Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
What is unfair is to assume that anyone must be confused because their thinking doesn't meet our expectations. Confusion over sexual identity does exist in adolescence, something I know from within our circle of family and friends. But it would be stupid to generalise about that.
Doublethink's observations about suicide rates should give all of us pause for thought. The pressures on young people going through adolescence, both from within and without their peer groups, are very great, much greater than they were during my adolescence more than half a century ago. The most dangerous thing to do is not to listen, not to take seriously, what anyone says about their own identity. The analogy of the Procrustean bed comes to mind. Human variation may be very perplexing if you are the sort of person who finds received norms comforting, but it seems to me to be on all fours with the manifest variations possible in all living things simply because of genetic potential. All of us have been influenced by social norms, but I doubt whether there is a single one of us who hasn't experienced some measure of misfittedness with them, sensed our own individuality and difference. If we want to generalise about anything, we might want to start there, rather than with a misplaced trust in the infallibility of 'received wisdom'.
I'm glad that social norms are moving towards a deeper understanding, a greater acceptance of variation. And on that issue, as on just about everything else, I don't expect POTUS to have any real care about the consequences of his bullying outlook. He's dangerously wrong-headed about so many things.
Well, gender studies is in ferment. In the last few decades we have been through a number of approaches, for example, biologically based, the notion of social construction, gender as performance, self-identity, and so on. Of course, feminism has had a big impact.
But as many have said on this thread, the most important thing in relation to people dealing with gender identity, is to listen. This is what responsible gender clinics do, and take people seriously. The attempt by the US govt to pre-empt this by defining gender in terms of biology, is hopeless, literally, and condemns many young people to despair. But I think there have been too many advances in our understanding of sex/gender for this negativity to triumph. You can't erase trans people, and gender non-conformity.
@quetzalcoatl, to what extent do gender studies demand genuine objectivity, or do they tend to be a forum where people can find, and argue for, what they'd like to be true?
I hate to appear to be on the other side of what you're arguing, Doublethink, but academic standards in the humanities, at least in American universities, tend to be rather politicized.
I think the standpoint feminist / post modern position is that objectivity is a myth - but you need to be transparent about your own influences and position. Whilst I believe the myth statement and transparency points are true, I think it can be taken too far.
My broader point, is that I doubt that gender studies is held to different standards than other humanities - though we might argue about humanities standards in general I guess.
That said it’s more than 20 years since I was last a full time university student, so I may be wellout of date.
There's a human tendency to look for clear and easy answers. When we change language, promote certain conceptualizations as favoured, we are involved in a political and social change process. Gender in my undergraduate days referred to only nouns in languages like German. It was an introduced word from somewhere else to refer to people (1970s?) and a separation from biological sex which was based on a set of ideas which became clarified and then with that clarity, changed the way we thought (or read clarify changed for clarity/fied). This hasn't reached ascendancy yet but it seems to be going that way. It is politically correct to say "sex assigned at birth" even though sex isn't a social construction for the majority of people and is congruent with gender, if they even consider sex and gender as different at all. The language change has made the conversation possible.
A parallel in Canada presently is the denigrating of the terms related to colonization, using of the term settler, and being quite particular how the term immigrant is used.
@quetzalcoatl, to what extent do gender studies demand genuine objectivity, or do they tend to be a forum where people can find, and argue for, what they'd like to be true?
Do you mean that psychiatrists and doctors might fake their results? Well, they might of course, but I think it's unlikely in a professional clinic or hospital department.
The issue of objectivity is a complex one, if you're dealing with human subjectivity. For example, if you are interviewing a boy who insists that he's a girl, it's an objective fact that he's doing that. However, his experience is a subjective one. And, naturally, people opposed to the trans movement, might argue that he's deluded, or imagining it, or trying to escape some trauma. But this possibility can be taken into account by psychiatrists and others.
So I think gender studies takes people's experience seriously, but this doesn't preclude objective study.
@quetzalcoatl not so much actual faking of results. It's more the suspicion that, like economists, it's a field where quite a lot of the people active in it put pen to paper to promote what they already think, or do their research so as to find what they are looking for, rather than draw their conclusions from the research etc they have done objectively and without pre-conceptions.
@quetzalcoatl not so much actual faking of results. It's more the suspicion that, like economists, it's a field where quite a lot of the people active in it put pen to paper to promote what they already think, or do their research so as to find what they are looking for, rather than draw their conclusions from the research etc they have done objectively and without pre-conceptions.
Well, gender studies is a massive field, and a lot of it is quite speculative. I think this is normal in a new field. You could argue that it is over-theorized, and it changes rapidly. Undoubtedly, there is plenty of polemic, but isn't this true in most humanities? I remember left-wing historians and right-wing ones.
But I think in relation to trans people, there are direct and urgent issues at stake, for example, the serious depression, self-harm and suicidal attempts in people who are told to shut up about their identity. If the US govt is seriously going to define trans out of existence, by defining gender out of existence, (there is only biology), I shudder to think of the consequences, although I guess in the US, there is private provision.
I think it may be helpful to distinguish between clinical work in transgenderism, which is based now on several decades of clinical experience working with real live transgender people, and (say) gender studies in humanities departments which may be highly theoretical and highly political and not necessarily well-grounded in clinical experience.
As an aside, the modern medical approach to transgenderism has its origins in the work of a German endocrinologist named Harry Benjamin, who got stuck in the United States because of World War I. His approach was highly controversial at the outset but his basic ideas now form the consensus reflected in the WPATH Standards of Care.
