andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 20, 2011 1:12:00 GMT -5
Women are socialized to be better communicators, not wired for it. Saying it's genetic is...well, sexist. It's not sexist, it's informed. There have been numerous studies which show that the brains of female bodied and male bodied people are different - due to different hormones that the brains are exposed to as well as slight structural differences. And these studies don't come as a shock since we already knew that diseases which affect the brain affect female bodied and male bodied people differently (cognitive impairment, for example, affects male bodied persons more and mood disorders affect female bodied persons more) so I really don't see how you could deny that the brain of a female bodied person is different to the brain of a male bodied one - genes, hormones and tissues can't understand gender identity. However, admitting that female bodied persons are more likely to develop certain kinds of intelligence than male bodied person does not mean either female or male bodied persons are more intelligent as the very notion that numeracy is the only expression of intelligence is very outdated. |
|
Annie Ozone
Young Armadillo
Death of Cars, Reader of Books, Drinker of Booze, and Generally Accident-Prone Lady
Posts: 88
|
Post by Annie Ozone on Jun 20, 2011 2:17:59 GMT -5
This is about the gender gap in computer science, but I feel it is relevant to this discussion: Terri Oda's debunking of the "boys are better at math and that's why women don't go into CS(/math/science)" statistic. I go to a huge university, as well, and it's interesting because we don't have much of a gender gap. In fact, I believe the majority of tenured professors are male, and there may be a slight majority of female student majors. The real discrepancies come in over classes--my Beats class? Male majority. Russian lit? Male majority. Post-colonialism? Female majority (and POC majority! which was awesome until That One White Girl opened her mouth, and we had to have like two weeks of Racism 101 because she was such a special snowflake). Victorian lit? Female majority. Grammar? Exactly equal. The profs for Russian and Victorian lit were female, the rest male. ...I don't understand these numbers. How many people do y'all in small colleges average per class? Ours is about 25-30, with (typically) a 15-person minimum requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Diophena on Jun 20, 2011 6:15:53 GMT -5
Men are over-represented in the sciences because, statistically, more men have an aptitude for science and math than women. Women are over-represented in the liberal arts majors because, one, women are (genetically) more wired for communication, and two, more women attend college than men these days. Don't be a stupid fuck and call me a sexist because I made a comment on gender aptitudes in general. Don't you dare call me sexist, you stupid little small-minded fuck. Rayychul didn't call you sexist, zie said the notion you were presenting as fact was outdated and sexist. An attack on your ideas is not an attack on you. Welcome to the internet. There is no such thing as gender-based genetic wiring for aptitudes in different fields. Gender is an identity that actually has nothing to do with your genetics. See our gender identity thread for more information on this. Women are socialized to be better communicators, not wired for it. Saying it's genetic is...well, sexist. This. The other thing about the genetic predisposition argument is that the variation between individuals is much greater than the variation between male-bodied and female-bodied people that it's really rather irrelevant even if slight differences do exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 20, 2011 8:11:15 GMT -5
Just a quick apology that none of us mods saw Invision's post earlier. Personal insults that have no basis and serve no purpose other than to, well, personally insult, will not be tolerated.
Happy discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 20, 2011 17:17:23 GMT -5
Women are socialized to be better communicators, not wired for it. Saying it's genetic is...well, sexist. It's not sexist, it's informed. There have been numerous studies which show that the brains of female bodied and male bodied people are different - due to different hormones that the brains are exposed to as well as slight structural differences. And these studies don't come as a shock since we already knew that diseases which affect the brain affect female bodied and male bodied people differently (cognitive impairment, for example, affects male bodied persons more and mood disorders affect female bodied persons more) so I really don't see how you could deny that the brain of a female bodied person is different to the brain of a male bodied one - genes, hormones and tissues can't understand gender identity. However, admitting that female bodied persons are more likely to develop certain kinds of intelligence than male bodied person does not mean either female or male bodied persons are more intelligent as the very notion that numeracy is the only expression of intelligence is very outdated. Ah ha ha ha ha ha. If I identify as female, my body is female bodied. If I identify as male, my body is male bodied. Regardless what it was coercively assigned at birth or what chromosomes I have. Saying someone who identifies as male (when they were assigned female at birth) is actually female-bodied is sooooooo cissexist I don't even know where to begin. Not to mention, a huge amount of people are born intersex and then given surgery without consent to "normalize" them and make them fit into one end of the gender binary or the other. Your argument holds no water. The other thing about the genetic predisposition argument is that the variation between individuals is much greater than the variation between male-bodied and female-bodied people that it's really rather irrelevant even if slight differences do exist. Also, this. |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 21, 2011 4:41:37 GMT -5
Yay transphobia! Always a welcome addition to any forum debate!
