Gender, Sexuality and Its Expression
I am writing this thread while reading, 'The Descent of Man', by Grayson Pearson(2016). In this book, he is looking at the male stereotype and the idea of what it means to be a man. He comes from the perspective of being a crossdresser, or transvestite. He says, 'When I was a teenager in the 1970s I may have been more obsessed about how to dress as a woman but paid scant attention to the aesthetic of the male body.' This particular statement seems so important in relation to bodies, gender and stereotypes.
There is so much controversy around gender, especially transgender issues. I am so puzzled by gender fundamentalism and when people make such an issue of people's choices of gender identification and transitions. When people are so opposed to others' identification, I wonder how much is about projection. Here, I am speaking about strong feelings about those who identity as transgender,or as non-binary,being seen as a threat to some people.
Some sociological writers see gender as a social construction and the postmodernist, Judith Butler, saw gender as social performance. It is such a complex area of philosophy, dependent on ideas of masculinity and femininity. To what extent are these biological or social constructions? This area of gender and sexual identity may challenge essentialism and be controversial politically. How may this area be approached critically in philosophy?
There is so much controversy around gender, especially transgender issues. I am so puzzled by gender fundamentalism and when people make such an issue of people's choices of gender identification and transitions. When people are so opposed to others' identification, I wonder how much is about projection. Here, I am speaking about strong feelings about those who identity as transgender,or as non-binary,being seen as a threat to some people.
Some sociological writers see gender as a social construction and the postmodernist, Judith Butler, saw gender as social performance. It is such a complex area of philosophy, dependent on ideas of masculinity and femininity. To what extent are these biological or social constructions? This area of gender and sexual identity may challenge essentialism and be controversial politically. How may this area be approached critically in philosophy?
Comments (51)
Regarding the second paragraph you wrote transphobia likely comes from individual sexual preference. Individuality I believe, even though it is the root of transexuals identity, is against them and lgtbq because majority individual sexual preference is heterosexual, and individuality is not to play nice with others, can be hurtful and insensitive to others. This is because individual communications are not meant to join people together, but to keep separate. Insulting and being mean and abrasive is very individualistic, whereas collectivism involves understanding and forming bonds with others.
Regarding third paragraph, it is a tough question. I think each person expresses instinct. Although, the way instinct is defined and talked about, denies it plays a role in human behavior. But I believe instinct, or something like it is the basis of sexual behavior, but ultimately the culture it produces is going to defend those instincts. I think whether someone is more individualistic or more collective is also instinctual, like being introvert of extrovert or conservative or liberal, and that influences how people will be swayed by the cultures produced by competing instincts.
So, people are born male and female. They aren't "assigned" a sex, their sex is identified. They are born with a variable sexual orientation ranging between entirely homosexual and entirely heterosexual. Orientation isn't constructed either.
For most people, the available and approved sexual roles match the individual reasonably well. Most men and women are heterosexual, and heterosexuality is the norm. How one lives out one's heterosexual life will vary from society to society. Homosexuality has generally not been a readily accepted norm, and how one lives as a homosexual will depend on what society tolerates.
It has become technically possible to build a movement based on ideas about non-binary gender roles, and so it exists. My personal view of the non-binary gender movement is that a lot of what is said is baloney. But then, I'm 75 and this was never my issue.
I am not trying to start one of that kind, because I am not wishing to dig up transphobia, because I would get stressed out. It is significant that you, as a gay man, have replied. My intention was to try to start some discussion without trans and homophobic bias. Nevertheless, as my perspective is from this perspective as opposed to the opposite way round, it is likely that very few people will be interested. The moderators here are fairly open minded and do seek to prevent trans and homophobia.
I understand essentialism is a little different in the area of gender, with acceptance of gender from gay issues. Some may accept gay issues and be completely opposed to trans issues on the basis of essentialism. I am inclined to bracket the two together in relation to androgyny, which was the original meaning of Freud's idea of bisexuality. However, in spite of a move towards acceptance of the LGBTIQ spectrum in psychology, it is hard to know hoe the backlash towards trans issues, especially as there is so much bullying and violence towards sexual minorities is viewed. Essentialism may be used in various ways, and even though it may exist outside of religious thinking, it could easily be about reinforcing 'normality' even in the development of secular, totalitarian regimes.
I do see the whole construction of gender and sexuality as one of the problems arising from the tradition of Christianity and its conventions. I have known so many people who struggle in this context. As people move towards a less religious approach, in some ways there is a more tolerant attitude but I am not sure that some of the basic hostilities still remain with religious fundamentalism being replaced by essentialism as a form of scientific fundamentalism. The postmodern deconstruction and critical theory, including queer theory had its place, but these ideas are not prominent now, and there may be a complete mixture of ideas about sexuality, not just about LGBTIQ issues, but even ideas about sexuality and morality amongst heterosexual people.