It is politically correct to say "sex assigned at birth" even though sex isn't a social construction for the majority of people and is congruent with gender, if they even consider sex and gender as different at all. The language change has made the conversation possible.
A parallel in Canada presently is the denigrating of the terms related to colonization, using of the term settler, and being quite particular how the term immigrant is used.
I think it may be helpful to distinguish between clinical work in transgenderism, which is based now on several decades of clinical experience working with real live transgender people, and (say) gender studies in humanities departments which may be highly theoretical and highly political and not necessarily well-grounded in clinical experience.
As an aside, the modern medical approach to transgenderism has its origins in the work of a German endocrinologist named Harry Benjamin, who got stuck in the United States because of World War I. His approach was highly controversial at the outset but his basic ideas now form the consensus reflected in the WPATH Standards of Care.
Fascinating to read about Benjamin, who was asked by Kinsey "to see a child 'who wanted to become a girl', despite being born male. The mother wished to assist rather than thwart the child". Prophetic.
ISTM that a complicating factor in the sex/gender debate is that it is mostly discussed within a social science context, but it is also a scientific (biological) question, and that the methodological approaches of the two cultures are difficult to combine.
I wonder, for example, whether from a biological perspective the way in which the humanities discuss the issue in terms of ideal types or categories: male, female and so on, and how many sexes there might be, is a misleading way of describing and presenting the scientific data. Presumably there are a number of biological criteria that taken together might be considered to constitute maleness or femaleness, and that the various combinations of these factors can be used to produce scales measuring the degree to which any individual is male or female. I presume, too, that there is a bi-modal concentration towards each end of the spectrum, with a relatively small proportion in the middle.
If biologically sex is considered as part of a scale or continuum ISTM to raise difficulties for notions of cisgender or transgender, because they seem to assume distinct gender categories that relate to distinct biological categories.
If you want to go biology, there are any number of vertebrates and invertebrates which change biological sex as they relate to others of their species, or as they mature. I don't think we can discuss animal gender, where biology is determinative once set, but may change due to environmental effects.
Fish. Barnacles.
And there are well publicized stories of turtles born male or female depending on the temperature of the sand their mother buried her eggs in.
None of which means anything for humans. Sex is a biological, and animal analogues don't work and are not evidence for anything re humanity.
Julia Serano, who is a biologist and trans author, proposes the notion of subconscious sex, which seems to be innate and biological, but differs from "assigned sex". I think she is wrestling with the way in which feminism described gender as a social construct, yet trans kids and adolescents seem to have a strong sense of identity, which is difficult to see as a acquired construct. But at the same time, gender is an confused area of study, since biological, psychological and sociological ideas collide, plus of course, plenty of prejudice.
I have a strong dislike for the word "subconscious", since it is anathema in the psychoanalytic world, but never mind.
quetzalcoatl: gender is an confused area of study, since biological, psychological and sociological ideas collide, plus of course, plenty of prejudice.
Yes, indeed- to which you might have added the 'ideological' which makes disinterested speculation difficult. As I have tried to suggest a major source of the conflicts is that the various disciplines involved lack a common epistemology.
Plus the fact that "gender" is often used to describe sex identity, so every discussion has to start with some preliminary definitions. In fact, Serano is reversing a lot of feminist ideas, and seems almost to be going back to the dreaded biological essentialism. But her idea of subconscious sex is distinct from genital sex.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
What seems to be the case is that sexual attraction is inbuilt and probably a spectrum, from solely attracted to men to solely attracted to women. That attraction seems to survive transgender surgery.
I don't think gender is entirely social construct or entirely inbuilt. Perhaps there is confusion over studying gender, based on different disciplines, but I think understanding gender is a work in progress, with significant progress having been made in my lifetime.
So far as feminist thinking is concerned, I think feminists have reflected, correctly, on some aspects of traditional parenting (e.g playing with dolls or cars) and other commonly expressed attitudes within communities which, probably quite unknowingly, had the effect of putting "normalising" pressures on growing children, rather than helping them to understand themselves. That strikes me as a good observation, whether applied to traditional roles or self-understanding.
Kwesi, I forgot your last point, about the lack of a common epistemology. In the old postmodern jargon, gender is a "site of contestation". In some ways, it has become an arena where conflicting ideologies are in battle, although as B62 remarks, sometimes, the smoke of battle clears, and there is some lucidity.
In some ways, it's amazing how sex, gender and sexuality have become so politicized. We saw that with the tortured history of gays/lesbians, and now with trans. I suppose these things appear to threaten the stability of the family, and the stability of human identity. So many conservatives and some Christians attack these threats to the old order. I suppose in the UK, this has been less acrimonious. I think I heard Mrs May saying something positive about trans people, ditto the C of E.
In some ways, it's amazing how sex, gender and sexuality have become so politicized. We saw that with the tortured history of gays/lesbians, and now with trans. I suppose these things appear to threaten the stability of the family, and the stability of human identity. So many conservatives and some Christians attack these threats to the old order. I suppose in the UK, this has been less acrimonious. I think I heard Mrs May saying something positive about trans people, ditto the C of E.
Much less acrimonious and less political, as far as I can see, as is the issue of abortion.
It's staggering that the US govt, or a department thereof, is supposed to be about to define gender, as a biological phenomenon. Well, thanks for the heads-up, Mr Trump. It's nice when politicians resolve difficult issues to do with identity, otherwise we just wouldn't know.
It's staggering that the US govt, or a department thereof, is supposed to be about to define gender, as a biological phenomenon. Well, thanks for the heads-up, Mr Trump. It's nice when politicians resolve difficult issues to do with identity, otherwise we just wouldn't know.
