I’ll follow up with it. One thing that I know without even looking at it, is that these professional organizations are quite political. But they also have a value in setting ethical and diagnostic standards, and best practices. But as you point out, they are not the most important contributors (often) in these areas.
Something I’ve never seen addressed by those who believe that “gender” is somehow distinct from an individual’s sex: If “gender” is purely a social construct, how is it that certain “masculine” and certain “feminine” traits are consistent across ALL cultures throughout history, including those isolated from all outside contact until relatively recent times.
it seems that you confuse gender identity, which is personal, with some variety of social constructs, which are not.
But, as evidenced by these traits being so universal throughout time and cultures, and always associated with the same sex, if a male “identifies” as female, then that is something outside the human norm, and therefore a disorder - not something to celebrate and encourage, but to treat.
You might be talking about dominance roles?
Neither dogs nor bonobos are human, and are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
Regardless of these expressions of femininity, there are always certain things in every culture that (until recently) were the near-exclusive domain of males or females. Men take on the high-risk tasks such as hunting and protecting the group because - speaking from a strictly biological standpoint - we’re expendable. Necessary, but expendable. Strictly speaking, the male’s biological role in forming a child ends at the moment of orgasm. The female role continues for 9 months. The female biological role being so much more demanding and long-term, they take on the lower-risk tasks of caring for the home and being the “gatherers” in hunter-gatherer cultures. This isn’t some “construct” - this is, at the root, how we are, as evidenced by the presence of this labor division across all historic (and pre-historic) cultures until recently.But there are cultural differences among human populations as to what constitutes femininity. I was reading about some Cambodian ethnic group in which the females when they reach a certain age file their teeth to points and blacken their teeth.
There’s some African tribe that likes big obese women too. I mean obese. And some Asian ethnic group that likes long necks on women, so, they put rings around girls necks and keeping adding more on as the girls age until the look like giraffes.
And you’ve heard about how the Chinese used to be with a thing for adult women with deformed feet the size of toddler’s.
This is not an area which I understand. Normal, simply means average. Eskimos are not normal, but they are not “disordered”.
and once it is legal for gays to marry then it is time to stop discriminating against plural marriages and close blood relation marriages. Since marriage is no longer tied to the production of children then anyone who wishes to be married to take advantage of the perks the state offers should be allowed to marry.
as far as the state is concerned marriage is only a good thing if you are producing kids. Otherwise there is no reason for the state to have anything to do with marriage.
the homosexual act is evil, the same way heterosexual act is evil outside of marriage. It is a misuse of the sex/marital act.
I find it interesting that the trend is away from marriage for heterosexuals, while homosexuals are fighting for what they see as the right to marry. The broader social trends of the two demographics are moving in opposite directions.
this has been going on for generations. Nothing new here. The question is do we make anyone living together legally entitled to perks that were once exclusive to those who tended to produce children 90% of the time because that is what their sex organs were designed to do?
yes, because society has pushed the idea that personal happiness is the most important thing in life. If you are unhappy in your marriage you leave. Or why marry at all when you can enjoy the perks of marriage without the responsibility or commitment?
my sense is that my grandparents generation held being of service to others as a high value. even to the extent of locking their doors. my grandfather refuses to lock his doors, because he thinks, quite logically, that they should be unlocked in case someone wants to get in. what if a neighbor needs something?
Epan,
This isn’t quite the case, Monkey–there are things at which men will be better than women and* vice versa* by virtue of their biology and these, yes, may go on to inform understandings and constructions of gender, but when it comes to the idea that rigid and deterministic constructions of gender are universal, even or especially among hunter-gatherer tribespeople, there’s not a lot of evidence. A quick google of tribes in which women hunt should provide a lot of reading on the topic, including this from the ever-helpful and ubiquitous Wikipedia:
Sociology and anthropology suggest that you are incorrect here.
I don’t meant to tease, but I love the idea of buzzword bingo–particularly the alliteration. I was thinking–with inspiration from this thread–that Buzzbabble Bingo might be even better…it scans well and is even more alliterative(!) but there’s something about it I don’t quite like…maybe it hits the nail too much on the head and lacks subtlety with an over-implied judgmentalism. I don’t know…)What does that have to do with my post?
Interesting… considering as you say that that we do not allow incestuous marriages primarily because of its association with child-rearing.
Mark,Grace & Peace!
This isn’t quite the case, Monkey–there are things at which men will be better than women and* vice versa* by virtue of their biology and these, yes, may go on to inform understandings and constructions of gender, but when it comes to the idea that rigid and deterministic constructions of gender are universal, even or especially among hunter-gatherer tribespeople, there’s not a lot of evidence. A quick google of tribes in which women hunt should provide a lot of reading on the topic, including this from the ever-helpful and ubiquitous Wikipedia:
A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an uncommon phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide. Although most of the gathering is usually done by women, a society in which men completely abstained from gathering easily available plants has yet to be found. Generally women hunt the majority of the small game while men hunt the majority of the large and dangerous game, but there are quite a few documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: “About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta.”[17]
It was also found among the Ju’/hoansi people of Namibia that women helped the men during hunting by helping them track down quarry.[21] Moreover, recent archaeological research done by the anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona suggests that the sexual division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and developed relatively recently in human history. The sexual division of labor may have arisen to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[22] It would, therefore, be an over-generalization to say that men always hunt and women always gather. It is more of a relatively recent human “invention” that by increasing efficiency was beneficial to both sexes.
We assume a lot regarding gender differences because, as the study I linked to earlier states, we like to classify things according to rigid dichotomies–even when such dichotomies are not categorically essential, we like to think of them as such. What that study attempts to show is not so much that men and woman are identical, but that when it comes to gender (and particularly with regard to how men and women think, the psychology of men and women), there is no essential or categorical difference between men and woman across the gender spectrum. Again, gender is dimensional, but sex is categorical.
Sociology and anthropology suggest that you are incorrect here.
(Oh. And I forgot to mention: biogeneticsocioenvironmental! I made them one word. Can I do that?
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Biogenetichormonalplaydeterminansignificantlyinsexualityintruthwestildon’tknow…
Then a single person could marry themselves, and then file taxes married filing jointly?and once it is legal for gays to marry then it is time to stop discriminating against plural marriages and close blood relation marriages. Since marriage is no longer tied to the production of children then anyone who wishes to be married to take advantage of the perks the state offers should be allowed to marry.
If two lesbian women can marry then there is no logical reason why I can’t marry my mother.
