Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

That's my point. Gender and sex are inseparable but not the same. And there are differences in the human brain of females and males that are observable, e.g. mass of grey and white brain matter.

so with that being the case how do you know what causes those differences, the environmental/social or the biological? my point is that you can't know unless, as i mentioned, you control for social gender which is pretty much impossible.

 

 

no no. push the brakes. not impossible. unless there is no correlation to be found big/strong enough within a given cohort. if it's "impossible", it could also mean there's simply not anything meaningful happening which could relate social gender to the way white/gray matter is activated with individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When you say darr's argument is shallow, couldn't you also argue that your argument, the genders themselves are constructed, is equally shallow? (I completely agree with your point on causality, btw)

my point in that reply was that gender is a much encompassing and deeper thing than just roles and stuff. its construction wasn't an issue there.

 

And another point about controlling for social gender: to what extent would you have to control for social gender?

for example having a pimple in a particular area of your face in high school and being bullied for it can have a pretty devastating effect on your whole life. you can logically extend this to having a female and male body and its interaction with the social environment. so i can just as easily claim that the social can have a huge effect as well. that doesn't get us closer to separating the biological and the social effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you say darr's argument is shallow, couldn't you also argue that your argument, the genders themselves are constructed, is equally shallow? (I completely agree with your point on causality, btw)

my point in that reply was that gender is a much encompassing and deeper thing than just roles and stuff. its construction wasn't an issue there.

And another point about controlling for social gender: to what extent would you have to control for social gender?

for example having a pimple in a particular area of your face in high school and being bullied for it can have a pretty devastating effect on your whole life. you can logically extend this to having a female and male body and its interaction with the social environment. so i can just as easily claim that the social can have a huge effect as well. that doesn't get us closer to separating the biological and the social effect.
But it doesn't get us closer to denying the biological one by saying it's all constructed, either.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you say darr's argument is shallow, couldn't you also argue that your argument, the genders themselves are constructed, is equally shallow? (I completely agree with your point on causality, btw)

my point in that reply was that gender is a much encompassing and deeper thing than just roles and stuff. its construction wasn't an issue there.

 

And another point about controlling for social gender: to what extent would you have to control for social gender?

for example having a pimple in a particular area of your face in high school and being bullied for it can have a pretty devastating effect on your whole life. you can logically extend this to having a female and male body and its interaction with the social environment. so i can just as easily claim that the social can have a huge effect as well. that doesn't get us closer to separating the biological and the social effect.

 

 

Depends on what you're trying to prove. Or investigate. In the case of white/gray mass activity, you might see that biological sex is such a strong predictor that controlling for social predictors doesn't add anything useful. If you want to do research on peoples experience of gender it's going to be an entirely different beast of course. But then, I'd argue you should start with the question what you're trying to find and whether or not that will have any use. Especially when the biological side can be so strong. As it's basically easily measurable in terms of gray/white matter (the outcome) and chromosomes or testosterone (the predictors). 

 

Again, if you can explain >95% of the variation you see in practice with the biological markers, the social markers are bound to be statistical noise. And if this is the case, I really don't know, it has become close to implausible that social factors are even worth researching.

Edited by goDel
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When you say darr's argument is shallow, couldn't you also argue that your argument, the genders themselves are constructed, is equally shallow? (I completely agree with your point on causality, btw)

my point in that reply was that gender is a much encompassing and deeper thing than just roles and stuff. its construction wasn't an issue there.

And another point about controlling for social gender: to what extent would you have to control for social gender?

for example having a pimple in a particular area of your face in high school and being bullied for it can have a pretty devastating effect on your whole life. you can logically extend this to having a female and male body and its interaction with the social environment. so i can just as easily claim that the social can have a huge effect as well. that doesn't get us closer to separating the biological and the social effect.
But it doesn't get us closer to denying the biological one by saying it's all constructed, either.

 

it puts a serious burden of proof on the people claiming the existence of direct biological effects. social scientists do have it easy in a sense, they can simply take two identical twins, throw them into different social environments and see what happens. and you get a relatively clean (there's a whole complication in the form of environmental epigenetics) social effect, the reverse is obviously much more difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha

if that's how sociology works, i can simply stop believing any statement sociology is trying to make. two identical twins can't have any statistical significant results which could be generalised to the entire population. you're researching incidents. come on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

check your `tism bro, it was just a general example of controlling for the biological factors. the degree of generalization is irrelevant here, you can still know that biology had zero effect because it was completely controlled for.