Didn't some government define, or propose defining, pi to be 3 on the basis of some biblical passage?
No idea what the customs are like in other cultures, but it strikes me that in this one, the excited post-birth announcement of "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" could usefully be replaced by "It's a healthy x.x-pound baby!" (Charles Addams cartoon notwithstanding).
I do wonder if the fact that so many couples now know this info months in advance of the birth pressurizes everyone -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. -- into prepping grossly exaggerated "precious little girl" or "rugged little boy" responses, to say nothing of decorating nurseries with Disney princesses (blecch) or sports logos (ditto).
Back when dinosaurs roamed free and I was pregnant, we settled on yellow for the nursery as we'd no idea who the baby would be on arrival. I wish we were all more devoted to the idea of "human being" than to the concepts of "girl" and "boy." We are human, surely, before we're a gender or a sex or an identity?
It's staggering that the US govt, or a department thereof, is supposed to be about to define gender, as a biological phenomenon. Well, thanks for the heads-up, Mr Trump. It's nice when politicians resolve difficult issues to do with identity, otherwise we just wouldn't know.
Didn't some government define, or propose defining, pi to be 3 on the basis of some biblical passage?
The Straight Dope and Wikipedia cite an 1897 Indiana bill, "A Bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the Legislature of 1897", AKA "The Indiana Pi Bill", which contains some cranky mathematical propositions that don't explicitly mention pi but imply at least three different incorrect values for it (none of which are 3.)
After consideration by the House Committees on Swamp Lands and Education, the bill was unanimously approved by the House, but died in the Senate Committee on Temperance due to the meddling of a Purdue professor of mathematics.
It didn't reference the Bible, which (in 1 Kings 7:23) does imply that pi is 3:
23 Then he [Solomon] made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.
No idea what the customs are like in other cultures, but it strikes me that in this one, the excited post-birth announcement of "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" could usefully be replaced by "It's a healthy x.x-pound baby!" (Charles Addams cartoon notwithstanding).
I do wonder if the fact that so many couples now know this info months in advance of the birth pressurizes everyone -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. -- into prepping grossly exaggerated "precious little girl" or "rugged little boy" responses, to say nothing of decorating nurseries with Disney princesses (blecch) or sports logos (ditto).
Back when dinosaurs roamed free and I was pregnant, we settled on yellow for the nursery as we'd no idea who the baby would be on arrival. I wish we were all more devoted to the idea of "human being" than to the concepts of "girl" and "boy." We are human, surely, before we're a gender or a sex or an identity?
Yes, hence the common phrase today, sex assigned at birth, which steps away from the notion that our identity is then fixed for all time. The conservative view seems to be focused on genitals, which again seems bizarre. I tend not to enquire about the contents of people's pants, except in very intimate situations.
Apart from this whimsy, we can call this biological essentialism, but this seems to have become politicized, but you could argue that sex/gender always have been, but covertly. Dragging this stuff into the daylight seems painful, even traumatic, hence the struggles over female emancipation, gay liberation, and now trans. Everything seems to be set in concrete, and digging it up is hard work.
But that gender allocation has become more fixed: toys being only produced by gender is new. Lego® used to be unisex, coloured red, yellow, blue, white, grey and black with the odd specialist brick as the kits came in. It went through a phase of being presented in days pink sets for girls or technical for boys, although it is now presenting kits in themes. You used to get dolls in a section in toy shops, but not the pink versus blue aisles you get now. The "Girls don't ...", "Boys don't ..." as a follow on from "What are little girls made of?" continues to dog anyone working with children in far more insidious and pervasive ways.
But that gender allocation has become more fixed: toys being only produced by gender is new. Lego® used to be unisex, coloured red, yellow, blue, white, grey and black with the odd specialist brick as the kits came in. It went through a phase of being presented in days pink sets for girls or technical for boys, although it is now presenting kits in themes. You used to get dolls in a section in toy shops, but not the pink versus blue aisles you get now. The "Girls don't ...", "Boys don't ..." as a follow on from "What are little girls made of?" continues to dog anyone working with children in far more insidious and pervasive ways.
I don't go in toy shops now, but I would not envisage a shift to gender neutral stuff. It's quite likely that there will be a reaction, so that genderized stuff for kids is more polarized. It's a very confusing picture, but sex/gender always is. I'm still in shock that some feminists are attacking trans women.
I got some literature about a forthcoming conference on gender, and one leaflet started off, "there is now a massive moral panic about gender". I was a bit taken aback, is this true? I know that the tabloids periodically have a kind of "Shock girl guides penis revelation", item, but the govt and the churches don't seem hostile. Is there a panic? Perhaps it's a slow-moving British panic.
No idea what the customs are like in other cultures, but it strikes me that in this one, the excited post-birth announcement of "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" could usefully be replaced by "It's a healthy x.x-pound baby!" (Charles Addams cartoon notwithstanding).
I do wonder if the fact that so many couples now know this info months in advance of the birth pressurizes everyone -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. -- into prepping grossly exaggerated "precious little girl" or "rugged little boy" responses, to say nothing of decorating nurseries with Disney princesses (blecch) or sports logos (ditto).
Back when dinosaurs roamed free and I was pregnant, we settled on yellow for the nursery as we'd no idea who the baby would be on arrival. I wish we were all more devoted to the idea of "human being" than to the concepts of "girl" and "boy." We are human, surely, before we're a gender or a sex or an identity?
I got so much pressure to find out! Even now we know we have a toddler boy, I sometimes have to remind people that's for him to determine, not them. People get so weird about it, and apologize when they mistakenly call him a she. Like he cares? I tell them they really don't need to know unless they're changing a diaper and wow, that one offends.
