Gender Neutral - Sweden aims to eliminate Gender Differences!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Agema:
Whether (or more likely to what extent) gender concepts form before birth is under debate.

It's not immediately obvious to me how transgender is impossible under a theory of 'all nurture' at all.

Fine's argument is:
Gender = 100% nurture

Thus:
Physical gender at birth -> child gets taught what said gender should be -> only then becomes it

So in case of a girl:
Girl at birth -> gets taught to be a girl -> only then becomes a girl

In Fine's assumptions, there could be no transgenders, because everybody gets taught which gender they should be, and will always stick with that (because Fine assumes there is no biological component).

Girl at birth -> gets taught to be a girl -> still wants to be a boy

Whatever the exact causes and nuances in that, we can conclude for certain that the radical feminist being cited earlier is wrong with her theory.

To relate that back to the discussion: That's also why the concept of gender-neutral is doomed to failure. People have a gender no matter what. No amount of trying is going to stamp out gender-specific behaviour. And even if it was possible, one has to ask the ehtical question if we want that. Gender isn't something evil, suppressing a whole gender is.

Quite frankly I don't understand what Fine's problem is. Different isn't the same as inferior. If she wants to stamp out the concept of gender based on that notion, her works are ironically basically the same as religious fanatics who want to supress women.

The Gnome King:

Atrocious Joystick:

We certainly press the issue harder than many countries, but to claim that sweden is gender neutral is about as misleading as stating that america has discovered to grow pizzas in an agricultural miracle.

Do you have spies in my country?

THE PIZZA TREE WAS TO REMAIN A SECRET...

We've had spies in your pizza parlors since you were a bunch of unruly colonies! You're just too consumed with your capitalism and freedom lovingness to see it! Every time you eat a meatball, everytime you pick up KARL the desktop lamp from IKEA we're there watching, waiting, planning...

In this thread :people conflating gender(the roles in which society place on a sex) with biological sex(chromosones) and morphological sex( the bits)

Blablahb:

Mortai Gravesend:
Think you're kind of jumping to conclusions there. The only times I see transgender people wanting hormones is to change their bodies so their physical sex is more in line with their gender identity. Nothing to do with their gender, but has to do with their desired body.

But that wasn't my argument. My argument was about the role hormones play in causing transgenderism (as in: wanting to become). Fine claimed nurture explains all of gender, while some people are born in the wrong body due to hormones, meaning gender identity already exists at birth and is stored in the brain, not in nurture.

If that radical feminist was correct, transgender people should not exist at all, because their 'wrong' body would lead their gender identity to be taught based on their present sex, and they would never want to change gender at all. Thus, their existance proves Fine wrong.

Okay, but what I quoted you saying wasn't about it causing transgenderism. You talked about treating it.

Also I have never seen anyone provide anything proving the cause of transgenderism. You say it's due to hormones, do you have anything to back that up?

Blablahb:
Fine's argument is:
Gender = 100% nurture

Thus:
Physical gender at birth -> child gets taught what said gender should be -> only then becomes it

So in case of a girl:
Girl at birth -> gets taught to be a girl -> only then becomes a girl

In Fine's assumptions, there could be no transgenders, because everybody gets taught which gender they should be, and will always stick with that (because Fine assumes there is no biological component).

Girl at birth -> gets taught to be a girl -> still wants to be a boy

Whatever the exact causes and nuances in that, we can conclude for certain that the radical feminist being cited earlier is wrong with her theory.

To relate that back to the discussion: That's also why the concept of gender-neutral is doomed to failure. People have a gender no matter what. No amount of trying is going to stamp out gender-specific behaviour. And even if it was possible, one has to ask the ehtical question if we want that. Gender isn't something evil, suppressing a whole gender is.

Quite frankly I don't understand what Fine's problem is. Different isn't the same as inferior. If she wants to stamp out the concept of gender based on that notion, her works are ironically basically the same as religious fanatics who want to supress women.

Er...

The theory of 'nature' versus 'nurture' is an old philosophical one. Biologically in the modern day, we could very roughly translate it as 'genes' versus 'everything else' (although there are other non-biological interpretations).

Nurture is, in essence, everything that happens to you after the minute the sperm and ovum united. Did you get an unusual dose of hormones from mummy in the womb? Nurture. Did mummy take one or more drugs which might have affected your development in the womb? Nurture. Did daddy accidentally drop you on your head as a baby? Nurture. And so on. Parents or wider society can try to teach you anything they like - but it won't necessarily stick depending on everything else that has happened. Parental or societal teaching is frequently shown to influence behaviour, but is far from the sole environmental determinant.

