How Different are Men and Women?
I raise this question because thinking back and looking at the thread which I created on gender and sexuality this may have been the question which I was raising. I was not intending to create a thread on gender dysphoria itself and it may be one of the phenomenon which arises in the area of gender. The experience of gender dysphoria itself may be related to deeper understanding of gender itself, sexuality and ideas of masculinity and femininity.
As regards gender, it is about social roles and may go back to biological imperatives, especially reproduction. The complex interplay between biology and the social aspects of gender were explored in sociology, including the understanding of Ann Oakley, which looks at the way in which gender is based on social meanings about gender based on biological differences between the genders. The sociology of gender and sexuality was developed in postmodernism, especially in the idea of the social construction of gender and sexuality. Judith Butler speaks of gender as being based on 'performance'.
The issues of gender differences are still strong in philosophy debates; the idea of cultural construction is still an issue in thinking about how gender is constructed individually and socially. It involves aspects of psychology and politics.The categories of male and female are the essential basics of this biologically, with the psychological and social aspects too. What are your thoughts on this, especially in relation to what it means to be a man or a woman? Is biology destiny and to what extent do individuals have the ability to think about authentic meaning beyond the constraints of cultural stereotypes.
As regards gender, it is about social roles and may go back to biological imperatives, especially reproduction. The complex interplay between biology and the social aspects of gender were explored in sociology, including the understanding of Ann Oakley, which looks at the way in which gender is based on social meanings about gender based on biological differences between the genders. The sociology of gender and sexuality was developed in postmodernism, especially in the idea of the social construction of gender and sexuality. Judith Butler speaks of gender as being based on 'performance'.
The issues of gender differences are still strong in philosophy debates; the idea of cultural construction is still an issue in thinking about how gender is constructed individually and socially. It involves aspects of psychology and politics.The categories of male and female are the essential basics of this biologically, with the psychological and social aspects too. What are your thoughts on this, especially in relation to what it means to be a man or a woman? Is biology destiny and to what extent do individuals have the ability to think about authentic meaning beyond the constraints of cultural stereotypes.
Comments (62)
To what extent are men and women different, or what it means to be a man or woman and how this question is explored introspectively? On the other hand, some may see men and women as being so different, so I am raising this as an area of debate, especially in relation to the role and understanding of biology in this. I am asking about the biological aspects of difference but also about the subjective meaning of this in personal and social life. What are the dynamics?
So you accept it is nature and nurture biology and sociology? Well then it comes down to the degree these do or should go hand in hand as two levels of the one story. That would define "authenticity" in some pragmatic sense.
If you believe that biology and sociology have no necessary connection, then you will start claiming one or other has to be the basic ground of authentic identity. And if there is a necessary connection say because a social organism must also be adapted to its world in the evolutionary sense then that is a different definition of authenticity.
That is the way to approach your riddle. Look to the scientific evidence. Why did biology produce the sexual dimorphism - with its usual genetic degree of variance that it did? And does sociology continue to reinforce or even amplify that for good adaptive reason? Or has sociology instead radically changed that game so it doesn't really apply anymore. Biology needs to be suppressed as humans are now doing something else with its own evolutionary logic.
The answers will be very complex of course. If our ideas about gender are evolving in some authentic direction, it is still very much a work in progress. Likewise if they are instead just diverging from the biological "true path" for a time, then at what point can this be judged to be the case?
I'm not saying that either story needs to be the right one. Whatever works is what works. But it will sharpen the discussion to at least be clear about how much we must remain biologically constrained, and how much actual logic there is to the idea of being sociologically unconstrained.
And that is why I put the term "authentic" in nose-holding quotes. It already presumes there is some right answer at the end of the road that will make its "other" wrong.
I would argue that it is a complex interplay of biology and meaning. Authenticity of identity is about social meanings and interpretations. How one perceives biology and its significance may be important, as well as pragmatic concerns, as human beings exist in social structures and groups. However, the tension between biology and sociological aspects may exist, especially in relation to the understanding of biology in regard to sexuality, gender and social roles.