One of the jobs I work my way through college with was as a switchboard operator at one of Boston's most prestigious theatres. There was a regular caller through that board -- I no longer remember who or why -- whose gender I could not, on pain of death, have labeled with any certainty. S/he enunciated utterances with a precision often associated with women, but the vocal tones definitely sounded masculine.
I don't know even now which bothered me more: the fact that I couldn't figure out this person's sex/gender (and hence never knew whether to say "One moment, sir," or "One moment, ma'am, while I connect you"), or whether I was more disturbed that this uncertainty so bothered me.
No idea what the customs are like in other cultures, but it strikes me that in this one, the excited post-birth announcement of "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" could usefully be replaced by "It's a healthy x.x-pound baby!" (Charles Addams cartoon notwithstanding).
I do wonder if the fact that so many couples now know this info months in advance of the birth pressurizes everyone -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. -- into prepping grossly exaggerated "precious little girl" or "rugged little boy" responses, to say nothing of decorating nurseries with Disney princesses (blecch) or sports logos (ditto).
Back when dinosaurs roamed free and I was pregnant, we settled on yellow for the nursery as we'd no idea who the baby would be on arrival. I wish we were all more devoted to the idea of "human being" than to the concepts of "girl" and "boy." We are human, surely, before we're a gender or a sex or an identity?
No idea what the customs are like in other cultures, but it strikes me that in this one, the excited post-birth announcement of "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" could usefully be replaced by "It's a healthy x.x-pound baby!" (Charles Addams cartoon notwithstanding).
I do wonder if the fact that so many couples now know this info months in advance of the birth pressurizes everyone -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. -- into prepping grossly exaggerated "precious little girl" or "rugged little boy" responses, to say nothing of decorating nurseries with Disney princesses (blecch) or sports logos (ditto).
Back when dinosaurs roamed free and I was pregnant, we settled on yellow for the nursery as we'd no idea who the baby would be on arrival. I wish we were all more devoted to the idea of "human being" than to the concepts of "girl" and "boy." We are human, surely, before we're a gender or a sex or an identity?
I heard once of a couple who decided not to tell people their new baby’s sex, and were dismayed how many complained they didn’t know how to be with it.
But then, researchers once found that even professionals in the delivery room can handle boy and girl babies differently.
The argument seems to go as follows, contrary to this:
But biological boys and girls are different. While we're not supportive of stereotypes re behaviour expected of girls and boys, shouldn't we start from the the assumption that biological girls and boys are actually the girls and boys they appear to be? They exist initially in families, but then will have to conform to society as soon as in daycare and schools. Children aren't social change agents, that is an adult role. Isn't to do other to sew confusion in children. We need to plan for the majority where there is congruence and be sensitive to the minority. We should socialize children to the norm, not this:
"Am I a boy or a girl?"
"You can be whatever you want."
"But <so and so> says I am a boy/girl because <biology>"
"They are wrong, you can be whatever you want."
Isn't it probably better to give children a secure base of who and what they are than just leave the field open.
"Am I a boy or a girl?"
"You are a boy/girl."
"But I like some things/want to be some things of <other gender/sex>."
"That's just fine, there are no limits to the roles you may take and what you may do"
If in a small minority which go on to express desire for actual biological change, then this may be a further discussion and process. But this should not be offered to everyone as a starting point.
-I've likely not been fair to the argument on either side with this, but this is about what I understand from a bit of distance.
.... We need to plan for the majority where there is congruence and be sensitive to the minority. We should socialize children to the norm .....
With all due respect, you're still not getting it: among humans, diversity IS the norm.
I'm sure you would reject suggestions that "we" need to plan for the white race but be sensitive to other races .... "we" need to "plan" for the religious majority but be sensitive to atheists ... "we" need to "plan" for men, but be sensitive to women ... "we" need to "plan" for able-bodied people but be sensitive to people with disabilities... "we" need to "plan" for straight people but be sensitive to queer folk ... "we" need to "plan" for neurotypical people but be sensitive to neurodivergent people ... (even though that's pretty much how the world works these days).
Why can't we make plans that work for everybody right from the start?
I know many adults believe that they are obliged to provide childish answers to children's questions. It might be wise to resist the temptation to instantly offer a simple response to a complex question, and try to understand and why the child is asking the question in the first place:
"Am I a boy or a girl?"
"Why do you ask?"
Of course, that's much harder work for the adult. They have to listen and think and explain and teach and love and be prepared to admit they don't know it all. All at the same time. For each and every child.
... I don't know even now which bothered me more: the fact that I couldn't figure out this person's sex/gender (and hence never knew whether to say "One moment, sir," or "One moment, ma'am, while I connect you"), or whether I was more disturbed that this uncertainty so bothered me.
The receptionist at my former job often faced this challenge. Fortunately, as it was an academic establishment, she could always try 'Doctor' or 'Professor'. If it was the wrong title, the person would be flattered and ask to be called Mr. or Ms. instead.
Personally I think you have it nailed, NOprophet_NØprofit. The problems arrive with the whole "men are like this / women do that" scenarios. What we -- by whom I mean adults, not "social-change-agent" kids -- actually need to do is help each other let go of all the hurtful, limiting stereotypes. Boys don't cry, girls are mother's little helpers, boys do sports, girls hate math, and on and on.
From no prophet, "we should socialize children to the norm". Poor kids. If we'd stuck to that, women wouldn't have the vote, and gays would be in the closet. But, Trump is a fan!
