Well, in an effort to keep some of the topics in this guild to debate more than just labels and suchlike, here's something that's bound to cause some fun: How one little chomosone change has caused such a big hoo-ha.
But, in all actuality, are most of the differences genetic, or socially constructed?
Sure, there are the (obvious) physical differeneces, but are the psychological, and emotional differeneces more made than born?
Of course, to test this you would need to subject a load of people to such an ethically challenging experiment it probably won't be conducted.
Anyone that has a sibling of the opposite gender knows precisely how differnetly girls and boys are treated as they're growing up - little girls are dressed in pink and given dollies to mother, little boys are dressed in blue and given little men to destroy. So, how much of this come naturally to the child, and how much has the child learned to behave?
The pink and blue was chosen for the children, and by the time they can choose what they want to wear they will most likely stick to those colours because it's a "girl's" or "boy's" colour. But what about the toys? Will a girl automatically play mummy to a doll and a boy automatically rip it's head off and damce around the ripped carcuss?
From personal experience, I ripped my dolls apart (I rebelled even at 4... sweatdrop ), and I knew boys that looked after dollies. But, these are just exceptions, more common nowadays, but children that deviate from the social norms are usually taught to stop this, either by being told to, or by being ridiculed.
For example, a girl that doesn't adhere to her socially defined place is called a "tom boy" - Victorian slang for a lesbian.
A boy that deviates, is called a pansy, cissy, mother's boy.
This is changing, but not universally or to a great degree. Girls now can wear blue, but boys still 'can't' wear pink, and as for toys and behaviour, that still hasn't changed to a great degree. So how can we truly tell if it's socail or biological differneces?
Hm, fast forward fifteen or so years to when those five year olds with their designated colours and toys are now adults in their own rights, out and about and dating. And most likely messing things up through misinterpretting signals.
By this age the differences between men and women are quite deep-rooted. For example, women are quite open about expressing feelings and emotions. Men for the large part have problems comunicating this (and are seen as 'weak' if they do). Men are typically more confident in themselves and in voicing their opinions than women.
So, are these differences genetic/biological, or social? I believe that this is more a social construct than anything genuinely biological. Why? Well, women and girls are encouraged more than men to talk about how they feel, it is more acceptable to let loose emotions. If a woman cries, she is hugged and comforted by her friends, if a guy cries, his friends will most likely get very, very uncomfortable (there are exceptions to this, I know, I'm going with the concensus here folks).
Men and boys are usually supported more in building confidence as well, they know that they are right and will always be right, but women and girls are usally put down if they are wrong (and sometimes even right! almost any female can tell you an incedent of where a guy has bitten her head off for being right when he was wrong, even if they were completely gracious in it. Most commonly occuring during DIY and flat-pack building), and so learn to keep quiet to avoid being ridiculed.
So, that was a (brief) overview of the social construct argument, what about genetic/biological?
I will admit a bias towards the sociology side of this debate, but there have been a couple case studies of boys dressed as girls by their mothers, one was even told he was a girl until his was 6. Now, if gender is a social construct, both of these children would suffer no halm whatsoever yes? Well, the children were Howard Phillips Lovecraft (H.P. Lovecraft) a prominent 20th centry gothic writer - but his life was not what you could ever call normal. Ther other was Edward Gein, a mass muderer of women - that mutilated his victim's bodies, (even crating a belt made of nipples).
It could be argued that the children reacted badly becasue they realised they weren't being raised in the way their should be in defination to their gender. They knew they weren't socially normal, and so reacted to this.
But what about a child that what physically female, that was actually male? Well, due to a circumscision gone wrong, that did actually happen. A young boy had his gender changed and raised as a girl. This has been discussed on this guild before actually. In the end of the child's tale, he never fully adjusted to life as a girl, and committed suicide.
What about transgendered people? (not the same as hermaphroditism, this is where a girl is born as a boy or vice verca), how can that be socially constructed? What if someone knows deep down that they are male, but they have a female body? With the social stigma attached with this, it can't be a desision made, it's biological, surely.