There is biology as a starting point and the societal factors come into play in the dynamics of social life. Ideas about gender and sexuality come into this. There may be contradictions and, also, values, which may even have a part to play in developing goals, and expectations. Also, the ideas of the differences between men and women may play a significant part, in goals and choices in personal life.
The Gendered Ape, Essay 3: Do Only Humans Have Genders?
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2022/09/the-gendered-ape-essay-3-do-only-humans-have-genders.html
I find it interesting that other species, other than humans, have gender as a form of performance. It does give rise to the essentialism of gender, as a biological imperative in nature.
Ideas of the 'perfect' male and female may leave many feeling lacking. I am not sure about your claim about whether 'very few straight men are actually men and very few straight women are actually women'. It is probably connected to transgender, although I am not convinced that the majority of people in magazines and movies are trans.
However, it may be that those who have found masculinity and femininity through conscious choice may have looked at its presentation and performance with greater precision. However, rather than simply being an area for trans people and gender deviant, it can be asked, more universally, what does it mean to be a man or woman?
What's depicted as male & female on the [s]Golden Record stored in Voyager II[/s] Pioneer Plaque that's, as of now, hurtling through the vacuum of space?
Let's start there ...
Gender definitely begins with reproduction. There is the question as to where, or how far this goes, in relation to 'what one is'. The search for identity may be far wider, but, nevertheless, most people have a basic gender identity independently. Some of the cultural aspects may be exaggerated.
.
For example, sometimes when I am just looking to buy a birthday card there seem to be divisions. When I was a child I can remember going to a birthday party of a girl who I knew and, buying a birthday card and present for her. Her mother complained that I had given a boy's card. I had simply chosen the card which I thought was the nicest one. In all aspects of life, gender is a codified form of expression and communication, which seems to operate independently of the basis of human reproduction.
I am about to go to bed, because it is after 1.30 am. However, I don't know about the Golden Record of Voyager 11, so I would appreciate you elaborating, especially its significance for gender, and I will read and follow it up tomorrow.
I am still logged on, so I am wondering about nudity and masculinity and femininity. There are codes of dress and performance based on attire, and some exaggeration of gender differences. I wonder how this relates to the the concept of the naked self.To what extent does gender go back to biological aspects and cultural ones, and how are they blended in cultural and personal life?
Its certainly a social construct. :razz:
Jeanne d'Arc dressing as a man was, to French soldiers, good enough for government work if you catch my drift.
Why do men have nipples? Just in case, eh? :snicker:
Thanks for sharing this link. Interesting, indeed.
Psychologically and on average, they are not that different.
In terms of personality people have always exhibited traits from both ends. 'Masculine' women and 'feminine' men are nothing new. One might even say that developing certain traits from the opposite sex, or at least a strong understanding of them, is an important step into becoming a psychologically adult human.
It is only in recent times, quite possibly as a result the extreme comfort we live in, that societies started developing an infatuation with hyper-sexualization.
That isn't a surprise. It's supposedly well-documented that as barriers are removed, differences between the sexes tend to become more pronounced.
My personal theory about this is that it is a result of the lack of meaning a lot of people experience in modern society. They turn to the most basic source of self-esteem, which is sexuality and sex appeal - a product of the strong(est?) instinct to reproduce.
So we enter the era of hyper-sexualized men and women, who pride themselves in being "hyper-masculine" or "hyper-feminine", and of people whom by their personal physical and psychological makeup cannot attain these ideals, yet still are drawn to the same source of self-esteem. Because for many, there's nothing else. And it's something that western society (perhaps subconsciously) attempts to drill into people's minds from an early age.
The transgender movement is the counterculture reaction to this, and as with anything our decadent society comes up with, it's equally extreme and problematic, and devoid of all nuance.