From no prophet, "we should socialize children to the norm". Poor kids. If we'd stuck to that, women wouldn't have the vote, and gays would be in the closet. But, Trump is a fan!
What time machine are you posting from? It's 2018; women have been voting for a century, give or take; and teh gayz started exiting closets decades ago. While I can't speak for No Prophet, I suspect the norms he had in mind might be 21st-century ones.
Isn't the point that the women who fought for the vote were going against the norm of their time, rather than insisting on the importance being socialised to the norm? People who make important changes to human rights like this are refusing to be socialised to the norm of their time. This can happen whatever century you live in, and is important that it still keeps happening - that people challenge current norms which are oppressive.
I heard once of a couple who decided not to tell people their new baby’s sex, and were dismayed how many complained they didn’t know how to be with it.
I recall once reading a short story where the author deliberately gave all the characters names that could be either male or female, and used no pronouns, so that the reader didn't know which gender each character was.
The resulting story was not exciting, not refreshing, not dramatically satisfying. It was just annoying.
I heard once of a couple who decided not to tell people their new baby’s sex, and were dismayed how many complained they didn’t know how to be with it.
I recall once reading a short story where the author deliberately gave all the characters names that could be either male or female, and used no pronouns, so that the reader didn't know which gender each character was.
The resulting story was not exciting, not refreshing, not dramatically satisfying. It was just annoying.
To you, that is. Others might have found it interesting. Though I imagine a huge barrier is that the English language does not have much vocabulary to incorporate gender neutrality, so it will seem artificial. Language develops around culture - what we focus on, we find words for. We've been a society very focused on male and female, and traditionally very patriarchal, and our language strongly reflects this.
From no prophet, "we should socialize children to the norm". Poor kids. If we'd stuck to that, women wouldn't have the vote, and gays would be in the closet. But, Trump is a fan!
What time machine are you posting from? It's 2018; women have been voting for a century, give or take; and teh gayz started exiting closets decades ago. While I can't speak for No Prophet, I suspect the norms he had in mind might be 21st-century ones.
Eh? Don't get that. Why would the maxim "socialize kids to the norm" vary in different periods? So a 100 years ago, we say to girls, "Well, normally we would make you conform, but since it's 1918, we'll go radical". But in 2018, we say the opposite? Incoherent.
.... We need to plan for the majority where there is congruence and be sensitive to the minority. We should socialize children to the norm .....
With all due respect, you're still not getting it: among humans, diversity IS the norm.
I'm sure you would reject suggestions that "we" need to plan for the white race but be sensitive to other races .... "we" need to "plan" for the religious majority but be sensitive to atheists ... "we" need to "plan" for men, but be sensitive to women ... "we" need to "plan" for able-bodied people but be sensitive to people with disabilities... "we" need to "plan" for straight people but be sensitive to queer folk ... "we" need to "plan" for neurotypical people but be sensitive to neurodivergent people ... (even though that's pretty much how the world works these days).
Why can't we make plans that work for everybody right from the start?
I know many adults believe that they are obliged to provide childish answers to children's questions. It might be wise to resist the temptation to instantly offer a simple response to a complex question, and try to understand and why the child is asking the question in the first place:
"Am I a boy or a girl?"
"Why do you ask?"
Of course, that's much harder work for the adult. They have to listen and think and explain and teach and love and be prepared to admit they don't know it all. All at the same time. For each and every child.
I think the answer given to your question "Why can't we make plans that work for everybody right from the start? " is that if we're not providing guidance we create confusion in children who may explore all sort of ideas and roles.
From no prophet, "we should socialize children to the norm". Poor kids. If we'd stuck to that, women wouldn't have the vote, and gays would be in the closet. But, Trump is a fan!
What time machine are you posting from? It's 2018; women have been voting for a century, give or take; and teh gayz started exiting closets decades ago. While I can't speak for No Prophet, I suspect the norms he had in mind might be 21st-century ones.
Yes, that is correct. I've no time for bigotry of any variety, but plenty of time to consider how we raise children. I'm not a fan of the over-sexualization of everything, i.e., the idea that sexuality is the more important thing to frame one's identity around. I'm quite of fan of being involved in lots of activity of the social, artistic and physical variety. I want strong, confident young people, who have had resilience built into their experiences, don't feel shame nor guilt. (I'm particularly firm on wanting strong and powerful women in society, but what father of daughters couldn't want that? )
Eh? Don't get that. Why would the maxim "socialize kids to the norm" vary in different periods? So a 100 years ago, we say to girls, "Well, normally we would make you conform, but since it's 1918, we'll go radical". But in 2018, we say the opposite? Incoherent.
Cross post with fineline.
No it isn't incoherent. We have far far more freedom than 100 years ago, and we know much more about children, development, how families work. The imposition of too many boundaries and limits is a problem, and the lack of guidance of boundaries also is.
Norms change constantly, precisely because "people . . . [refuse] to be socialized to the norms of their times" (though not usually to a wide number/variety of norms simultaneously, except perhaps in response to global upheavals like WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII.
Each new generation does this to greater or lesser degrees; each new generation encounters opposition from others who see change as a threat or an undermining of "standards." It's a constant, ongoing process.
Further complicating the picture is the fact that different cultural groups and different social classes are often rebelling against different norms. So I'm not entirely convinced that a few individuals unfortunately experiencing a pretty rare phenomenon face any permanent "imprisonment-by-norm."
Even in some worst-case scenario where parents insist that a kid with the physicality of one sex and the self-awareness of another sex continue to live in conformity with her/his physical nature, the kid grows up, eventually takes charge of his/her own life, and can take action on her/his own behalf.
