspects of the experience of becoming, and arguably being a woman that are clearly toxic.

The first, whenever they were on their hormones (and they went on, then went off their hormones, for medical reasons), they went all kinds of crazy. I'm talking accusing people of rape, among other things. And when they stopped, that just stopped as well. Another person (currently on hormones) also started lying about people when it was to their advantage.

Of course these aren't behaviors I encounter in most adult women. And I have first hand experience of other kinds of hyper-agressive behavior among trans-men. Usually it calms down, and normalcy returns.

But you couldn't convince me for a second that hormones don't negatively impact decision-making during puberty, and for those who fail to learn to cope, for a lifetime.

When you are talking about individuals who are transitioning from one gender to another, you need to keep in mind that an individual who was born biologically male and is transitioning to female isn't simply being suddenly subjected to dramatically increased levels of female hormones but is also experiencing a dramatic decrease in male hormones. The reverse is true of an individual born biologically female and transitioning to male. It's at least a double whammy.

Pre-natally, individuals are affected by minute amounts of a variety of hormones, including sex hormones, that affect brain structure as well as other physiology. When individuals transition from childhood to adulthood, this influence is greatly ramped up, and it takes some years for the individual's brain and behavior and other organs to catch up and to reach a balance. For women, hormonal cycles are much more pronounced than they are for males and this influences a great deal--not just emotionally but physiologically as well. Sleep patterns change, which also influences mood and mental acuity. Even digestion is affected. Most women adapt as these changes occur naturally over many years, culminating in full adulthood (and then shift again during menopause). For someone who is transitioning, these changes are much more dramatic and occur over a much shorter time frame. It's a lot to learn to cope with. This is not even considering the very real stress and required adaptation of such a radical change in one's body and identity, no matter how welcome or longed for or necessary the changes.

None of this changes the reality that there are clearly biologically driven behavioral impacts caused by hormones, these behavioral elements can definitely be toxic, that adjustment to these changes is learned, and not everyone is going to learn these adjustments successfully. Thus we end up with all manner of toxic indivuduals who have failed to adjust to varying levels to the changes of puberty. Certainly not every woman, and certainly not every man, but definitely enough that the behaviors are excused and normalized to some extent within society, including active agression and callousness among men and passive/social agression and backbiting among women.

????

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying that hormonal shifts would naturally effect emotional and behavioral affect and that the impact of new female hormones (for example) would be ramped up quite a bit by the declining male hormones, in the case of male to female. Reverse if female to male. That would have to be extremely rough.

 

[Jarhyn]

None of this changes the reality that there are clearly biologically driven behavioral impacts caused by hormones, these behavioral elements can definitely be toxic, that adjustment to these changes is learned, and not everyone is going to learn these adjustments successfully. Thus we end up with all manner of toxic indivuduals who have failed to adjust to varying levels to the changes of puberty. Certainly not every woman, and certainly not every man, but definitely enough that the behaviors are excused and normalized to some extent within society, including active agression and callousness among men and passive/social agression and backbiting among women.

????

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying that hormonal shifts would naturally effect emotional and behavioral affect and that the impact of new female hormones (for example) would be ramped up quite a bit by the declining male hormones, in the case of male to female. Reverse if female to male. That would have to be extremely rough.

Indeed, but the extremity of the examples does not in any way negate the underlying conclusion: that these hormone changes can, and WILL in some portion of the population, lead to identifiable gender-specific toxic behaviors.

Your posts seem to be an attempt to distance the discussion from that conclusion and avoid making that admission.

 

[Toni]

None of this changes the reality that there are clearly biologically driven behavioral impacts caused by hormones, these behavioral elements can definitely be toxic, that adjustment to these changes is learned, and not everyone is going to learn these adjustments successfully. Thus we end up with all manner of toxic indivuduals who have failed to adjust to varying levels to the changes of puberty. Certainly not every woman, and certainly not every man, but definitely enough that the behaviors are excused and normalized to some extent within society, including active agression and callousness among men and passive/social agression and backbiting among women.

????