The idea of instinct is important because even within animal populations there is diversity. The majority of people may conform to basics of heterosexuality and gender identity. The way people who don't are viewed may vary. In creating this thread, I am not simply wishing to think about the minority perspectives. However, I am wondering how tolerance and intolerance works. In particular, stereotypes may be one of the reasons why people struggle with identity issues.
In reply to your second post, the idea of consensus is an important issue for many. There is so much confusion around gender. In the past, girls who got pregnant outside of marriage were often institutionalised. Michael Foucault's understanding of the politics of sexuality is important. If anything, it may be that in the time of the information age, there ie lack of consensus. Diversity of sexuality and gender identity exists, but, also, diversity of views on the nature of diversity exists, which may create whirlpools of confusion and conflicts in social groups and impact on individuals, especially those who do not fit into the mainstream. Sexual desire and the body may be complex areas of identity for many in the twentieth first century.
I do believe sexual preferences can change simply because my attraction to people has changed. At the same time it seems kind of obvious to me that we are born with certain sexual preferences.
I do not think there is much to understand. Some people are different to others so they are often treated different due to ignorance. The political movement is an attempt to right wrongs but as with any political movement there is greed for power and a certain stirring of us against them internally and externally.
This isn't to say the issues aren't real -- just that we can be over-exposed to them.
Example: Above I wrote "sexuality, gender, and diversity" employing the Oxford comma. The head of the NHS in the UK has ordered people to avoid the Oxford comma. Uproar followed. Most people don't give a rat's ass one way or the other, but I find the Oxford comma essential to my mental health.
I have a grand nephew who is either gay or trans -- it isn't clear to me which. He recently moved to NYC to attend a fashion school. Sometimes it seems like being "trans" is just a more complicated way of being "gay". This isn't new, of course. For some, being gay has always been pretty simple. For others, it has always been more complex. So, some gays are just guys, but some gays like to play far more complex roles.
We aspire to be many things. Generally our options are limited by numerous constraints -- insufficient economic resources; historical and geographical limitations; insufficient talent; lack of nerve, and so on. We would like to have been [fill in the blank] but we didn't know how to make it happen, or we were shot down.
Most of the people I know who have transitioned from one gender to the other were happier for having done so. They came closer to being the person they aspired to be. Their transition might or might not have involved surgery and hormones. What is critical is that they were able to approximate the person they aspired to be.
Any of us might "transition" from the sort of person we have been to the sort of person we aspire to be.
This video is informative. My takeaway is there are two sexes and a few people that biologically didn't develop correctly. Sounds like a disorder to have chromosomal mix ups, but I suppose there would be a stigma to call it that. As far as gender identification I don't see the point. It sometimes seems like some people have a very narrow view of what any sex can be. Clearly women can behave more masculine according to however that is defined, and feminine males. Why give ones personal collection of behaviors a label?
As for biology & psychology, as these disciplines view whatever is placed in front of them as either well or sick, they've got a lot on their hands, navigating this treacherous terrain is going to be an uphill task.
Religion has issues with sexual/gender variations. Did this carry over to early psychological studies? Homosexuality was, at one point, considered a mental illness (re Alan Turing). I'm not aware of the current status of being gay in psychology. I bet it's been removed from the DSM (diagnostic & statistical manual), but hopefully in Heideggerian fashion, sous rature (to remind us of how much the world has changed over the past 2 centuries).
A man, last I checked, is a set of physical (strong) and mental (dominating) attributes. I've simplified the attributes as they don't seem to matter to my point.
The same goes for a woman.
The physical attributes seem to be rigidly defined by genetics (XX female, XY male), but not so the mental atrributes which seem fluid in comparison.
Hence, I believe, LGBTIQ!
Note also that being strong applies to women too - some women are built like a linebacker!
It seems just having a penis is not sufficent to make one a man and possessing a vagina doesn't mean one is woman.
Fascinating!
Other than that the psychological differences that are most widely known (by anyone who has studied an ounce of psychology) is from the Big Five psychological traits. Women are higher in Neuroticism and Agreeableness. Men are more likely to be aggressive too and the chance of someone with extremely high/low IQ being male is higher than them being female (this later fact is not exactly hard cast though but the evidence available does appear to point to this).