The individual is wise to avoid all of these movements. Mankind has a long tradition of wisdom literature that pertains to the development of the self, the incorporation of the male and female, etc. For important things, turn to the wise, not to the masses.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Biology is destiny for those who do not develop the capacity to understand and control their biological makeup and instinctual and subconscoius drives. As Plato argues, the reasoning faculty of man should be in firm control over the temperamental and desiring parts of the mind.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Apart from biological realities, it means nothing. It's up to the individual to discover and develop their own unique makeup, instead of trying to jam the square peg of the self into the round hole of society's defunct stereotypes.
Your query about why do men have nipples is that all people have rudimentary aspects of the opposite sex. Not only do men have nipples but some have noticeable breast development, just as some women have facial hair. Many spend money on cosmetic procedures to reduce aspects of physical attributes of the opposite gender. Every foetus starts off as the same, before sexual differentiation takes place. In childhood, apart from primary sex characteristics, boys and girls look fairly similar until puberty.
It does seem to me that hypersexualisation is an aspect of Western culture. The context of this may be important in understanding why people develop transgender identities. This may be a useful area for thinking about, rather than simply viewing gender dysphoria as in terms of individual psychology.
I am inclined to think that a lot of the psychological differences between men and women are culturally significant more than anything else. Simone De Beauvoir argued that women are not made but become women. The sociologist, Ann Oakley, developed this in her analysis of the nurture aspect of gender development. Of course, there is still the critical role, which hormones have on the brain, and possibly some biological significance of the chromosomes too.
It's interesting that hyper-sexualization in men and women, and gender dysphoria, all seem body dysmorphic in nature.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I suppose there must be some biological "wiring" - after all, when we look at human societies throughout time and space we see by and large the same types of roles attributed to men and women. Though, not exclusively, so societal factors definitely play a role.
But the real question is, why should the individual be content to let society or their supposed "biological wiring" define them?
The answer lies in the following; if the reasoning faculty of the mind isn't firmly in control, one essentially lacks the psychological tools for self-definition, and one will simply be a ball tossed between nature and nurture, forever blind to what was already there from the beginning - the self.
So what you're sayin' is what I'm sayin'. There's a phase in our development when males & females are more similar than they're different. It's true that at puberty there's a clear divergence of the sexes that make each identifiable at a glance. Many a times, I've asked "how old is she?" to parents of boy infants and vice versa.
The difference between men and women is by and large based on physical characteristics, but there are grey areas that sometimes perplex the naïve. The mind though is rather ambiguous wouldn't you say, Jack?
What you've written makes a lot of sense to me, although I think the position taken in the above quoted text is greatly overstated. If we control our biological makeup, it is the way a surfer controls a wave, not the way a rider controls a horse.
It is questionable which people are in control, as having the 'tools for self-definition'? Is it the ones who conform happily to stereotypes or those who are gender dysphoric? It is a difficult area to think about, involving nature, nurture and free choice. There may also be dangers in overgeneralisations because each person's life experiences is unique.
The gender of the 'mind' is an interesting area. It partly goes back to the debate about physicalism and the question of the wiring of the brain and whether there is any difference in brains. Also, how much is nurture and the nature of identity. My own thinking is that the nature of identity is influenced by many variables. This also includes embodiment and the experience of living in a specific body, and to what extent one feels content with the self which one projects in life.
The phrase sometimes used by gender dysphoric people, 'trapped in the wrong body' is an existential experience and seems to signify a form of dualism. It is like to be like a ghost in a machine, or a soul. At school, I can remember one history teacher saying that at one point in Christianity, there was a belief that women didn't have souls. Nowadays, the idea of a soul is not that prominent at all, and is replaced with the self, which is even open to dispute if it is taken to mean an actual entity.
One area of thought, however, is how the mind is seen if one believes in reincarnation. That is because even if conscious identity is not remembered clearly the previous life experiences may leave some traces of memory. I have come across a number of people, who don't identify as transgender but believe that they had lives in the opposite gender to the one in this life and feel affected by that belief. If there is any truth in the idea of reincarnation, it is likely that various lives would be in each gender, with an underlying development towards spiritual androgyny.