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm saying that hormonal shifts would naturally effect emotional and behavioral affect and that the impact of new female hormones (for example) would be ramped up quite a bit by the declining male hormones, in the case of male to female. Reverse if female to male. That would have to be extremely rough.

Indeed, but the extremity of the examples does not in any way negate the underlying conclusion: that these hormone changes can, and WILL in some portion of the population, lead to identifiable gender-specific toxic behaviors.

Your posts seem to be an attempt to distance the discussion from that conclusion and avoid making that admission.

Nope. You brought in the rather unusual situation of a trans individual behaving irrationally at least for a time while newly transitioning/shortly after transitioning.

I merely pointed out that it had to be rough: changing from one hormonal milieu to another would be rather like going through adolescence plus menopause x 1000.
In addition, of course, to all the other stresses inherent in such a life changing decision and process.

My impression from your post was 'lady hormones make people crazy bitches.' Possibly not what you meant.

Frankly, I don't see any gender specific 'toxic' behaviors. I see behaviors. I see bad behaviors that are damaging. For example, while people use the word bitchy, I don't see the term as having anything to do with being female, despite the actual meaning of the word bitch. I don't see bitchy behavior as female behavior. I don't see hyper aggressive behavior as male behavior. It's just bad behavior that's aggressive. Nothing male or female about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Indeed, but the extremity of the examples does not in any way negate the underlying conclusion: that these hormone changes can, and WILL in some portion of the population, lead to identifiable gender-specific toxic behaviors.

Your posts seem to be an attempt to distance the discussion from that conclusion and avoid making that admission.

Nope. You brought in the rather unusual situation of a trans individual behaving irrationally at least for a time while newly transitioning/shortly after transitioning.

I merely pointed out that it had to be rough: changing from one hormonal milieu to another would be rather like going through adolescence plus menopause x 1000.
In addition, of course, to all the other stresses inherent in such a life changing decision and process.

My impression from your post was 'lady hormones make people crazy bitches.' Possibly not what you meant.

Frankly, I don't see any gender specific 'toxic' behaviors. I see behaviors. I see bad behaviors that are damaging. For example, while people use the word bitchy, I don't see the term as having anything to do with being female, despite the actual meaning of the word bitch. I don't see bitchy behavior as female behavior. I don't see hyper aggressive behavior as male behavior. It's just bad behavior that's aggressive. Nothing male or female about it.

More "lady hormones provably create a predisposition towards certain behaviors that will not necessarily be negated in the context of adulthood", and some of these behaviors are outright toxic, stereotypical, and often overlooked by 'feminists' who just don't (want to) see it as a problem.

Of course, the same is true of men, male hormones, and male culture.

These are specifically testosterone and estrogen issues. Whether that means male or female, masculine or feminine in any REAL sense, is up for debate.

 

[ruby sparks]

Frankly, I don't see any gender specific 'toxic' behaviors. I see behaviors. I see bad behaviors that are damaging.

Personally, I think it's best to adopt a mixture of ways of looking at such things, which includes (a) having both group and individual paradigms, (b) both leaving out and taking into account patterns which fall along gender lines, (c) understanding both the ways in which men and women are similar to one another and ways in which they differ, and (d) allowing for a mix of biological and social factors.

The trick, imo, is to be cognisant of all of these different ways of looking at the issues and not go too far with, or only rely on, one way of looking, but to deploy them differently as and when they are most appropriate to what you are doing or saying. Too much of one and we will end up with blunt instruments, stereotypes which limit understanding and may even be counter-productive (we will miss the individual trees for only looking at the wood). Too much of the other and we will overlook important trends and wider pictures (we will miss the wood for only looking at the trees).

For example, with men apparently committing over 90% of homicides, it is difficult to argue that there is not a gender or sex aspect to that, and indeed male aggression in general, which deserves particular analysis.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

For example, with men apparently committing over 90% of homicides, it is difficult to argue that there is not a gender or sex aspect to that, and indeed male aggression in general, which deserves particular analysis.

Well, at least according to this interesting piece on serial killers in Scientific American, again, if you just look at aggression in general:

When the lethality of a femme fatale is presented in book or film, she is most often portrayed as the manipulated victim of a dominant male. This popular but stereotypical media image is consistent with traditional gender myths in society which claim that boys are aggressive by nature while girls are passive. In fact, both aggressiveness and passivity can be learned through socialization and they are not gender specific.