Edited by eugene
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting posts, but want to push you back a bit on this. As it attempts to explain something as some malign conscious effort, which is, imo, mostly born from ignorance instead of a conscious effort. As most things people say or do are in a way self-beneficial in the sense that things we say tend to confirm our own realities. This is not a thing uniquely to cis straight men. And, imo, it really doesnt help anyone to give it a stamp like that.

Fact of the matter remains that the way transgender can be portrayed in culture can be ignorant and hold little relation to reality. But there's also a sense of irony. Especially when it comes to fiction. As fiction is essentially what it says it is: fiction. At which point we could enter a discussion where we might argue about what a world would look like with fiction respecting all kinds of perspectives people might have. And what that fiction would look like. But ultimately we have to accept that mainstream culture is a thing of the masses. And a reflection thereof. Whether we like it or not. Would I want a new and improved culture? Most definitely! Could we please get rid of this superhero culture? Yes please!

Addressing cis male dominance can be useful. And is def a thing to address. But saying "all these depictions are for the benefit of..." really destorts the issue we're trying to improve, imo. Or in others words, being a cis straight man, I don't see any benefit for me and my "compatriots" to begin with. Could be my prevelidged ignorance. But it's equally likely there's a more benign explanation. To say the least. And from where I'm standing, that looks like a better explanation, tbh.

 

That's the thing about the kyriarchy, though, I don't think it is a conscious effort, it's just what happens.  For the most part, no-one says things like "films should only be about straight white cis men", but they do say things like "oh, this film's about a lesbian couple?  Then probably only other lesbians will watch it, so that's a really small market to go after, so I'll pass.  Instead, let's remake this familiar franchise."  The effect is that instead of the first mainstream film with a lesbian protagonist coming out that year, the fiftieth one with a straight male protagonist comes out instead.  Literally no-one worries that a film about a straight white cis man won't appeal to black people, or women, or gay people, or trans people.  Straight white cis men's stories are called "universal" while everyone else's is called "niche".  And the people doing this aren't being actively malicious, they're trying to make rational decisions about the marketplace (and failing due to their own unacknowledged biases; we'll get to that).  This is depicted very well in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode Far Beyond the Stars.  Benny Russell's white male boss isn't trying to be evil.  He's employing a black man and a woman, after all.  But he's a realist, a pragmatist, and he's convinced the world isn't ready to accept stories written by and for women and minorities, so he insists his writers use pseudonyms, stay out of the publicity photographs, and write stories about white men.  It's a more insidious form of oppression to the obvious ones like Klansmen.  The people involved may well have good intentions, but the effect of their actions is still to oppress others.

 

The belief that only white men read and write sci-fi is re-enforced via lies, the other writers aren't acknowledged, the other readers aren't acknowledged, and as most of the general public believes this lie, everyone else, being subtly signalled to their whole lifetime that sci-fi "isn't for them", doesn't become a reader of the genre, let alone a writer.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, a vicious circle, a positive feedback loop with very negative consequences.  The same goes for women using computers until about 1984.  The same goes for electronic music, and music engineering, for instance, given the name of its other forums.

 

It's worth noting, of course, that managers' assumption that straight white cis men are the only people who buy movie tickets is false, and that films like Wonderwoman and Black Panther did well, so we're hopefully finally starting to see changes in this area.  With a huge backlash from certain white guys who are upset that a tiny percentage of superhero films suddenly aren't catering to them.  Because the thing about everyone pandering to you is, when they stop doing that for even a fraction of the time, in your biased viewpoint, it looks like they're now pandering to someone else when it's just a tiny step closer to equalisation.  It's bizarre watching the people who insisted that the marketplace decide whose stories get told (that just happened to be exclusively theirs), and that everyone else should accept that those stories are universal and their race and sex didn't matter, are now complaining that a handful of stories aren't about them.  Because they see themselves as default and universal and relatable, and everyone else as Other and different and unrelatable.

 

Here's an interesting fact: on average, only 17% of people in crowd scenes in films are women, yet the audience perceives it as 50%.  Did you notice?  I didn't.  That's how insidious it is.

 

I think that it's important to have fictional characters to relate to and look up to, role models, who look like you, who aren't serial killers or punchlines or victims.  Especially when you're a child figuring out your place in the world, and who you can grow up to be.

 

What I'm getting at here, is that if Idris Elba played James Bond, I might actually watch a James Bond film.  The new Star Wars films are the best yet.  Their characters are actually relatable.  (Whether that's "objectively true" or my personal bias, I'll let you work out for yourself; I'm sure you'll have no trouble detecting bias in other people.)

 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your viewpoint is unbiased because you see yourself as the default without even realising it.  "I don't even have a sexuality, I'm straight!"  Or that other classic, "I don't have an accent."

 

Anyway, I'd best get back to writing this module's firmware, or perhaps this track I'm working on...  It's a real good 'un this month...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always seems odd to me that cis people fixate on surgery rather than hormones.  You do realise that hormones give you facial hair, breasts, sex-specific body odour, baldness, all those things, right?  Like, trans men don't have an operation to remove their hair.  Surgery's just about the least important thing after switching hormones.  They even affect how you think, and being on the wrong ones is really bad for your brain.

 

As far as the way your brain's wired and how you can't change that, yes, which is what being trans is, when your brain's already the opposite sex from the rest of your body.  I could cite a whole bunch of white papers you wouldn't read, but instead, I'll recommend a good talk by Veronica Drantz that you can watch over lunch, or a snippet of a Robert Sapolsky lecture.  Both are good starting points, and easier to digest.

 

 

 

(I'm not sure if that timecode gets missed with the embedding; the relevant bit starts at 1 hour 23 mins 52 seconds, but the whole lecture's interesting.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

O, I'm certainly not unbiased. And didn't think I was pretending to be either. Bias is a human condition. Can't escape it. Also counts for transgenders. Not trying to stab you. Just a sober observation if you will. We're all biased snowflakes and all that.

 

I think you're making a lot of assumptions. Even in your earlier post where you mentioned lesbians are more common in media than gays. (because cis male and all that). That still surprises me actually.

 

Don't know the statistics, so I might be wrong. Or biased if you will. But gay men in media, from my experience, are way more present than lesbians. Hell, a sit-com without a couple of gay men is a rare thing nowadays. You could make a comment about the way gay men are portrayed and all that. But regardless of that, I can hardly think of any lesbians in the media. Well, in the sense of being explicitly lesbian. There are a number of female actors who have come out of the closet. But that's another matter. Statistically speaking though, I find it hard to believe lesbians roles in media are more prevalent than gay roles. It's rather the opposite, imo. 

 

Same holds for the thing about women and computers. Although it might indeed be the case that computers were marketed towards men from 1984 onwards, I find it hard to believe that it was marketing discouraging the women who earlier on even dominated computer science. (not sure if they dominated, but that's irrelevant, imo. fact is they were way more present than later. which i can totally get on board with) It might be that from 1984 onwards, the men crowded out the women. And additionally to that, that the field of computer science became a bit, how shall i say it, too socially awkward for women to feel safe in studying it. Might be. Don't know. But there's more to it than that. Because, since 1984, it's certainly not the case women became less active in work. It's the other way around. So what has happened there? And might that relate to that 1984-effect? Could be. You could argue, for instance, that from 1984 onwards, women got to do more work which was more in line with the work which they want to do than previously. Don't know. But could be, right?

 

And this is exactly what is so difficult about this subject. Or as you basically say, it's pretty easy to fall in the trap of believing your own biases/perceptions. It is easy. It simply is.

 

Another thing about 17% being perceived as 50%. I'm not sure what that means. I mean, does it mean that people tend to focus on women and therefore believe to see more in a crowd than there actually are? They stand out better in a crowd, if you will?

 

As a transgender, I'm sure you've experienced walking down the street as a man going about completely unnoticed. And now as a woman, being noticed more often. (i read a book written by a crossdresser describing this effect, btw) The thing a struggle with in discussions such as these, is that people can put any interpretation on this as proof for their own beliefs. You could argue that women are more targets of harassment. Which almost seem to imply that any form of attention is an harassment. But at the same time it completely sidesteps the opposite. Namely, that the man-experience is that you're almost invisible. (and that might be a good thing, because if you're not invisible, you might be perceived as a threat. you could ask the black lives matter movement about this one.)

It's the interpretation of stuff like this, which in my eyes tend to be problematic and biased. It's rarely objective. And almost always tend to carry some political/ideological agenda. Which of itself doesn't have to be a bad thing. Politics is a necessity. But not if it presents itself as objective or unbiased. Because it isn't. By definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a transgender, I'm sure you've experienced walking down the street as a man going about completely unnoticed. And now as a woman, being noticed more often. (i read a book written by a crossdresser describing this effect, btw) The thing a struggle with in discussions such as these, is that people can put any interpretation on this as proof for their own beliefs. You could argue that women are more targets of harassment. Which almost seem to imply that any form of attention is an harassment. But at the same time it completely sidesteps the opposite. Namely, that the man-experience is that you're almost invisible. (and that might be a good thing, because if you're not invisible, you might be perceived as a threat. you could ask the black lives matter movement about this one.)

It's the interpretation of stuff like this, which in my eyes tend to be problematic and biased. It's rarely objective. And almost always tend to carry some political/ideological agenda. Which of itself doesn't have to be a bad thing. Politics is a necessity. But not if it presents itself as objective or unbiased. Because it isn't. By definition.

This is great, thanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

check your `tism bro, it was just a general example of controlling for the biological factors. the degree of generalization is irrelevant here, you can still know that biology had zero effect because it was completely controlled for.

 

or i don't understand you. or my tism is not your tism. or sociology is simply upside down science. (also, thanks for the tism diagnosis bro.)

 

could you help me with the following example. let's say you doing research in cancer treatment. and we're doing it the "sociology"-way. as far as i understand here, obviously. (that's whats the example for. to find out what the hell you're trying to argue here) so we have found twins with the exact same cancer. and all other conditions, from the sociological point of view, are also equal. or corrected, if you will. and one of the twins gets the new treatment and the other the standard treatment. The outcome of this research is that one of the twin dies and the other survives for at least 12 months. (if you prefer the disney example: she magically cured) Given your sociological method, would you consider this as proof that one treatment works better than the other? Even if all possible predictors are equal. Treatment is blind (don't ask how, just assume it is). But the outcome of the treatments is obviously different. Would you consider this proof of effectiveness? Strong proof?

 

Help me out here, please. Because my tism is triggered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always seems odd to me that cis people fixate on surgery rather than hormones. You do realise that hormones give you facial hair, breasts, sex-specific body odour, baldness, all those things, right? Like, trans men don't have an operation to remove their hair. Surgery's just about the least important thing after switching hormones. They even affect how you think, and being on the wrong ones is really bad for your brain.

 

But even with estrogenes your brain won't be that of a woman if you were a man before that wants to be a woman. Because there are structural differences that can't be affected by hormones. You can get close though
Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument about physical differences is so boring, there are trans people, there have been forever, they should be free to be themselves. Nitpicking the differences... I mean what is the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darreichs what's your fixation on the brain? There are differences, yes, but there's some suggestion that they are at least partly due to hormones (not seen anything suggesting long term hormone therapy can alter an adult brain tho)...and the similarities between the female and male brains are obviously FAR greater than any slight differences that come up when studying.

This argument about physical differences is so boring, there are trans people, there have been forever, they should be free to be themselves. Nitpicking the differences... I mean what is the point?

Yes this too of course.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

check your `tism bro, it was just a general example of controlling for the biological factors. the degree of generalization is irrelevant here, you can still know that biology had zero effect because it was completely controlled for.

 

or i don't understand you. or my tism is not your tism. or sociology is simply upside down science. (also, thanks for the tism diagnosis bro.)

 

could you help me with the following example. let's say you doing research in cancer treatment. and we're doing it the "sociology"-way. as far as i understand here, obviously. (that's whats the example for. to find out what the hell you're trying to argue here) so we have found twins with the exact same cancer. and all other conditions, from the sociological point of view, are also equal. or corrected, if you will. and one of the twins gets the new treatment and the other the standard treatment. The outcome of this research is that one of the twin dies and the other survives for at least 12 months. (if you prefer the disney example: she magically cured) Given your sociological method, would you consider this as proof that one treatment works better than the other? Even if all possible predictors are equal. Treatment is blind (don't ask how, just assume it is). But the outcome of the treatments is obviously different. Would you consider this proof of effectiveness? Strong proof?

 

Help me out here, please. Because my tism is triggered.

 

i don't understand where are you going with this, and it has nothing to do with sociology and its methods. 

logically if you control for ALL possible factors and only change one then the outcome is the result of that change. but that's pretty much impossible to do and not really your example anyway because if i nitpick i can allege that the treatments themselves might work differently, one may work properly if admitted on sunday and the other one only works if admitted on monday or whatever.

Edited by eugene
Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument about physical differences is so boring, there are trans people, there have been forever, they should be free to be themselves. Nitpicking the differences... I mean what is the point?

Nobody in this thread is questioning that they should be free to themselves. Point got lost long ago but that's how discussions often go. Nothing wrong with that

 

Darreichs what's your fixation on the brain? There are differences, yes, but there's some suggestion that they are at least partly due to hormones (not seen anything suggesting long term hormone therapy can alter an adult brain tho)...and the similarities between the female and male brains are obviously FAR greater than any slight differences that come up when studying.

 

I was talking about brain as an example for differences between men and women as an answer to someone saying other than reproductive organs trans women and natural women are the same which isn't exact. Even after hormones and surgeries and what not a man can't be transitioned into a woman and vice versa, biologically spoken. Which must suck if you want to be the opposite biological gender, so my condolences there. As for social gender there aren't only two, are there? At least a lot of sociologists think that. So why even talk about male and female when talking about social gender? Edited by darreichungsform
Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: @ eugene:

the point was, if you control everything besides the outcome. even if you can control for all possible/knowable factors, and there's a clinically significant difference in outcome, and use the methodology you presented (research on a pair of twins), your results won't be statistically significant such that it proves anything. simply because of coincidence. you can't prove the effectiveness of a treatment on a pair of twins. not even in theory. or logically.

 

coincidence is essentially the reason why this research-on-twins-method you presented doesn't prove anything. it just doesn't. it's up-side-down science. it pretends to be science. but if it truly is what i understand from you, it's simply bogus. 

 

also, you need volume to control for all possible factors. and the more factors you want to control for, the more observations you'll need (or twins, in your example). Even if you use twins. You just can not say: well, i used twins, so I covered this set of factors and now I can study a pair of twins and prove this or that hypothesis. A pair of twins is not a valid way to control any factor at all. 

 

Again though, I'm not sure whether this was your argument. But it still looks to me that way. So you're either arguing something completely different and I'm a tistic idiot and all that. Or you need to do a better job at explaining what you're trying to argue.

Edited by goDel
Link to post
Share on other sites

@godel

if you're controlling for everything, like really totally everything (hypothetical and unrealistic), then there's no room for coincidence. statistical significance becomes irrelevant. anyway, i was only saying that controlling for biological factors is way easier than controlling for social ones, your `tism took it somewhere else.

 

 

for you darreichungsform:

https://qz.com/1057494/the-biggest-myth-about-our-brains-is-that-theyre-male-or-female/

Link to post
Share on other sites

@godel

if you're controlling for everything, like really totally everything (hypothetical and unrealistic), then there's no room for coincidence. statistical significance becomes irrelevant. anyway, i was only saying that controlling for biological factors is way easier than controlling for social ones, your `tism took it somewhere else.

 

 

for you darreichungsform:

https://qz.com/1057494/the-biggest-myth-about-our-brains-is-that-theyre-male-or-female/

 

 

and my tism was triggered by these remakrs of yours:

 

 

it puts a serious burden of proof on the people claiming the existence of direct biological effects. social scientists do have it easy in a sense, they can simply take two identical twins, throw them into different social environments and see what happens. and you get a relatively clean (there's a whole complication in the form of environmental epigenetics) social effect, the reverse is obviously much more difficult.

 

which in my eyes says something totally opposite - namely that social scientists have it easy - than what you're currently saying - controlling for biological factors is easier than controlling sociological ones. long live my tisms and all that.

 

also, that point wasn't particularly relevant to the one i was making (when your outcome can be explained >95% by biological markers you don't need to bother controlling social factors) but whatever.

 

can we please have bobbie martin back? i feel like a cheated customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

also, that point wasn't particularly relevant to the one i was making (when your outcome can be explained >95% by biological markers you don't need to bother controlling social factors) but whatever.

 

it's beginning to go in circles, the point is is that you you don't know what that variance is really explained by because you can't disentangle the two. your biological sex variable can be highly correlated with social experience of gender. that neuro lady from the article mentions the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...