Also, some homosexual women are more masculine than feminine and some homosexual men are more feminine than masculine what I am curious about is whether or not there is any connection between more feminine/masculine psychological traits and sexual prefer and/or gender identity?
If most people were to make a guess I assume they would expect homosexual men to be some degree more likely to exhibit psychological trait patterning associated with women, or that transgender people (not on any hormonal treatment) would also lean, psychologically speaking, toward their gender identity. Such things may just be too difficult to assess atm though given that psychological studies require huge data sets over a pretty large time period.
One thing is for sure atm. There are people out there (a minority on both sides) that are actively - yet maybe unconsciously) doing nothing much more than hindering progression and understanding by using the subject as a means to propel other ideas/feelings.
The idea of people hindering progress in understanding is the reason why I started the thread. There can be extremism in both directions. So much discussion may involve unconscious projection. Also, there is so much information on the internet, some which may be more helpful than others.
When I was working in mental health care there were clear policies about how all people should be respected. This also involved training. Of course, it is possible just to pay lip service to it.Generally, it may be more difficult for people to be accepting of the LGBTIQ spectrum if they were brought up in a culture where it was seen as being unacceptable. I was brought up in Catholicism but never even realised that there were issues around gender and sexuality there until I came across certain attitudes at university. I do consider myself as bisexual and realised this when I was about 5 years old. My parents were a little homophobic but I never really discussed sexuality with them much. The youth club at my church had a lot of drinking and loads of affairs, although heterosexual ones. Funnily enough, the song 'Tainted Love' by Soft Cell was one of the most frequently played songs, but I am not sure if anyone there realised the gay connotations of the song.
Perhaps we can make some headway if we break it down into possible combinations using the following characteristics:
1. Junk (penis/vagina)
2. Build (virile/effeminate)
3. Personality (virile/effeminate)
4. Genetics (XX/XY)
There are a total of 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16 different sexuality/gender types. Which exist and which don't might give us clues to get to the bottom of the LGBTIQ phenomenon.
It's unknown to me whether all these reduce to genetics. There could be genetic [s]defects[/s] variations that underpin it all.
Who knows, it could be an infection, maybe there's a microbe out there that messes up which gender we identify ourselves as. A Paul W. Ewald (biologist, Wikipedia has a page on him) hypothesized that schizophrenics don't find partners and start families and ergo, he claims, their prevalence in the population doesn't make any sense (the genes responsible would've been deselected over generations). The only other explanation, according to him, is that schizophrenia is an infection and he's optimistic that the causative microbe will be discovered soon. Homosexuality too doesn't make evolutionary/genetic sense (man-man and woman-woman pairs can't reproduce, they're dead ends, evolutionarily). I'll leave you to connect the dots!
One of the most influential case studies about gender is one involving the sexologist, John Money, and a child who lost his penis in a childhood circumcision. A decision was made to give the child surgery and female hormones at adolescence to make the child female. For many years, this was understood, especially in sociology, as a success. However, in time it became apparent that the teenager was very unhappy and ended up having reverse treatment to become a man again. He wrote a book with his story and was planning to have an artificial penis constructed, but a while later he committed suicide.
It is a very sad story and does challenge the nurture approach to gender. A large factor was that in spite of feminising hormones, the teenager was still fairly masculine looking. One of the main ways in which the scenario has been viewed has been to make professionals more hesitant to make decisions about intersex children and to enable them to be more involved in gender choice.
The story is probably one which most people can relate to because it is so tragic and the person was male. It is not clear whether he committed suicide simply because there were some other issues going on in his, but it seems likely that what he had been through affected him significantly.
Also, where my parents lived, there was a transman, who got outed in his community. In distress he smashed a window in his local church. He got sent to Holloway(women's) prison and killed himself while there. This story shows the way in which outing people publicly can affect them so much and some people think that they have the 'right' to do so and,
there is also a lot of bullying.
The issue of where to place trans people is also a major one in prisons and hospitals. Some flexi gender facilities do ease the situation. It may involve staff thinking creatively to manage the situation. I know one manager who has asked potential nursing staff candidates at interviews a question about managing a trans scenario. Apparently, it really threw some of them and it may be that this was something that they never ever expected to get asked.
My question was not really one I expected to be answered because the data sets are too tricky I reckon. If you know of a study that measures the Big Five for gays, lesbians and bisexuals Id be interested to look at the data.
I didn't know much about sex at age 5. Even when children told me 'the facts of life' at age 9, I refused to believe it until someone showed it written down in a book. The reason I realised that I was bi was because I realised that sometimes I had crushes on girls and, sometimes, boys, as well as teachers of both genders. However, I never told anyone this until about age 12.