I don't know if you'll agree on its relevance, but it's certainly a beautiful quote.
And that last line captures my feelings about this topic; when the individual simply accepts biological drives as facts of life, or accepts being put into a box by societal pressures, it's like the soul loses its wings - it loses a part of its essence, that part which in Plato's terms could be called divine and immortal.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Defining the self through stereotypes seems contradictory whether they're traditional boxes or new boxes. We weren't happy with others trying to jam our square peg into their round hole - why would we want to take over the jamming?
We've laid out three metaphors here, all of which are a bit off. I don't think the horse controlled by his rider works. I don't see my body's physical aspect as something that has to be wrestled into compliance. Then there's Plato's winged horse of the soul losing it's wings and falling to the ground to be shackled to the limitations of it's body. Putting the soul as our "true" self and our body as a fallen remnant doesn't make sense to me. Even though I like it, my metaphor of the wave isn't quite right either. It could only work if I am the wave.
Quoting Tzeentch
These quotes strike me as a radical free choice position, suggesting we choose our gender, as opposed to our being born with a gender opposite our biology.
Your position doesn't remind me as much of Plato as it does Sarte. https://www.litcharts.com/lit/existentialism-is-a-humanism/themes/radical-freedom-choice-and-responsibility#:~:text=Based%20on%20Sartre's%20argument%20that,their%20lives%20as%20a%20whole.
As for reincarnation ...
[quote=Wikipedia]Mohini (Sanskrit: ??????, Mohin?) is the Hindu goddess of enchantment. She is the only female avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu (male).[/quote]
More at Wikipedia.
I suppose you could view it as a radical free choice position.
However, that freedom of choice can only come about in a well-organized mind, in which the reasoning faculty is firmly in control (for which I like to use Plato's three-part soul).
When it comes to gender debates, the question often seems to be whether it is nature (biological / instinctive drives) or nurture (societal pressures) that defines us.
I view both as obstacles.
Mine perhaps isn't so much a free choice position, but a 'free to explore' position, for which the same prerequisite applies.
I believe one can only explore that which is truly authentic to the self when one is free of external pressures on the mind. That includes both nature and nurture, and thus societally-constructed gender identities, whether they're traditional or trans.
In terms of identity men and women or trans do not exist. Those terms are societal shorthand - useful tools to make communicating a bit easier. But all that exists are unique individuals. The second the individual starts to accept these generalizations as actually defining them, the soul loses its wings.
We are conditioned to regard the self as something that is constructed by taking a shopping cart and putting in it those of society's boxes that we like. In so doing, we don't discover the self but we assume a fake, external identity or persona. To a degree that's necessary to function in society, but the problem is we end up unable to see the difference - unable to see that what we're doing is putting up a display for others.
If one were to measure height, weight, speed, intelligence, more or less anything non-reproductive, one would find a large overlap between the sexes, that is completely ignored in favour of the competitive extremes. Culture exaggerates sexual differences where they statistically occur, and invents them everywhere else. One has to learn to conform, and one spends one's life attempting with diets, makeup, surgery, workouts, and therapy, trying to conform to other people's fantasy of otherness. It is worse in the US than most places, where women have to speak like chipmunks and look like barbie, and men have to buy one.
I definitely agree that the hormonal explanations for gender are more important than ideas about reincarnation, which are purely speculative. There is also the possibility of neuroscience leading to new findings. One important area is trying to establish whether or not it is true that gender dysphoric individuals have physical differences here, possibly related to hormones in brain development before birth, and even afterwards.
There is also a lot that is not understood about the genetics of gender. One aspect is how gender differentiation, which was previously thought to be due to the sex chromosomes is not that simple. One gene which has been identified as extremely important is Foxl2. Apparently, this switches on or off certain processes in sexual differentiation.