|
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 21, 2011 10:35:31 GMT -5
If people are unable to go about this discussion without insulting someone's identity, we're going to have a problem.
|
|
rayyychul
Armadillo
On ne voit bien qu'avec le c?ur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Posts: 159
|
Post by rayyychul on Jun 21, 2011 17:00:25 GMT -5
Thanks, everyone, for standing up for me. I sincerely didn't mean to instigate anything with my previous comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yennek on Jun 21, 2011 23:58:50 GMT -5
I think you entirely missed my point. These are not personal attacks. This a point against your point.
It's got nothing to do with me being afraid of transsexualism. You're drawing your own conclusions and putting words in my mouth. Unless you're afraid of differing points of view, then I see nothing wrong with my earlier statement. I hope you will be more tolerant of other viewpoints in the future.
I believe that if you are born a man, you are a man. If you are born a girl, you are girl. If you decide to change genders as an individual, then that is up to you. I am not against transsexualism. Everybody has the right to do whatever they want to their own body.
When I originally wrote a tongue-in-cheek answer to your statement, "If I identify as female, my body is female bodied. If I identify as male, my body is male bodied. Regardless what it was coercively assigned at birth or what chromosomes I have." It was intended to reveal how erroneous that last sentence can come across. That's why I wrote, "If I identify as a frog, I am a frog. Regardless of my own delusions." My point: If you disregard the facts, or the means to which something is proven, then sure, you can make whatever point you want. It just doesn't prove anything. It holds no water.
Unless you want to start calling me a Frogist, or possibly a Speciesist? Or whatever other "-ist" words you got?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 22, 2011 0:09:54 GMT -5
I believe that if you are born a man, you are a man. If you are born a girl, you are girl. lol wut? These two statements cannot co-exist. |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 22, 2011 0:20:18 GMT -5
I believe that if you are born a man, you are a man. If you are born a girl, you are girl. If you decide to change genders as an individual, then that is up to you. I am not against transsexualism. Everybody has the right to do whatever they want to their own body. Oh my gods, what is this? It's a Really Awesome Trans Glossary! Perhaps that will help explain why what you just said is transphobic and cissexist. Oh, also: Not Your Mom's Trans 101, by Asher. (Hint: you can't be born a woman, because you are born a baby. Unless you sprung fully-formed from your father's forehead, in which case you are a goddess of battle and wisdom and the patron deity of Athens and not part of a discussion on transphobia. You are assigned a gender at birth based on what your genitals look like. This is so, so, soooooo different from being "born a man" or "born a woman," which is just, oh geez, so cissexist, where do I begin.) |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 22, 2011 0:20:48 GMT -5
I believe that if you are born a man, you are a man. If you are born a girl, you are girl. lol wut? These two statements cannot co-exist. Also, this. |
|
|
|
Post by Ynnek on Jun 22, 2011 1:49:29 GMT -5
Please read the entire thing in full-context.
"I believe that if you are born a man, you are a man. If you are born a girl, you are girl. If you decide to change genders as an individual, then that is up to you."
Basic gender identity in children doesn't develop until around age three. You are not born with a gender identity. You are born with a biological gender. Therefore, transsexualism, requiring a person to develop a gender identity first, does not come about until later, after birth. Until then, you are the gender you have been assigned. This is not transphobic. This is documented and explained.
btw, your own argument still holds no water.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ynnek on Jun 22, 2011 1:58:15 GMT -5
"Not to mention, a huge amount of people are born intersex and then given surgery without consent to "normalize" them and make them fit into one end of the gender binary or the other."
Also, I have to disagree with this earlier point. According to Leonard Sax the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018%. I would hardly call that 'a huge amount of people.'
|
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 22, 2011 2:59:39 GMT -5
If we define sex as immutable regardless of personal gender identity and based on sexual characteristics like what parts you have, how hairy you are, etc...what do we say about the female-identifying person born sans uterus or a male born without a penis? What about the woman born with hypertrichosis, or the male born with alopecia universalis? If sexual characteristics determine your sex, regardless of what your gender identity is, what about people who don't have or violate those characteristics.
A man who loses his penis in an accident is still a man...society doesn't question that. If we agree on that, it's not a stretch to argue that because sexual characteristics are mutable, appear, don't appear, can change, etc then a person's sex should be viewed as much a state of mind as their gender identity.
|
|