Many human beings live through many different versions of utterly miserable childhoods and pull this off. Is this ideal? Of course not. But given the equally human propensity for many human parents to try resolving/achieving their own conflicts and desires through meddling in their offsprings' lives, I foresee no immediate major changes on this particular horizon.
So 100 years ago it was OK not to be socialized to the norm and fight for women's right to vote etc, but today we do have to be socialized to the norm because we've all gotten freedom and liberty? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
It's incoherent, as social conservatives often are. It was OK for gays to break the mould, but trans people, no sorry, they're beyond the pale.
No one has said this. And you say "people", I say "children".
And please, you may not comfort yourself with name calling: "social conservative". You haven't a clue, unless you're directing this elsewhere.
So 100 years ago it was OK not to be socialized to the norm and fight for women's right to vote etc, but today we do have to be socialized to the norm because we've all gotten freedom and liberty? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
How many 5-year-olds, 100 years ago, went to prison and got force-fed for demanding women's right to vote? How many times must we distinguish between children and adults here?
If I understand No Prophet, he is simply saying that children have different needs from adults. Duh! Helping a typical child feel secure means laying down guidelines: here's who you seem to us to be; here we are, your people; we'll ensure that you're fed and clothed and sheltered and educated to the best of our ability; here are the behavioral standards we abide by, and expect you to abide by; here's what we value and admire and hope you'll value and admire too, etc. etc.
We're primates. Like many primates, we live in groups and we typically organize these into hierarchies. A child needs to sort out where s/he fits into a family hierarchy, and families should help with this. Once a child begins attending daycare or school, s/he will need to sort out how s/he fits into those groups. The norm among our species is that the vast majority of humans identify themselves as being or belonging to the sex with which our bodies conform.
Why wouldn't we -- in the service of assisting a child's secure development -- assume that a very young child belongs to the sex s/he appears to be, and help the child "fit in" with that scenario? That is exactly what most of us do with most of our kids, and most of the time, that works out reasonably well. We don't require pre-schoolers to guess which sex they are, or force them to choose; they have too little experience, don't know what it means, have no concept of consequences, etc. They've barely developed selves yet.
For the same reason, we don't require kids to set their own behavioral codes ("You plan to ride solo across the US on a dirtbike at age 14, robbing gas stations along the way for money to sustain yourself? Of course, darling; do call us from time to time. When do you leave?"
However, it's ALSO a norm, as children mature, to help them start considering their futures as adults. And if children have begun understanding themselves as living in the wrong-sex body, that must be part of the discussion.
Comments
Doublethink's observations about suicide rates should give all of us pause for thought. The pressures on young people going through adolescence, both from within and without their peer groups, are very great, much greater than they were during my adolescence more than half a century ago. The most dangerous thing to do is not to listen, not to take seriously, what anyone says about their own identity. The analogy of the Procrustean bed comes to mind. Human variation may be very perplexing if you are the sort of person who finds received norms comforting, but it seems to me to be on all fours with the manifest variations possible in all living things simply because of genetic potential. All of us have been influenced by social norms, but I doubt whether there is a single one of us who hasn't experienced some measure of misfittedness with them, sensed our own individuality and difference. If we want to generalise about anything, we might want to start there, rather than with a misplaced trust in the infallibility of 'received wisdom'.
I'm glad that social norms are moving towards a deeper understanding, a greater acceptance of variation. And on that issue, as on just about everything else, I don't expect POTUS to have any real care about the consequences of his bullying outlook. He's dangerously wrong-headed about so many things.
But as many have said on this thread, the most important thing in relation to people dealing with gender identity, is to listen. This is what responsible gender clinics do, and take people seriously. The attempt by the US govt to pre-empt this by defining gender in terms of biology, is hopeless, literally, and condemns many young people to despair. But I think there have been too many advances in our understanding of sex/gender for this negativity to triumph. You can't erase trans people, and gender non-conformity.
My broader point, is that I doubt that gender studies is held to different standards than other humanities - though we might argue about humanities standards in general I guess.
That said it’s more than 20 years since I was last a full time university student, so I may be wellout of date.
A parallel in Canada presently is the denigrating of the terms related to colonization, using of the term settler, and being quite particular how the term immigrant is used.
Do you mean that psychiatrists and doctors might fake their results? Well, they might of course, but I think it's unlikely in a professional clinic or hospital department.
The issue of objectivity is a complex one, if you're dealing with human subjectivity. For example, if you are interviewing a boy who insists that he's a girl, it's an objective fact that he's doing that. However, his experience is a subjective one. And, naturally, people opposed to the trans movement, might argue that he's deluded, or imagining it, or trying to escape some trauma. But this possibility can be taken into account by psychiatrists and others.
So I think gender studies takes people's experience seriously, but this doesn't preclude objective study.
Well, gender studies is a massive field, and a lot of it is quite speculative. I think this is normal in a new field. You could argue that it is over-theorized, and it changes rapidly. Undoubtedly, there is plenty of polemic, but isn't this true in most humanities? I remember left-wing historians and right-wing ones.
But I think in relation to trans people, there are direct and urgent issues at stake, for example, the serious depression, self-harm and suicidal attempts in people who are told to shut up about their identity. If the US govt is seriously going to define trans out of existence, by defining gender out of existence, (there is only biology), I shudder to think of the consequences, although I guess in the US, there is private provision.
As an aside, the modern medical approach to transgenderism has its origins in the work of a German endocrinologist named Harry Benjamin, who got stuck in the United States because of World War I. His approach was highly controversial at the outset but his basic ideas now form the consensus reflected in the WPATH Standards of Care.