Quoting I like sushi
:up: No patterns is the only explanation why we're so perplexed. Back in the old days it was exactly the opposite, LGBTIQ were outliers - they didn't make sense to heterosexuals who were the majority.
Quite possibly if the LGBTIQ community is growing in numbers, it's natural birth control - we are on the cusp of a population crisis.
I do not think for a second that the numbers (by percentage) is growing at all. Such members in western society have been forced into hiding due to various factors including religious dogma and lack of a figurehead through which to relate themselves to the mainstream norms of sexual behaviour and attitudes in society.
I always like to use the example of the Philippines here when it comes to transgenders. It is a normal thing over there and has been for a long time. I practically every fastfood chain there is someone who is transgender working there and it has been like that for a long time.
It is likely that there have always been gender dysphoric people but that it was only with medical advances that the approach changed. Because people could not have the physical transition it is hard to know to what extent they were. I know that different people have viewed Joan of Arc in various ways. The one writer who definitely wrote from a gender dysphoric, female to male point of view was Radcyffe Hall, in, 'The Well of Loneliness'. Virginia Wolf's 'Orlando' is also an interesting critique on gender. Some science fiction writers, like Ursula Le Gunn and Marion Zimmer Bradley also explore androgyny.
The arts have always been an area for the exploration of gender ambiguity. Recently, I saw some documentaries of 70s and 80s music and couldn't believe how feminine some of the men looked in bands like Sweet and Japan. And, of course there is Sam Smith, who couldn't be given a Brit award because they couldn't be fitted into the male or female vocalist categories.
In some societies there are alternative gender categories, like the Hijra in India and the berdache of North America. These groups incorporated those who had various physical intersex conditions and psychological ones, and the North Americans also spoke of some as being 'two spirit' people. It is possible to also see eunuchs as an alternative gender category. Their removal of the testicles was to enable singing not to change with the voice breaking, but it may also have been partly about androgyny.
The idea of androgyny may be the archetypal or mythical aspect of transgender. One Jungian writer, June Singer wrote a book on androgyny. However, she was not writing about transgender but mainly psychological androgyny. However, the transgender journey may be seen as connected to androgyny even though the person is wishing to change to resemble the opposite gender as far as possible. Cross dressers and non-binary may be seen clearly in relation to the idea of androgyny and the archetypal hermaphrodite.
To hazard a guess I'd say gender dysphoria is basically an embryological relic - from the zygote to a certain point in the fetus' development, we can't tell the difference between male & female, morphologically speaking that is (DNA-wise we can). Imagine now that the fetus in those early stages were conscious and had eyes. If it looked in the mirror, it wouldn't be able to say whether it's a boy or a girl. A wild theory pops into view - maybe fetuses are conscious much, much, earlier than we believe (post-nervous system development) they are and there's a tiny mirror inside the womb and of course there has to be some light! :grin:
It is common enough for people to believe they look or sound a certain way when they do not. I have never heard of anyone insisting they were a monkey because if they did their insistence would prove them wrong (monkeys do not argue).
Obviously, the comparison between human beings and monkeys with that of masculinity vs femininity doesn't work completely because it is about a different species. However, there is the whole dimension of the human imagination. As a child, monkeys were my favourite animals. Also, apart from pretending to be famous rock stars, I used to pretend to be Galen from 'Planet of the Apes'. Of course, he was a 'talking ape' and was the one who was friends with humans rather than simply swinging through the trees.
The point is it all comes down to the human imagination and fantasy. Young children engage in make believe and this is likely to be important in the formation of gender. Children are affected by television and media images in thinking of social roles and who they wish to become when they wish to grow up.
In shamanic culture, there is a fantasised imagination of shapeshifting. This includes fantasised projection of becoming animals, along the line of dream imagination. I am not aware of shamans trying to live as animals but the shapeshifting does involve people experimenting with gender shifting in real life. Some gender experimentation, especially in the shamanic aspect of rock stars, such as David Bowie, may go back to the shamanic quest and it's mythology.
.
I am not wishing to go to far with the comparison about pretending to be monkeys and we will see if Agent Smith has any thoughts. However, I am serious in the idea of fantasy playing a significant role in the formation of identity, including gender identity. I find that more useful for thinking about gender dysphoria rather than those who simply dismiss such dysphoria as delusional.
This applies to sexuality as well. Children grow up fantasising about romance. This involves fantasy lovers and the beginning of sexual orientation in its root form, although, of course, what happens in real life, especially from puberty onwards and encounters with people and relationships is involved in the actualisation of this potential.