The nature of sex chromosomes is an important area, although, mostly, sometimes people may exaggerate the importance of chromosomes. Most people have never had chromosome tests. Recently, I read that it has come to light that more men have chromosome disorders than previously thought. This includes XXY of Klinefelter's Syndrome and XYY. The nature of XYY chromosomes is of significance because it was found to be more prominent and associated with those who had committed crimes.
It does seem that the nature of gender has been exaggerated so much culturally. Of course, in animal kingdoms there is sexual performance, so some may be due to the instinctual or biological patterns of nature. However, the sociology of gender has been important in pointing to the cultural aspects. In particular, the postmodernist deconstruction of gender was extremely important in the development of critical theory about gender and its dynamics.
I am just also writing in response to your mention of thinking about gender in relation to race. It does seem that sexual inequality and racial inequality may have coexisted. It involves biological differences being used as a basis for subordination. During the last century there were major shifts in questioning racism and sexism. In particular, feminism identified the existence of a patriarchy in history.
Thinking about the nature of biological differences and the political aspects of this has been an important area. It has led to people querying gender essentialism. It is likely that in the aftermath of postmodernism, there are still a lot of questions, especially the interplay of biology, culture and politics. Mainstream religion, especially fundamentalism was an important dynamic force. In the twentieth first century, it may be that there is a void of uncertainty, especially in the 'post-truth' world.
Radical freedom, where can you be whatever you want to be as long as you free your mind from external constraints, is an interesting notion, but it's more of an aspirational concept than something that really exists. Even in your metaphorical language ("the soul loses its wings"), you allude to obvious limitations. No matter how much I wish to cast aside the external restraints of my nature and nurture, I won't be able to fly (as in literally fly).
The problem with freedom is that it is a pretty slippery concept of questionable metaphysical construct. What I mean is that there must be a driver that determines why you choose A over B, and if you've discounted your genetic composition and you've discounted your environment as being causative of that decision, then what is left? Do you mean to say that your soul, acting alone, based upon its nature, decided without constraint? Are you not then really just arguing that nature (as opposed to nurture) made you act as you did, meaning, basically, "you were born that way."
If you start with the enlightenment image of the white man as 'thinking thing', you get a physically feminised white man in relation to the physically hyper-masculine black. This results in the need for the white woman to be ultra feminine (empty-headed), to make the white man look masculine by comparison, whereas the black woman is physically the amazon. Such is Cleaver's insight, and it still rules the unconscious to a great extent.
What this means is that the question of whether gender is more so physical or mental (cultural/ brain chemical) is already racialised. It already depends on which racial stereotype is being considered, and it is usually the white one.
The whole interplay between gender and racism in power is important as well as the way in which stereotypes impact on life. This involves the concept of otherness. One essay on this is 'The Other Question: Stereotype, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism. He speaks of power in discourse, saying how it involves
'articulation of difference_ racial and sexual. Such an articulation becomes crucial if it is held that the body is always simultaneously (if conflictually) inscribed in both the economy of discourse, dominanation and power.'
Quoting Tzeentch
In order for there to be "radical free choice" or anything near it, there would have to be no human nature. Nothing built in. We would have to be born as blank slates.
I don't think biological sexual differences are just "statistical." I think they are obvious and significant. To deny this is to ignore the evidence of your senses. That doesn't mean we are destined and condemned to living out societal expectations, but it's not some trivial artifact of our troglodyte past.
Always good to be able to use "troglodyte" in a post.
I think what you write is true, but that doesn't mean that those "querying gender essentialism" have got it right. Denying who we irrefutably are for political purposes is not liberation, it's foolishness.
I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think @Tzeentch's position requires that we be completely ruled by our nature. I think it would have to mean that our true self, our soul, comes from somewhere outside of either nature or nurture.
I think overemphasizing the parallel between racial oppression and sexual discrimination is a mistake. The situations are different.
Quoting T Clark
If that were the case, there would be no need to differentiate them by artificial means such as designated clothing, hairstyles etc. In the days when I had long hair and a child in a pushchair, I was frequently mistaken for a woman from a short distance - despite the beard. Anecdotes of serious misidentifications with 'ladyboys' in foreign parts have also reached me, so I take your claim of infallibility on the subject with a deal of scepticism.