Or how most white people regard "race" as something other people have. It's advantageous to be a member of an unmarked category.
Fascinating to read about Benjamin, who was asked by Kinsey "to see a child 'who wanted to become a girl', despite being born male. The mother wished to assist rather than thwart the child". Prophetic.
I wonder, for example, whether from a biological perspective the way in which the humanities discuss the issue in terms of ideal types or categories: male, female and so on, and how many sexes there might be, is a misleading way of describing and presenting the scientific data. Presumably there are a number of biological criteria that taken together might be considered to constitute maleness or femaleness, and that the various combinations of these factors can be used to produce scales measuring the degree to which any individual is male or female. I presume, too, that there is a bi-modal concentration towards each end of the spectrum, with a relatively small proportion in the middle.
If biologically sex is considered as part of a scale or continuum ISTM to raise difficulties for notions of cisgender or transgender, because they seem to assume distinct gender categories that relate to distinct biological categories.
Fish.
Barnacles.
And there are well publicized stories of turtles born male or female depending on the temperature of the sand their mother buried her eggs in.
None of which means anything for humans. Sex is a biological, and animal analogues don't work and are not evidence for anything re humanity.
I have a strong dislike for the word "subconscious", since it is anathema in the psychoanalytic world, but never mind.
Yes, indeed- to which you might have added the 'ideological' which makes disinterested speculation difficult. As I have tried to suggest a major source of the conflicts is that the various disciplines involved lack a common epistemology.
I don't think gender is entirely social construct or entirely inbuilt. Perhaps there is confusion over studying gender, based on different disciplines, but I think understanding gender is a work in progress, with significant progress having been made in my lifetime.
So far as feminist thinking is concerned, I think feminists have reflected, correctly, on some aspects of traditional parenting (e.g playing with dolls or cars) and other commonly expressed attitudes within communities which, probably quite unknowingly, had the effect of putting "normalising" pressures on growing children, rather than helping them to understand themselves. That strikes me as a good observation, whether applied to traditional roles or self-understanding.
However one wants to debate the issues, it is an undeniable truth that Trans people suffer high levels of suicide and are frequently murdered.
Much less acrimonious and less political, as far as I can see, as is the issue of abortion.
Didn't some government define, or propose defining, pi to be 3 on the basis of some biblical passage?
I do wonder if the fact that so many couples now know this info months in advance of the birth pressurizes everyone -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. -- into prepping grossly exaggerated "precious little girl" or "rugged little boy" responses, to say nothing of decorating nurseries with Disney princesses (blecch) or sports logos (ditto).
Back when dinosaurs roamed free and I was pregnant, we settled on yellow for the nursery as we'd no idea who the baby would be on arrival. I wish we were all more devoted to the idea of "human being" than to the concepts of "girl" and "boy." We are human, surely, before we're a gender or a sex or an identity?
After consideration by the House Committees on Swamp Lands and Education, the bill was unanimously approved by the House, but died in the Senate Committee on Temperance due to the meddling of a Purdue professor of mathematics.
It didn't reference the Bible, which (in 1 Kings 7:23) does imply that pi is 3:
Yes, hence the common phrase today, sex assigned at birth, which steps away from the notion that our identity is then fixed for all time. The conservative view seems to be focused on genitals, which again seems bizarre. I tend not to enquire about the contents of people's pants, except in very intimate situations.
Apart from this whimsy, we can call this biological essentialism, but this seems to have become politicized, but you could argue that sex/gender always have been, but covertly. Dragging this stuff into the daylight seems painful, even traumatic, hence the struggles over female emancipation, gay liberation, and now trans. Everything seems to be set in concrete, and digging it up is hard work.
I don't go in toy shops now, but I would not envisage a shift to gender neutral stuff. It's quite likely that there will be a reaction, so that genderized stuff for kids is more polarized. It's a very confusing picture, but sex/gender always is. I'm still in shock that some feminists are attacking trans women.
I got so much pressure to find out! Even now we know we have a toddler boy, I sometimes have to remind people that's for him to determine, not them. People get so weird about it, and apologize when they mistakenly call him a she. Like he cares? I tell them they really don't need to know unless they're changing a diaper and wow, that one offends.
I don't know even now which bothered me more: the fact that I couldn't figure out this person's sex/gender (and hence never knew whether to say "One moment, sir," or "One moment, ma'am, while I connect you"), or whether I was more disturbed that this uncertainty so bothered me.
I heard once of a couple who decided not to tell people their new baby’s sex, and were dismayed how many complained they didn’t know how to be with it.
But then, researchers once found that even professionals in the delivery room can handle boy and girl babies differently.
But biological boys and girls are different. While we're not supportive of stereotypes re behaviour expected of girls and boys, shouldn't we start from the the assumption that biological girls and boys are actually the girls and boys they appear to be? They exist initially in families, but then will have to conform to society as soon as in daycare and schools. Children aren't social change agents, that is an adult role. Isn't to do other to sew confusion in children. We need to plan for the majority where there is congruence and be sensitive to the minority. We should socialize children to the norm, not this:
"Am I a boy or a girl?"
"You can be whatever you want."
"But <so and so> says I am a boy/girl because <biology>"
"They are wrong, you can be whatever you want."
Isn't it probably better to give children a secure base of who and what they are than just leave the field open.
"Am I a boy or a girl?"
"You are a boy/girl."
"But I like some things/want to be some things of <other gender/sex>."
"That's just fine, there are no limits to the roles you may take and what you may do"
If in a small minority which go on to express desire for actual biological change, then this may be a further discussion and process. But this should not be offered to everyone as a starting point.