The reality concerning the gender of serial killers is quite different than the mythology of it. Although there have been many more male serial killers than females throughout history, the presence of female serial killers is well documented in the crime data. In fact, approximately 17 percent of all serial homicides in the U.S. are committed by women. Interestingly, only 10 percent of total murders in the U.S. are committed by women. Therefore, relative to men, women represent a larger percentage of serial murders than all other homicide cases in the U.S. This is an important and revealing fact that defies the popular understanding of serial murder.

Plus you'd have to break down what type of homicides you're talking about. For an example from your neck of the down under woods:

Recent research investigated the motives for 149 Australian homicides, looking specifically at the characteristics of the offenders and of the victims.

The seven homicide event motives included revenge, jealousy, thrill, "love", gain, conviction/hate, and concealment (that is, to cover up another crime), with each being typified by their own defining set of offender, victim, and offence characteristics.

Ignoring the unprofessional biased commentary in the following, we have:

Unsurprisingly, men dominated as offenders for all motives considered in the research.

In particular, homicides driven by concealment and jealousy were all committed by males, followed closely by conviction/hate, revenge, and thrill.

While the prevalence of each of these types of homicide changes (for instance, revenge homicides are far more common than thrill kills), men engage in homicide for the full spectrum of reasons.

So why do women kill?

Although homicide is predominantly male perpetrated, of the cases investigated women most often killed for gain or what they perceived as "love", and for the most part targeted those closest to them.

Gain homicides are those committed for personal benefit, such as money or business and personal advantage. The homicides committed by women for gain in the sample were mostly carried out for insurance payouts, assets, or due to being removed from a will following a divorce, and generally involved the partners of the women.

This goes against how we often view female killers.

Homicide of a male partner is not always motivated by a history of domestic abuse, which again challenges and adds to much of the previous literature.

On the other hand, "love" homicides (as opposed to "lust" homicides) are those committed to remove the victim from a situation perceived by the offender as "worse than death". Assisted suicides fall under this definition.

The women in this sample predominantly killed their young children, for one of two reasons.

• The first was because they believed death was in the best interest of the child due to a misbelief stemming from mental illness, or a genuine fear for the welfare of the child; or
• The second was when the mother intended to take her own life and couldn't bear the thought of leaving the children behind, believing they could not survive without her.

...
Given homicide is far more complex than whittling women's motives down to just two — there are cases for which the female offender's motive was revenge, thrill, and conviction/hate, however these were significantly less prevalent.

Perhaps this makes the most sense from an evolutionary standpoint or with traditional gender roles in mind; women seemingly most often act when their security is threatened and they engage in self-preservation (a gain homicide) or when they believe they are committing the ultimate act of kindness and love.

In contrast, the concealment and jealousy homicides involved only male offenders. This may indicate a propensity for men to be more motivated by jealousy of their partner's perceived infidelities than by monetary envy. It may also reflect the tendency of men to engage in more criminal behaviour than women.

Iow, and once again, it would appear that we're dealing with category errors related more to attribution than to derivative facts (in spite of the, I believe, erroneous conclusions presented). Stating something is "less prevalent" does not negate the fact that is is, nevertheless, prevalent.

But if gender were the signifier, then we shouldn't see any overlaps, regardless of prevalence.

Iow, if you simply removed gender from the equation above, you'd have a certain percentage of the population of the species as a whole that kills other people. There are differing motivations, but they exhibit pretty much across the board, which further indicates that it is not gender-specific.

Just because one gender seems to do something more than another gender does not necessarily mean it is gender related anymore than if we were to find out that the majority of killers (male and female) are, say, redheads. Or left handed.

Now, if every single killer in history were redheaded, then you might have a relevant correlation.

 

[Trausti]

Just because one gender seems to do something more than another gender does not necessarily mean it is gender related anymore than if we were to find out that the majority of killers (male and female) are, say, redheads. Or left handed.