I don't think that's true. I don't deny there are social pressures to conform to accepted sexual behaviors, but that's clearly, to me at least, not all there is to it.
You are not saying anything. What is the need to differentiate the sexes by dress and hairstyle, then?
I'm saying it's because you need to know who to fight and who to fuck, and you can't always tell by size, shape, sound... If you can always tell, then there must be some other reason.
Why can't it be both - biology and society?
The problem then comes from statements like "being true to yourself," as if your soul is a certain way, that you were made a certain way, which would continue to demand that you be controlled by the nature of your soul. I'm not sure why it matters if by "nature" we mean genetic composition or soul.
That is, if I have a Hanover soul, I gotta be Hanoveresque, which means I can't be T Clarkesque. If I have a male soul, I have to be a male. I don't see where this give me more freedom.
Clearly there's been a lot of research since I last touched a book on biology. My files are outdated; nevertheless, since something is better than nothing, I'm ok with hanging onto what I learned many suns ago in college. That's that.
I wish there was someone here on the forum who knew more about the sexual revolution and no, I'm not talking about the one that happened in the 60s - 70s. At what stage in the evolution of life, did it undergo the mitosis-to-meiosis transformation and why? Sex, from what I know, is the dominant mode of reproduction in metazoans. The natural question then is this: is the LGBITQ community a sign of a reproductive revolution (asexual [math]\to[/math] sexual [math]\to[/math] ?)?. From a mathematical perspective it makes perfect sense - more combinations & permutations there are, the better it is. I haven't worked out the deatails though so don't ask me to explain. Have an awesome day Jack.
The fact that there are strong, aggressive women and physically weaker, less assertive men is no evidence at all that there are not significant biological differences between men and women. I've heard that some people eat peas with their knives. That doesn't make me think that there is no difference between a knife and a fork. I personally usually eat them with a spoon.
I agree. It would be ridiculous to suggest there are no significant biological differences. What on earth made you think I suggested anything of the sort? Men almost never become pregnant.
Do you believe that's the only significant difference?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I haven't read the other thread from which your OP comes, so forgive me if any territory was already covered.
"Male" and "female" are simply words people use. There are many others, of course, but there is no inherent content in a word (be it uttered or written) or grouping of words. In simplest form, we understand meaning (and attempt to convey it) in words by virtue of context - where/when the word is used, by whom it is spoken, to whom it is directed, the language community within which it is used, etc.
"Biology" is no different than any other word. Some people mean one thing, other people understand something else, and the world turns. In this case, we are talking about essentialism - what is it, from a biological perspective, that justifies including some organism in group A and excluding them from B? Essentially, the biology split between male and female is in the context of sexual reproduction: it hinges on what an organism contributes to its offspring: males provide the smaller gamete while females provide the larger gamete. In this way, the use of male and female regarding a specific reproductive act is unambiguous.
Where biology becomes increasingly ambiguous is the extent to which the use of "male" and/or "female" is abstracted away from a particular reproductive act. On the first level, organisms that contribute the larger gamete exclusively are female, organisms that contribute the smaller gamete exclusively are male, and organisms that contribute both are hermaphrodites. On the second level, organisms are grouped together - those have reproduced with one another are in the same group (species) while other organisms that have not reproduced with them are not in the group. On the third level, the criteria for group membership is expanded - organisms that are the offspring of the reproducing organism/s (parent/s) are added to the group irrespective of whether the offspring will ever reproduce. Not just are offspring added, but so are other organisms that are believed to be similar to the reproducing organisms (e.g. siblings of the parent/s). Whatever the structural account of how gametes (large or small) are made (e.g. gonads), species members that have the structural potential of making large ones are called called female, those capable of producing small ones are male, and those that have the potential to do both are hermaphrodites. The move here (rather than the particular steps) is what is at issue - the act of reproduction and naming the participants (by class) turns into naming other non-participants by abstraction. The question is, what characteristic makes the use of "male" or "female" warranted in the case of an organism that either has a) not yet reproduced or b) is incapable of reproduction (e.g. injured such that gonads are non-present or non-functional). Putting aside the taxonomical issue of what a species is, at some point characteristics of the organisms aside from contributing the larger or smaller gamete begin to be considered - those characteristics that are found with greater frequency (or exclusively) in males than in females (and vice versa) are then deemed "male".
The utility in associating other characteristics with potential gamete contribution (even if a factual impossibility) varies. Sometimes it is helpful in describing anatomy, sometimes it is helpful in predicting a disease process, etc. Each of the extended uses of "male" and "female" need to be evaluated on their own merit (do they convey any substance in an acceptable manner). The biological use case of "male" and "female" are not, however, prescriptive, rather they are descriptive of statistically meaningful trends (i.e. characteristics that occur with sufficient frequency). Equally important, they are not statements of "natural law" (i.e. a limitation on how the natural world might be).
Where the difficulty arises, in my mind, is when people try to subsume the biological underpinnings of sex (gamete contribution) and speak as if the correlative characteristics are what is essential to the biological categorization. I grant to you in advance that the words/concepts of male and female preceded biology and that how sexual reproduction happens is utterly irrelevant to the development of those ideas/words outside of a more contemporary biological understanding of sex. It is precisely this type of co-development that ends up causing confusion about what "essentialism" can even mean because the great weight of history and historical uses is against the contemporary technical usage of a word.
From my perspective, discussions of biology in conversations about sex/gender are really just rhetorical devices - appeals to authority to validate a person's claims. In large part, this relates to something another poster alluded to ([s]whose name I might add later when I look it up[/s] it was you) when mentioning the hardware of anatomy and whether such anatomy fundamentally dictates/limits experience/preference. If, for instance, you haven't a certain part of your brain, is there some essential difference between you and a person that has that part? If having that part of the brain is highly correlated with being in the biological bucket of male, then aren't males essentially different than females? Does a single example of a male not having that part of the brain or a female having it change whether that feature is essential to male/female?
The inclusion criteria for what is male/female from a biological perspective is never the same as the essential criteria being discussed - we know in advance that there is almost certain to be less than a perfect correlation (every male has it and every female does not). It is, therefore, a foregone conclusion both that any alleged claim regarding an essential characteristic will have exceptions and that the person making the claim will ignore those exceptions.
Once we have some understanding (if not agreement) about what we mean by "essentialism" from a biological perspective, we can take up how it relates to your areas of interest. Suffice it to say, I am sympathetic to gender being performative and society enforcing/teaching individuals how to play the part (even if that part changes over time). In the same way that society molds our desires and identities with everything else (need for chocolate, being Scottish), it should come as no surprise that people believe that sex/gender is a core, immutable part of their identity that is actually based in their very being (biology).
And perhaps that social part is already shaped by inborn gender disposition rather than being dictated solely by culture.
Instead of the young being socialized by society, as many people believe, they may flesh out their gender roles largely by themselves through observation and emulation of models of the gender they identify with.
In our fellow primates, we have scattered evidence that the young selectively attend to same-sex models. For example, a recent orangutan study in the Sumatran forest by Beatrice Ehmann and colleagues showed that pre-pubertal daughters eat the same foods as their mother, whereas same-aged sons have a more diverse diet. Having paid attention to a wider range of models, including adult males, young males consume foods that their mother never touches.
Similarly, Elizabeth Lonsdorf observed how juvenile chimpanzees at Gombe National Park, in Tanzania, learn from their mother how to extract termites by dipping twigs into the insects nests. Daughters faithfully copy the exact fishing technique of their mother, whereas sons do not. Despite both spending equal time with their mom, daughters seem to watch her more intently during termite feeding.
These examples dont yet amount to gender roles. It is much easier to measure tool-use and food habits in the forest than social attitudes and norms. But primate culture studies are evolving and will no doubt include social measures in the future. At the very least, current evidence suggests that young apes choose which adult models to emulate based on their own gender identity. Young males look for male models, young females for female models.
I would therefore not exclude gender socialization in our fellow primates, nor for that matter in other animals.
(Frans De Waal, The Gendered Ape, Essay 3: Do Only Humans Have Genders?)
There are biological and physical realities, of course. People can't fly, if you don't breathe you die, etc.
But I don't view identity as a reality. It's a set of beliefs we have about ourselves. Or, If identity can be said to be real and impose limitations on the individual, my view would be that reason is the means to transcend it.
It's something we can control, or even dispose of altogether, if we want to, and if we develop the tools to understand it.
Even if one chooses to keep some concept of identity for the sake of interpersonal communication, there is likewise no reason one should come to view it as truly defining oneself or growing attached.
Quoting T Clark
Close your eyes. Think of nothing. There's your blank slate. ;)
But in all seriousness, I view 'human nature' more as tendencies we humans have when we're not in control. If you let go of the steering wheel in your car, you'll probably not end up going straight and crashing into a tree.
We override our natural tendencies all the time, showing that we can be in control, if we want to.
How on earth would you know? Do your thoughts all have labels on them declaring their origin?
Good observation: Women could've been, practically are, a distinct race. Men just use women for making copies of themselves (babies). Did you know, female infanticide was a major problem in India & China a few decades ago? Ultrasonographers in India were forbidden by law to disclose the sex of the fetus - this spawned a market of back alley abortion "clinics" but that's another story.
What's interesting is Godzilla (1998) could reproduce without the aid of a male (parthenogenesis). Jesus' virgin birth maybe God's way of saying men are redundant/superfluous/unnecessary. Explains why women are the first category of hostages set free and men are, absit iniuria, dispensable.
Of interest to you maybe the Amazons, feared tribe of warrior women. Myth/fact I dunno!
It is hard to know the reality of Amazons and other aspects of mythic fables, including the idea of a matriarchy preceding a patriarchy. There are statues of goddesses, but it is difficult to know what this represents historically. Ideas about gods and gender are diverse, with the Hindus having some androgynous deities.
In Christianity, there is a mixed picture because the Virgin mother is presented as a female role model against a background of Christianity and its patriarchal elements. The Virgin Mary may be contrasted with Mary Magdalene, who some have seen as Jesus's wife based on aspects of Gnostic writings.
In some countries, there has been infanticide of female infants. The current reproductive technology has the power to choose the sex of the child being conceived. Perhaps, at some point biological men will be able to give birth. The story of the 'pregnant man', and there may have been a number of these caused a lot of sensation. However, it was different from a biological man giving birth because it involved a biological female having taken male hormones but still having female internal organs and fertility. Nevertheless, unless the person was trans I am not sure that many men would wish to give birth.
You and I have very different understandings of human nature.
Can we want to want? Can we choose to will what we desire? This is not to suggest that what drives reason is a fixed, pre-wired, unchanging mechanism. Rather, there is an interplay between reason and desire that shapes each in relation to the other. In sum , reason is not the slave of our passions , but neither are our drives the slave of reason.
Physically:
1. Internal reproductive organs.
The difference between men and women is quite clear: the former have testes that produce sperm and the latter have ovaries that produce eggs.
2. External genetalia.
Ambiguous as their development is hormonally regulated and diseases, exposure to certain chemicals can cause changes that result in mismatch between internal and external sexual organs.
Mentally:
There doesn't seem to be any patterns which we can identify as distinctly male or distinctly female; however, this is only if we look at it from a type perspective in re mental attributes; mayhaps there's a pattern if we give due consideration to degree. For instance, both dogs and humans are intelligent (indistinguishable), but humans are more intelligent than dogs (distinguishable). This means that we'll have to deal with grey areas (vagueness) on the spectrum, one end of which is full female and the other end of which is full male and by "deal with" I mean accept.