d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I don't either, except when evaluating claims like the one I was addressing at the time.
Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
p0lka
Illuminator
I was born in 1969 and even as a child I constantly argued about why are some toys pink and some blue, why can't i wash my dolls hair in the bath etc.
I knew there was a difference in how I was expected to act, and how i actually feel.
lots of people did at that time, so how are you defining very very recently?
Of course there is. Probably some 98% of baby vagina-havers turn into, BECOME actual females.You at least, one would think, would have a solid understanding of the difference between dependent and independent variables, between "a measured variable [genitalia] used to infer the value of a variable of interest [sex category membership]":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
Another fond illusion bites the dust ...
Correlation, as you should know, is not causation. If it were then baby CAIS "girls" must, perforce, produce ova:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Physical
Be a rather tough act to follow if they did so since all they have are non-functional testicles. Ergo, sexless. But, en passant, you might be interested to note that most CAIS people still have levels of testosterone typical of males even if it has virtually no effect in terms of masculinization:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10118986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10118986/table/t1/?report=objectonly
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
The TERMS woman and man were synonymous with female human and male human up until quite recently.
Would you say playing with dolls is more of a female occupation or more of a woman's occupation? Is any of this phrasing better/worse or, I don't know, useful?
Last edited:
p0lka
Illuminator
I gave you an example of someone born in 1969 that noticed the (gonna make up a word) nonsynonymousity of sex and gender, the stereotypes and all that.
how are you defining recent?
Ron Obvious
Graduate Poster
I can't find anything where you said anything about men and women meaning anything different than what they've always meant. You said something irrelevant about playing with blue and pink toys and dolls.
p0lka
Illuminator
I would say that societal or cultural gender roles are not something you should be compelled to follow,
just be yourself,
if that means ignoring all the old gender sterotypes then go for it, it was all bollocks anyway.
edit: but here we are in 2024...
Last edited:
p0lka
Illuminator
i was pointing out that even in 70's some people were not equating sex with gender, but saying "don't tell me how society says I have to act just because I have a vagina or penis, I'll decide for myself thank you"
The blue and pink toys and dolls i mentioned was to get the point across but I'm from the uk so it might not parse.
This sounds very confused. Saying that gender was used as a synonym for sex is not telling people how to act. If 'man' and 'woman' are simply used as synonyms for adult males and females, you can reject any stereotypes you want and still be a man or a woman because your sex hasn't changed.
OTOH, if these terms refer to identification with a socially-constructed stereotype, that means that males who reject the stereotype are not really men and females who reject the stereotype are not really women. Is that what you intended to imply?
Definitely rather "confusing", but much of that is because many don't realize that "sex" and "gender" are, more or less by definition, entirely different kettles of fish -- if not different species from entirely different phyla. For example, see Merriam-Webster's more or less coherent and credible Usage Guide:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Psychological traits are, in fact, entirely different from those that DEFINE the sex categories -- i.e., generally the presence of gonads of either of two types. Though whether they have to be functional or not depends, analogously, on whether one makes the sign of the cross with two fingers or with three ...
But those psychological traits are part and parcel of the fairly ubiquitous phenomenon of sexual dimorphism -- they are NOT any part, at all, of what is required to qualify as male or female, as sexes, in the first place.
Apropos of which, y'all might have some interest in this post by evolutionary psychologist Paula Wright -- on her Substack, Dysmemics: Bad Ideas That Threaten Civilization (indeed) -- on "Ruff Sex and Sneaky Fuɔkers":
https://paulawright.substack.com/p/ruff-sex-and-sneaky-fukers
One might say that the Faeders are expressing a "feminine gender", but they are still clearly males.
Crucially important to differentiate between traits that DEFINE a category and those that merely CORRELATE with those categories but which are not unique to them. The morphology of the Faeders is typical of the females but is clearly not unique to them.
Indeed. Though I wouldn't call it all "bollocks". In particular, there are a great many "sexually dimorphic personality traits and behaviours" -- AKA "genders" -- that are more or less "bred in the bone", more or less intrinsic to each sex while not being unique to either sex.
For example, women are typically more agreeable than men, but agreeableness -- a sexually dimorphic personality trait -- is hardly unique to them. More than a few very agreeable men, and more than a few very disagreeable women. See:
But, as you seem to be in the UK, you in particular might have some interest in Kathleen Stock's Substack more or less credible post where she argues that radfems are "barking (mad)" to try to abolish gender:
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
It seems you meant "not equating sex with gender stereotypes".
"Gender" now seems to have taken on a wider meaning.
p0lka
Illuminator
I had to search 'OTOH' so thanks for teaching me a new acronym
I'm saying that in the 1970s it felt like people had pressure to conform to the gender stereotypes of their sex, but at the same time the kids were rejecting the very idea of those stereotypes. So I was asking how recent is recent.
p0lka
Illuminator
I don't really know your position, im confused.
Can you explain it?
with no links or quotes or anything, just in your own words as that would be helpful.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Sexist stereotypes are not examples of man and woman meaning something different than male and female.
p0lka
Illuminator
They are, the moment one person begs to differ.
Yeah. Apropos of which, you may not have seen Matt Walsh's "What is a woman?" documentary:
https://www.iwf.org/2022/06/13/the-three-craziest-moments-from-matt-walshs-what-is-a-woman/
Some good points, and some howlers, particularly from some ostensible scientists and philosophers being interviewed in it.
But Walsh seems to think, in effect, that if some man isn't out raping and pillaging then he really doesn't qualify as a "Real Man (tm)".
The difference between what it takes to qualify as a member of a category -- male or female -- and traits more or less typical of members of those categories, but not unique to them. Sex versus gender.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
No, they're not. Stereotypes about how males and females are expected to behave in society are not indications that man and woman mean something different from male and female. Only a bigoted scumbag says a man's not a man if they don't conform to the male stereotype. At no point in your childhood did you think, "a male who likes to play with Barbie dolls is not a man."