So, feel free to discuss anything mentioned above, and also have fun explaining your gender to the oposite one. ^^ It's amazing how many crossed wires occur each and every day between men and women xd
**hm, that wandered a bit.....but I was tired when I wrote it... ^^;**
But, in all actuality, are most of the differences genetic, or socially constructed?
Sure, there are the (obvious) physical differeneces, but are the psychological, and emotional differeneces more made than born?
Of course, to test this you would need to subject a load of people to such an ethically challenging experiment it probably won't be conducted.
Anyone that has a sibling of the opposite gender knows precisely how differnetly girls and boys are treated as they're growing up - little girls are dressed in pink and given dollies to mother, little boys are dressed in blue and given little men to destroy. So, how much of this come naturally to the child, and how much has the child learned to behave?
The pink and blue was chosen for the children, and by the time they can choose what they want to wear they will most likely stick to those colours because it's a "girl's" or "boy's" colour. But what about the toys? Will a girl automatically play mummy to a doll and a boy automatically rip it's head off and damce around the ripped carcuss?
From personal experience, I ripped my dolls apart (I rebelled even at 4... sweatdrop ), and I knew boys that looked after dollies. But, these are just exceptions, more common nowadays, but children that deviate from the social norms are usually taught to stop this, either by being told to, or by being ridiculed.
For example, a girl that doesn't adhere to her socially defined place is called a "tom boy" - Victorian slang for a lesbian.
A boy that deviates, is called a pansy, cissy, mother's boy.
This is changing, but not universally or to a great degree. Girls now can wear blue, but boys still 'can't' wear pink, and as for toys and behaviour, that still hasn't changed to a great degree. So how can we truly tell if it's socail or biological differneces?
Hm, fast forward fifteen or so years to when those five year olds with their designated colours and toys are now adults in their own rights, out and about and dating. And most likely messing things up through misinterpretting signals.
By this age the differences between men and women are quite deep-rooted. For example, women are quite open about expressing feelings and emotions. Men for the large part have problems comunicating this (and are seen as 'weak' if they do). Men are typically more confident in themselves and in voicing their opinions than women.
So, are these differences genetic/biological, or social? I believe that this is more a social construct than anything genuinely biological. Why? Well, women and girls are encouraged more than men to talk about how they feel, it is more acceptable to let loose emotions. If a woman cries, she is hugged and comforted by her friends, if a guy cries, his friends will most likely get very, very uncomfortable (there are exceptions to this, I know, I'm going with the concensus here folks).
Men and boys are usually supported more in building confidence as well, they know that they are right and will always be right, but women and girls are usally put down if they are wrong (and sometimes even right! almost any female can tell you an incedent of where a guy has bitten her head off for being right when he was wrong, even if they were completely gracious in it. Most commonly occuring during DIY and flat-pack building), and so learn to keep quiet to avoid being ridiculed.
So, that was a (brief) overview of the social construct argument, what about genetic/biological?
I will admit a bias towards the sociology side of this debate, but there have been a couple case studies of boys dressed as girls by their mothers, one was even told he was a girl until his was 6. Now, if gender is a social construct, both of these children would suffer no halm whatsoever yes? Well, the children were Howard Phillips Lovecraft (H.P. Lovecraft) a prominent 20th centry gothic writer - but his life was not what you could ever call normal. Ther other was Edward Gein, a mass muderer of women - that mutilated his victim's bodies, (even crating a belt made of nipples).
It could be argued that the children reacted badly becasue they realised they weren't being raised in the way their should be in defination to their gender. They knew they weren't socially normal, and so reacted to this.
But what about a child that what physically female, that was actually male? Well, due to a circumscision gone wrong, that did actually happen. A young boy had his gender changed and raised as a girl. This has been discussed on this guild before actually. In the end of the child's tale, he never fully adjusted to life as a girl, and committed suicide.
What about transgendered people? (not the same as hermaphroditism, this is where a girl is born as a boy or vice verca), how can that be socially constructed? What if someone knows deep down that they are male, but they have a female body? With the social stigma attached with this, it can't be a desision made, it's biological, surely.
So, feel free to discuss anything mentioned above, and also have fun explaining your gender to the oposite one. ^^ It's amazing how many crossed wires occur each and every day between men and women xd
**hm, that wandered a bit.....but I was tired when I wrote it... ^^;**
