• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gender Map

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
The problem I have with the new gender fad in culture and science, is science is not doing it's doing its job, unraveling the truth, but is pandering to this irrationality. If you look at human DNA, males and females differ by an entire chromosome; X=female and Y=male. The y-chromosome of the male contains 55 genes while the x-chromosome of females contains 900 genes. These genes are the baseline in terms of the main genetic potential for gender.

On the other hand, there is no genetic proof for any other gender definition, besides male and female, with 1% of those combined 1000 or so genes. Yet science is supporting the premise that somehow 1% or fewer genes has more genetic priority and potential, than the 99% genes found in conventional male and female chromosomes. This makes no sense and tells me that choice and will power has to be in play. Natural does not work that way, but willpower is a possible wildcard.

I tend to think the gender fad is a social engineering and free market decision, and not a science decision, since the basic genetic logic goes against this premise. The current trend appears to be to pander to the left, while creating long term problems, so business can offer solutions at a cost. Each cross dresser, is a potential pile of money, due to all the unnatural changes needed, for them to be called natural, by the marketing team. This new person with artificial additives will be even better than the old one with his 1000 natural genes for support.

It may come down to should be tell the child there is no gender Santa Claus. Or do we allow the child to linger in their fantasy, for as long a possible? I think one should be allowed to linger, but one should also be aware of the genetic disparity, so one is also aware that willpower plays a key role. It may be good will power exercise even if the goal is not what you may expect.

Say we have a child whose family; has no history of alcohol abuse. This teen boy gets in with the wrong crowd and become an alcoholic. Since there is not much in the way of genetic history, his alcoholism is not driven by genetics. It is driven by will power, choice and repetition, hanging with the crowd, until there is an addiction. He choses that crowd, he willfully lies and sneak out behind his parents back and drinks to he passes out. The final addiction can be traced to brain chemical secretions that have appeared within the brain, because of his willful behavior with alcohol. This can feel like an instinct, eventually, since the ego, cannot just shut it off like in the early days. However, it is really a subroutine connection to addiction that overlays another base instinct.

The drunk boy might wish to assume this is genetic, since the alcoholism drives him like an instinct. But this explanation can be disproven due to no genetic evidence of alcoholism in his family over many generations.

Instead, the obsession is connected to an addiction subroutine, based on a firmware template, that can be used by the ego with a variety of variables. One can insert food, drink, shoes, sex, power, drugs, gambling, risk taking, popularity, video gaming, etc., into the template, and through long term choice and repetition get an underlying obsession routine; lingering willpower. This subroutine layer can then appear to modify any number of natural foundation firmware; hunger, sex, thirst, self defense, etc., epigenetic changes.

Again, I am for freedom of choice and freedom of the pursuit of happiness. However, one has to be clear about how this works so one is not pursuing happiness and choice, while being totally irrational and unprepared. This will end in disappointment since it does not reflect how reality has to go. I am not against these fads, but I am against going into this fad with blinders on.

You seem to be confusing gender with sex.

Sex is based on your genitals.

Gender is all the added baggage socially added to sex. So the basic example is that boys like blue and girls like pink. Or men wear trousers and women wear dresses.

Sex has to do with genetics absolutely. Genetics can inform certain behaviours of a person but is not really related to genetics.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You seem to be confusing gender with sex.

Sex is based on your genitals.

Gender is all the added baggage socially added to sex. So the basic example is that boys like blue and girls like pink. Or men wear trousers and women wear dresses.

Sex has to do with genetics absolutely. Genetics can inform certain behaviours of a person but is not really related to genetics.

Wouldn't gender be deeper than that?

I don't care for dresses but I'm female (rather) both gender and sex. You have some men find it comfortable to wear women's undergarments because women's fabric is different then mens, but they'd consider themselves men regardless the clothing. I'd say a doctor wouldn't diagnose someone with dysphoria if that person was uncomfortable with the gender expression they are told to live despite identifying with both their sex and gender.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
How do you explain gender apart from gender expression and culture?

The jargan throws it off. When I think sex, I think chromosomes, breasts (etc), physiology, and mindset (make protector type of thing). When it comes to make and female.

Mindset of a female not assigned to ones sex is an incomplete statement. Call me ignorant but I kinda understand why people are confused but I'm not insofar to call people out on it.