Now, if every single killer in history were redheaded, then you might have a relevant correlation.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because one gender seems to do something more than another gender does not necessarily mean it is gender related anymore than if we were to find out that the majority of killers (male and female) are, say, redheads. Or left handed.

Now, if every single killer in history were redheaded, then you might have a relevant correlation.

And yet again, why do I have to point this out again that you have enthusiastically agreed that while there may be differences between populations, those population differences mean dick-all when considering any question as it pertains to the capabilities of, reactions to, needs of, and appropriateness of discrimination against individuals. At best it has an impact on education, particularly sex-ed, as pertains to a warning of things that MAY happen and an awareness of the sources of particular behavioral problems.

 

[Trausti]

Just because one gender seems to do something more than another gender does not necessarily mean it is gender related anymore than if we were to find out that the majority of killers (male and female) are, say, redheads. Or left handed.

Now, if every single killer in history were redheaded, then you might have a relevant correlation.

And yet again, why do I have to point this out again that you have enthusiastically agreed that while there may be differences between populations, those population differences mean dick-all when considering any question as it pertains to the capabilities of, reactions to, needs of, and appropriateness of discrimination against individuals. At best it has an impact on education, particularly sex-ed, as pertains to a warning of things that MAY happen and an awareness of the sources of particular behavioral problems.

So you're unfamiliar with sexual dimorphism?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Just because one gender seems to do something more than another gender does not necessarily mean it is gender related anymore than if we were to find out that the majority of killers (male and female) are, say, redheads. Or left handed.

Now, if every single killer in history were redheaded, then you might have a relevant correlation.

Judging from the profound stupidity of that tweet it would be at 3:44 pm, January 11, 2019.

 

[ruby sparks]

Iow, and once again, it would appear that we're dealing with category errors related more to attribution than to derivative facts (in spite of the, I believe, erroneous conclusions presented). Stating something is "less prevalent" does not negate the fact that is is, nevertheless, prevalent.

But if gender were the signifier, then we shouldn't see any overlaps, regardless of prevalence.

Iow, if you simply removed gender from the equation above, you'd have a certain percentage of the population of the species as a whole that kills other people. There are differing motivations, but they exhibit pretty much across the board, which further indicates that it is not gender-specific.

Just because one gender seems to do something more than another gender does not necessarily mean it is gender related anymore than if we were to find out that the majority of killers (male and female) are, say, redheads. Or left handed.

Now, if every single killer in history were redheaded, then you might have a relevant correlation.

Human behaviour is arguably too complicated, has too many variables and variations, to fit into the neat boxes that strict logic, or even, at least a lot of the time, what is called 'hard science' might be used for. It's a limitation of the 'soft' or social sciences as currently practiced. A statistical correlation is still a correlation, in fact a strong correlation is still a strong correlation, even if it is not a 1 to 1. Nor is correlation necessarily causation, obviously.

I'm not from Australia by the way. I'm from Northern Ireland. No offense taken.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So you are. I knew that, too. Told you I was a little drunk as well . My apologies.

 

[ruby sparks]

So you are. I knew that, too. Told you I was a little drunk as well . My apologies.

Then we were both, literally, intoxicated males.

 

[Jarhyn]

And yet again, why do I have to point this out again that you have enthusiastically agreed that while there may be differences between populations, those population differences mean dick-all when considering any question as it pertains to the capabilities of, reactions to, needs of, and appropriateness of discrimination against individuals. At best it has an impact on education, particularly sex-ed, as pertains to a warning of things that MAY happen and an awareness of the sources of particular behavioral problems.

So you're unfamiliar with sexual dimorphism?

S xual dimorphism has no bearing regarding the question of "is this given individual capable of doing X".

Indivuduals are not defined by their gender. Their gender is defined, rather, by who they are as individuals. You can't answer the question of "does this person have toxic behaviors" with the response "they are a woman". You can only answer it by actually discerning whether they as an individual actually in reality display those behaviors. All their gender answers is whether they might have a predisposition towards those behaviors. It is a bad proxy.

The fact that I point out this bullshit you spew in literally every thread that you try to play the game screams the truth of the fact that you are intentionally gaslighting, and aren't actually interested in rational discourse at all.