If someone clearly wishes to be treated as a man/boy/woman/girl then that is fine. I do not care about their junk nor their sexual orientation.
Exceptions: Sharing prisons with opposite sex and competing against the opposite sex in physically demanding sports.
It really isnt massively complicated it is just that some loud minority wishes to shout for or against some item the vast majority likely do not care about.
Did you know the term gay comes from women who were prostitutes in the US? They were called Gay Women then when men got involved in the trade they were called Gay Men. I find things like that interesting :)
You're right, as I was taking too narrow a perspective. What I was thinking of was the debate whether the change of roles in society, as you describe it, is good or bad, "natural" or "unnatural." That doesn't interest me, at least. I think the likelihood is that humanity will change in many respects over time, given advances in technology and population, tribal gods, superstitions and cultural atavism notwithstanding. Assuming we don't manage to destroy ourselves or the planet, ways will have to be created to address those changes in an orderly and, one hopes, equitable fashion.
Those with gender dysphoria deserve as much respect and dignity as anyone else. My empathy ends the moment I am told to conform my language to anothers demands, that I must concede grammar and truth to people who are knowingly misidentifying themselves. So there is an ethical component to it as well.
You begin by speaking of respect for those with gender, but what you go on to say sounds like you think that by using chosen pronouns is collusion. Do you not see that it is about respecting choice? When people make choice of pronich ouns an issue it as like the gender dysphoric person is being regarded as delusional or psychotic. It seems bound up with materialistic fundamentalism.
What is the danger or threat which accepting the psychological 'truth' of such individuals chosen journeys? Is it because it exposes the way in which everyone's gender and sexuality is based on culturally and intersubjective mythic fantasy? The body is the basis for gender and sexuality, but how this is played out in real life is based on what the postmodern writer, Judith Butler, spoke of as 'performance'.
One interesting comparison is between gender identity disorder and body mysphorphic disorder. I have seen both in clinical practice. Body dysphmorphic disorder can involve fixation on specific body attributes and a sense of the body being 'ugly' or 'wrong' in some ways. Generally, body dysmorphic disorder seems more amenable to psychological therapies, such as CBT. However, most gender dysphoric people have been through psychological therapies. However, to try to 'correct' it, especially by treating it as delusional, simply doesn't work, just as conversion therapy for homosexuality doesn't help at all.
Therapy may help is essential when it enables thinking about identity and choice. Yet, when it is used to oppose authenticity in sexuality and gender expression it may make matters worse.
Overheard a mother telling her son, "you can be whatever you want." The son, later, decided to become a woman! Can we really be whatever we want? I want to be ... a butterfly, but am I already one, just dreamin' I'm a man?
Some may take the view that it is absurd to think about turning all possibilities into dreams. What may be important is how different are men and women in the first place? The physical differences are such that physical changes, while not always one hundred per cent as completely as desired, are able to make looking like the opposite sex possible. You might try to change yourself into a butterfly and even, with the best science, you may come up against impossible obstacles.
Are there any documented cases of a double negation (1[sup]st[/sup] negation, gender switched from male/female to female/male, 2[sup]nd[/sup] negation, back to male/female)?
Have you heard of online scams where grown men pose as girls/women to bait other men? I have a feeling that the metaverse - choosing one's online persona includes a gender/sex option - is going to nudge people who are still unsure over the gender line. Fascinating!
The danger or threat is found wherever it becomes authoritarian, for instance the idea that one must, as a duty, dismiss his own grammar and furnish it with anothers. If its about choice, all parties involved ought to be able to use whatever pronouns they wish. Isnt that so?
Other than that I think the only concern for me is the normalizing of drastic and irreversible medical interventions in young people, such as using puberty blockers, which often amounts to chemical castration.
At any rate, I do not see transgenderism as some threat to the concept of gender. Gender is largely incoherent, anyways, and can be dropped altogether.
The issue of puberty blockers presents a big challenge to people seeking them and those caring for them. The issue has been given a lot of coverage in the English news by one individual, Kiera Bell. Kiera took puberty blockers and transitioned as a teenager, regretting it at age 21. She has now gone back to trying to live as female but has had treatment, including some surgery, some of which are irreversible. She maintains that she didn't have the capacity to consent due to adolescence being a time of emotional difficulty. She won her case in court. She says that she was not given enough psychological support when making decisions.
The case above has had major repercussions for the thinking about puberty blockers and age of transition. However, some people are determined that they wish to have puberty blockers in particular because it enables a much smoother transition, as it pprevents the need to have treatment to reverse the effects of puberty.