The logical result of claiming transgenderism is not 'nurture' but 'nature' is that it is, somehow, genetically encoded in those individuals. I'm pretty sure this is unproven, or it would be well known.

* * *

Although all this is subtly different from what I suspect Fine is arguing anyway. I can't be sure, I haven't read the book - but I suspect it actually goes as follows.

Fine I'm sure would be the last person to say nature has no influence, as one can hardly miss the fact that your genes determine stuff like whether you have a penis or a vagina, which has more than a little part to play on anyone's identity.

What she's trying to get away from are the popular ways that people determine gender characteristics (e.g. women are worse at mathematics, men are worse at empathy) as necessarily being "hard-wired", and spurious scientific justifications for this.

To explain: there is an existing societal assumption that men are better at abstract reasoning and women at empathising. One might then do neuroscience which shows men have bigger bits of the brain for reasoning and women for empathising. This science, however, does not illustrate that men are better at abstract reasoning and women empathising. The scientifically unjustified conclusion that it does comes from the unfounded societal presumption - and reinforces it!

This then relates to psychology. There being a societal belief girls are worse at maths, we know from studies that emphasising a group of girls' gender identity as girls before a maths test induces them to a worse average performance. So what if all the differences in female performance in maths is actually due to societal preconceptions subconsciously lowering their standards? What if males empathise less because there is a societal preconception they don't empathise (well)? All the way we bring kids up - boys get lego, girls get dolls - we're training them to be that way right from the start.

The long and short of it is that we don't know. Neither psychology nor neuroscience actually has found the answer. And Fine is perfectly justified querying spurious conclusions form neuroscience, and the use of spurious claims to perpetuate potentially bogus societal prejudices.

No-one (except cranks way beyond radical feminists) wants to 'eradicate' or 'suppress' gender. They do want to try to remove societal effects that potentially predispose children to certain behaviours or accomplishments (such as the above) based on their gender.

I guess I'm late to the party, but I'd just like to say I think it's great that they're trying to reduce the cultural divide between the genders.

Yay Sweden. It's a great place to begin discussing things without people yelling sexist/racist/nazi/etc.

I'm intrigued. That's all I can say at this point. It seems like the next step for society to take in terms of thought-evolution. Remove any distinction that isn't "necessary" or "extreme."

Although that's to be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to call a boy 'Lisa', society has to be willing to accept this as non-important. I think that's the aim anyway. Teach the next generation of kids that this is unimportant.

Agema:

Although all this is subtly different from what I suspect Fine is arguing anyway. I can't be sure, I haven't read the book - but I suspect it actually goes as follows.

Fine I'm sure would be the last person to say nature has no influence, as one can hardly miss the fact that your genes determine stuff like whether you have a penis or a vagina, which has more than a little part to play on anyone's identity.

What she's trying to get away from are the popular ways that people determine gender characteristics (e.g. women are worse at mathematics, men are worse at empathy) as necessarily being "hard-wired", and spurious scientific justifications for this.

To explain: there is an existing societal assumption that men are better at abstract reasoning and women at empathising. One might then do neuroscience which shows men have bigger bits of the brain for reasoning and women for empathising. This science, however, does not illustrate that men are better at abstract reasoning and women empathising. The scientifically unjustified conclusion that it does comes from the unfounded societal presumption - and reinforces it!

This then relates to psychology. There being a societal belief girls are worse at maths, we know from studies that emphasising a group of girls' gender identity as girls before a maths test induces them to a worse average performance. So what if all the differences in female performance in maths is actually due to societal preconceptions subconsciously lowering their standards? What if males empathise less because there is a societal preconception they don't empathise (well)? All the way we bring kids up - boys get lego, girls get dolls - we're training them to be that way right from the start.

The long and short of it is that we don't know. Neither psychology nor neuroscience actually has found the answer. And Fine is perfectly justified querying spurious conclusions form neuroscience, and the use of spurious claims to perpetuate potentially bogus societal prejudices.

No-one (except cranks way beyond radical feminists) wants to 'eradicate' or 'suppress' gender. They do want to try to remove societal effects that potentially predispose children to certain behaviours or accomplishments (such as the above) based on their gender.

This is exactly what Fine says actually, so well done on getting her point without reading the book. Fine points out several times in Delusions of Gender that there are obvious biological differences between men and women and that genetical differences does play a part in who we are. Her argument is that we today aren't really sure just what our genes determine apart from easily measured physical characteristics like height, weight, muscle mass etc. and that we, as a society, tend to overlook the effect society has on how we shape our gender identity and how that identity influnences who we are.

But you put it way better then I ever could.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked