Gender

[Pathless]

So I've been thinking a lot about gender lately, and it seems to me that we've got some classical dichotomous thinking going on when most of us think about gender. What does it mean to be a man? A woman? Are there spaces in between? Is it possible for a biological to be more of a man than someone else who is biologically male, and if so, do you think that (s)he must then be a lesbian? What do you think and how much with your biological "gender" do you identify, if you don't mind going there?

I've been doing a little research in this area for a while, and it is a topic that I am exploring more in depth. Particularly interesting to me is that in many Native American/Indian societies there were at least three genders. Currently I have just started a book that is all about this, what is called being a "berdache"--a label that was derogatorially applied by colonizers but has stuck. Berdaches, from what I understand at this point, were biological males who gravitated towards sterrotypically feminine roles. Some were homosexual and ended up in partnerships with other men. Many dressed as women. They were respected within indigenous cultures and mixed freely. Parents and other caregivers would identify a child who had these cross-gender leanings, and so these people were acknowledged and honored in their ways from early life. Often they were seen as "go-betweens" for women and men, as they had a foot in both worlds, and there is some indication that they were often quite spiritual.

Whaddaya think of that? I'm open to everyone's responses, although I am not looking for condemnations or dogma of any kind, please.

[17th Angel]

Two.

IF!! there was anything else, that would be classed as a freak.... And should be destroyed. And being a freak, it don't count.... Out of sight out of mind.

[flowperson]

Rainbow time ! Hi Pathless:

This has been discused here in some ways in the past. I have come to believe that science's explanations are the most workable.

While nature tends to separate all species into distinctly male and female attributes over time, we are really dealing with sliding scales of genotype (genetic composition) and phenotype (physical appearance) differences which always appear and disappear along a spectrum of possibilities over time. It is the interaction of the maleness and femalenes of the genetic content within a species which perpetuates that species and continues its longevity within the sphere of natural systems.

As far as we know we are the only species which has the ability to consciously and objectively differentiate and label categories in these processes. And this, I believe is the crux of understanding here. There is neither total male, or total female within the human family. We are all a blending of the two attributes. We obviously perceive ourselves to be one or the other, but that occurs so that we are more comfortable within our self images which leads to healthy functioning of physical, mental, and emotional attributes and behaviors.

But we all now live in times where the nature of our existence along that spectrum of genetic differentiation is becoming more blurred. We can see more, and this translates into our understanding more about the processes of life and its continuance, as far as the human species goes. Add to that the artificially generated chemical stew within which all life now exists, and the physical abilities of just this single situation to blur gender lines.

I believe that you can begin to see the resons for the gender conundrum that has become more of a public issue these last sixty years. Where this all may be headed can be demonstrated by the fact that males within several species of fish which live and breed off of the west coast of the U.S. are now making eggs, defintely a female trait.

As you point out, it has always been there in some form and degree in the past, and has even been recognized and categorized by some (native American tribes), but modern society has ratcheted the issue up to levels that might not be healthy for our self-images anymore.

I guess, like with everything else these days, we just have to wait and see.

flow....

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by flowperson

We obviously perceive ourselves to be one or the other, but that occurs so that we are more comfortable within our self images which leads to healthy functioning of physical, mental, and emotional attributes and behaviors.

Hey flow, thanks for the response. I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment above. Does fitting into the gender box always lead people to comfort and health? I'm not so sure!

Where this all may be headed can be demonstrated by the fact that males within several species of fish which live and breed off of the west coast of the U.S. are now making eggs, defintely a female trait.

Really?? That's cool! Hey can you point me towards some literature/websites/research about these biologically freaky fish?

As you point out, it has always been there in some form and degree in the past, and has even been recognized and categorized by some (native American tribes), but modern society has ratcheted the issue up to levels that might not be healthy for our self-images anymore.

Flow, could you expand on this more? What about the issue is ratched-up to health/self-image -threatening levels? Again, I think I may disagree with you, and am interested in hearing the reasons behind your opinion.

Thanks,
Pathless

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Two.

IF!! there was anything else, that would be classed as a freak.... And should be destroyed. And being a freak, it don't count.... Out of sight out of mind.

But 17th...

with your eyes and hair and careful grooming, you make such a cute girlish type...
(not to mention your new hamster fetish)

Pathless ducks in anticipation of teh oncoming thrown carr0t

Freak?? And you are one to talk, gore n horror boy??

Peace,
P-Nut

[flowperson]

Question:
Hey flow, thanks for the response. I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment above. Does fitting into the gender box always lead people to comfort and health? I'm not so sure!

Response:
You missed the point here I'm afraid. Perception is the real issue I believe. If we come to believe that we are female, we inherently believe that we should function in that manner. Likewise with the male thingy. Since the invention and mass proliferation of perception deception devices ( mass media, public relations spin machinery) confusion as opposed to certainty as to self image increasingly develops and reigns.

Hey... J. Edgar Hoover used to give holiday gifts of expensive oil portraits of himself to his pal Clyde Tolson that depicted Hoover as 17th and 18th century gender-non-specific people of fame. This is nothing new. Wherever our minds go, the rest of our being usually follows. The supreme dilemma of our age and the future is determining what is real and what is not. Think of what we have constructed and what is continuing to be built as a gigantic confusion machine.


Question:
Really?? That's cool! Hey can you point me towards some literature/websites/research about these biologically freaky fish?

Response: Here's a squib from the LA Times archives that addresses your question.



Start a New Search | Previous Results Buy Complete Document: Abstract Full Text Science File Oxygen-Deprived Waters May Be Turning Female Fish Into Males [HOME EDITION] Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles, Calif. Date: Apr 1, 2006 Start Page: A.14 Section: Main News; Part A; National Desk Text Word Count: 279 Abstract (Document Summary) The stress of hypoxia, or lack of oxygen, alters the genes that help make male and female sex hormones, said lead author Rudolf Wu, director of the Centre for Coastal Pollution and Conservation at the City University of Hong Kong.
"Since development of sex organs is modulated by sex hormones, hypoxia may therefore affect sex determination and development," Wu wrote in an e-mail interview. "Hypoxia covers a very large area worldwide; many areas and species may be affected in a similar way."




Question:
Flow, could you expand on this more? What about the issue is ratched-up to health/self-image -threatening levels? Again, I think I may disagree with you, and am interested in hearing the reasons behind your opinion.

Response:
The materials stated above should lead you to understanding what I meant.

Thanks for your response.

flow....

[dauer]

Hi flow,

Hey... J. Edgar Hoover used to give holiday gifts of expensive oil portraits of himself to his pal Clyde Tolson that depicted Hoover as 17th and 18th century gender-non-specific people of fame.

Do you know where I can find those images online? That sounds amusing.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by dauer

Hi flow,



Do you know where I can find those images online? That sounds amusing.

Hi Dauer:

Nope...I just ran into them whilst I was doing some research on Hoover and Tolson for something I'm working on. But the pic was something! If I happen across it again I'll be in touch.

Oh hey... soon as I posted the above I went back to work and found it when looking at Tolson stuff. Just scroll about two thirds of the way down and you'll see it.

Photos: J. Edgar Hoover

I looked on Amazon for the book title shown in the caption but couldn't find it. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist in the past. It's one of those things that can be made to disappear with time, huh ?

flow....

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Response:
You missed the point here I'm afraid. Perception is the real issue I believe. If we come to believe that we are female, we inherently believe that we should function in that manner. Likewise with the male thingy. Since the invention and mass proliferation of perception deception devices ( mass media, public relations spin machinery) confusion as opposed to certainty as to self image increasingly develops and reigns.

Well yes, we are all brainwashed, no argument there. Indeed, precisely my point--why must we conform to "male" and "female" stereotypes at all? Is the blurring of gender lines necesarrily a bad thing? If so, what is threatening about it?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by flowperson

The supreme dilemma of our age and the future is determining what is real and what is not. Think of what we have constructed and what is continuing to be built as a gigantic confusion machine.

A tangential question: if we are building and have built a "gigantic confusion machine," (a negative thing, sounds to me), should we just tear it all down? And what then?

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Well yes, we are all brainwashed, no argument there. Indeed, precisely my point--why must we conform to "male" and "female" stereotypes at all? Is the blurring of gender lines necesarrily a bad thing? If so, what is threatening about it?

It doesn't threaten me, but it certainly seems to threaten others. Unfortunately the threatened ones seem to own and run everything. Tearing it down is never an option because too many people depend upon the status quo for their livelihood. However, the history of civilization is that culture always adjusts itself to new realities over time. Let's hope it does so again on this stuff without open warfare.

Oh...and don't forget that if people can be confused and be made to give in to irrational fears, they can then be more easily controlled.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

The answer is that there are only two genders. There are a range of orientations, but only two genders. One can posess the hardware of either or both, but there's still only two.

As far as gender roles are concerned, that seems to be something that evolves out of social and cultural mores. Fortunately we are moving away from functionalism as a given in the sociological sciences. Freud has been thoroughly discredited, which is to say that Freud has been put in his proper place: the product of a particular European, Victorian milieu. In that sense Margaret Mead should also be seen as the product of immediate post-Freudian functionalism. Which, again, is merely to say that Mead should be read in cultural context. What exists as primitive role play should not necessarily be seen as "natural", or even desirable. After all, what role does the process of civilizational evolution play? We are not aborigines running around in our birthday suits.

Gender role stereotypes are still an immense tyranny, even in this "enlightened" age. The forces of entropy and conservatism constantly seek to drag us back into the past toward some sort of ill-defined pristine state that no one ever really experienced.

Chris

[Muslimwoman]

Have to go with Chris on this one. We are born with boy bits or girl bits and our physical bodies are designed for different functions, no matter what our minds do during our lives, we cannot escape that fact. Even young men that develop breasts, are born male but a medical condition causes a change in their body - they surely remain male due to the chromosomes they were born with, despite the medical condition?

Flow, why do you suggest the oil painting is not gender specific? He is simply painted in the fashion of men at the time. Wigs were worn because head lice were rampant so shaved heads were the norm. Heels and tights were the norm for men, whereas women wore long dresses. For me, he looks totally male, just in the fashion of a different age.

[flowperson]

Hi guys:

While I agree with you that we are all born with an either/or set of plumbing, my contention is that this is not a "for life" situation. And there are indiividuals born with mixed sets of plumbing. There are also men who know that they are women trapped in male bodies, and vice versa. It's what they believe so they act out alternative roles in their sexual lives.

And abra ca dabra , after WWII, medical techniques were developed that enabled plumbing alterations for each gender to satisfy their inner desires. Sadly for messers Tolson and Hoover, if all the suppositions are true, the only satisfactions that they could embrace was what had gone on for millenia before that, role playing and clothing fantasies. Of course most people in the gender dilemma do not go the surgical alteration route and choose to live their lives as they are.

So while yes, the genes and chromosomes are in place to usually place all people in either gender, the truth is that there are many shades of grey between the two. Whether or not the plumbing equipment fits the inner desires of the individuals is becoming more confusing with time. And that is happening, IMHO, because of what the media has been doing to and for us for sixty years now. I'm sorry, but my contention is that current situations in this area are more based upon mental and emotional conclusions as opposed to physical equipment issues.

And may I respectfully add that it's such a pleasure to discuss things like this with such intelligent people.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Let me ask a question: Having babies is a proprietary function of women. Men can't have babies. So we can say that having babies is a natural role for women. What is the natural role of men? Not functionally, as an aspect of social order or culture, but as a natural, biological function in comparison to women having babies? Isn't it true that the cultural, social roles assigned to women are a counter-function of men having to invent a role for themselves since they aren't needed for anything beyond being sperm donors? Aren't all gender roles pretty much defined by the roles men have assumed to justify their somewhat dubious claim to non-expendability? And if that's the case, do we have any real idea of what is "natural" in terms of gender roles?

Chris