-I've likely not been fair to the argument on either side with this, but this is about what I understand from a bit of distance.
With all due respect, you're still not getting it: among humans, diversity IS the norm.
I'm sure you would reject suggestions that "we" need to plan for the white race but be sensitive to other races .... "we" need to "plan" for the religious majority but be sensitive to atheists ... "we" need to "plan" for men, but be sensitive to women ... "we" need to "plan" for able-bodied people but be sensitive to people with disabilities... "we" need to "plan" for straight people but be sensitive to queer folk ... "we" need to "plan" for neurotypical people but be sensitive to neurodivergent people ... (even though that's pretty much how the world works these days).
Why can't we make plans that work for everybody right from the start?
I know many adults believe that they are obliged to provide childish answers to children's questions. It might be wise to resist the temptation to instantly offer a simple response to a complex question, and try to understand and why the child is asking the question in the first place:
Of course, that's much harder work for the adult. They have to listen and think and explain and teach and love and be prepared to admit they don't know it all. All at the same time. For each and every child.
The receptionist at my former job often faced this challenge. Fortunately, as it was an academic establishment, she could always try 'Doctor' or 'Professor'. If it was the wrong title, the person would be flattered and ask to be called Mr. or Ms. instead.
What time machine are you posting from? It's 2018; women have been voting for a century, give or take; and teh gayz started exiting closets decades ago. While I can't speak for No Prophet, I suspect the norms he had in mind might be 21st-century ones.
I recall once reading a short story where the author deliberately gave all the characters names that could be either male or female, and used no pronouns, so that the reader didn't know which gender each character was.
The resulting story was not exciting, not refreshing, not dramatically satisfying. It was just annoying.
To you, that is. Others might have found it interesting. Though I imagine a huge barrier is that the English language does not have much vocabulary to incorporate gender neutrality, so it will seem artificial. Language develops around culture - what we focus on, we find words for. We've been a society very focused on male and female, and traditionally very patriarchal, and our language strongly reflects this.
Eh? Don't get that. Why would the maxim "socialize kids to the norm" vary in different periods? So a 100 years ago, we say to girls, "Well, normally we would make you conform, but since it's 1918, we'll go radical". But in 2018, we say the opposite? Incoherent.
Cross post with fineline.
Yes, that is correct. I've no time for bigotry of any variety, but plenty of time to consider how we raise children. I'm not a fan of the over-sexualization of everything, i.e., the idea that sexuality is the more important thing to frame one's identity around. I'm quite of fan of being involved in lots of activity of the social, artistic and physical variety. I want strong, confident young people, who have had resilience built into their experiences, don't feel shame nor guilt. (I'm particularly firm on wanting strong and powerful women in society, but what father of daughters couldn't want that? ) No it isn't incoherent. We have far far more freedom than 100 years ago, and we know much more about children, development, how families work. The imposition of too many boundaries and limits is a problem, and the lack of guidance of boundaries also is.
Each new generation does this to greater or lesser degrees; each new generation encounters opposition from others who see change as a threat or an undermining of "standards." It's a constant, ongoing process.
Further complicating the picture is the fact that different cultural groups and different social classes are often rebelling against different norms. So I'm not entirely convinced that a few individuals unfortunately experiencing a pretty rare phenomenon face any permanent "imprisonment-by-norm."
Even in some worst-case scenario where parents insist that a kid with the physicality of one sex and the self-awareness of another sex continue to live in conformity with her/his physical nature, the kid grows up, eventually takes charge of his/her own life, and can take action on her/his own behalf.
Many human beings live through many different versions of utterly miserable childhoods and pull this off. Is this ideal? Of course not. But given the equally human propensity for many human parents to try resolving/achieving their own conflicts and desires through meddling in their offsprings' lives, I foresee no immediate major changes on this particular horizon.
No one has said this. And you say "people", I say "children".
And please, you may not comfort yourself with name calling: "social conservative". You haven't a clue, unless you're directing this elsewhere.
How many 5-year-olds, 100 years ago, went to prison and got force-fed for demanding women's right to vote? How many times must we distinguish between children and adults here?
If I understand No Prophet, he is simply saying that children have different needs from adults. Duh! Helping a typical child feel secure means laying down guidelines: here's who you seem to us to be; here we are, your people; we'll ensure that you're fed and clothed and sheltered and educated to the best of our ability; here are the behavioral standards we abide by, and expect you to abide by; here's what we value and admire and hope you'll value and admire too, etc. etc.
We're primates. Like many primates, we live in groups and we typically organize these into hierarchies. A child needs to sort out where s/he fits into a family hierarchy, and families should help with this. Once a child begins attending daycare or school, s/he will need to sort out how s/he fits into those groups. The norm among our species is that the vast majority of humans identify themselves as being or belonging to the sex with which our bodies conform.
Why wouldn't we -- in the service of assisting a child's secure development -- assume that a very young child belongs to the sex s/he appears to be, and help the child "fit in" with that scenario? That is exactly what most of us do with most of our kids, and most of the time, that works out reasonably well. We don't require pre-schoolers to guess which sex they are, or force them to choose; they have too little experience, don't know what it means, have no concept of consequences, etc. They've barely developed selves yet.
For the same reason, we don't require kids to set their own behavioral codes ("You plan to ride solo across the US on a dirtbike at age 14, robbing gas stations along the way for money to sustain yourself? Of course, darling; do call us from time to time. When do you leave?"
However, it's ALSO a norm, as children mature, to help them start considering their futures as adults. And if children have begun understanding themselves as living in the wrong-sex body, that must be part of the discussion.