Yeah, it is super confusing. I still don't fully understand the meaning of the word gender as that word ironically seems to be fluid in meaning. Gender is like the word theory. The same word is used differently by laymen and those in a specific field, which is just bad communication. I think they should have used a word other than gender to describe the concept.

The way I naturally understand the three categories is:

Sex = whether your body is male, female or intersex in any species

Gender = Man refers to a male human and woman refers to a female human. I don't think there is an intersex gender term in everyday language. Or maybe I am forgetting it.

Gender Roles = What it means to be a man, women or intersex in a society. This addresses gender expression and culture.

I suspect that proponents of the gender issue might be conflating gender roles and gender except when it comes to gender dysphoria. But I have also heard that there is a gender spectrum which I do not know much about.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Ok I'm clearly failing at the quote thing so I'll just do a speel in one go :).u see what interests me is why those norms are there and how they are perceived. For example pink was considered a very warlike colour pre world war two. But changed to a feminine colour. So pink was viewed in a very masculine way. So while the tradition of pink changed the male mentality did not. So I suppose I would divide it that way , traditions of the genders change over time but how they view themselves do not.
This makes a lot of sense. The male mentality remained the same, favoring colours that symbolise war, but the colour that symbolised war changed. So there is an underlying principle there in the male psyche. But then again, there might be men who do not like war and would rather favour the non warlike colour.

Again like I said you can come to general conclusions with a few outliers and from your map they seem mostly transgenders which a society gave a different status to have them fit into society unless I have missed a few (I very well could have).
I think that the whole issue in todays world is concerned with helping outliers to be socially accepted, because even though they aren't the majority, they are suffering because of the gender role issue. I agree.

I would say if a man identifies with more women traits and wants to be called a women then men he probably is transgender. (Although again not an expert). I would say though that you can have men that have alot of feminine traits and still consider themselves male.
I agree here. Also the man with feminine traits might not be seen as a true man by others, but that is because of societies preconceptions.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Wouldn't gender be deeper than that?

I don't care for dresses but I'm female (rather) both gender and sex. You have some men find it comfortable to wear women's undergarments because women's fabric is different then mens, but they'd consider themselves men regardless the clothing. I'd say a doctor wouldn't diagnose someone with dysphoria if that person was uncomfortable with the gender expression they are told to live despite identifying with both their sex and gender.

So today, women have crossed the gender line and can pretty much wear anything without getting judged. The man who wears lingerie though might see himself as a man but others in society might see him as an "abomination". Maybe man and woman are the only identification words he knows. If he creates another term for how he sees himself because he doesn't see himself as male or female, stepping into both sides, could he then use that?

I also think that a doctor takes into account a persons comfort level when it comes to determine whether they have gender dysphoria or not but I don't know enough to think that I know what actually happens.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I am not assuming a matriarchal society. I am just using natural social influence of sexuality. Males will adapt themselves to what females think are attractive. But this is just a theory but I think a pretty evidential one.

Even in a patriarchal society, women had influence in shaping men, considering they raised the children and could manipulate men through sexuality. In those societies in many cases women gained power through their sexuality whereas men gained power through dominance.

Or at least from what I have read and have seen.
True enough. But for a long time women were subjected at home. Bought or sold by their own father in dehumanising transactions. No doubt many men were shaped by their mothers. Or even by the abuse inflicted upon their own mother by their father. Though as happens many were also taught by that same abuse to dehumanise women, only using them as sex objects.

As a society we like to think ourselves beyond such behaviour. In many respects we are, but it still occurs.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
True enough. But for a long time women were subjected at home. Bought or sold by their own father in dehumanising transactions. No doubt many men were shaped by their mothers. Or even by the abuse inflicted upon their own mother by their father. Though as happens many were also taught by that same abuse to dehumanise women, only using them as sex objects.

As a society we like to think ourselves beyond such behaviour. In many respects we are, but it still occurs.

Agreed. You are revealing the nuance of the situation which is the point I am making.

The only difference between humans of today and the humans of yesteryear is when it comes to how we treat each other are how we sugarcoat the issues.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
There really isn't anything in between. Its either man or woman, no other option, at least not in reality.

Then explain the argument from the perspective of those presenting the argument. If you don't understand their argument then you shouldn't make such a black and white statement.

There are people who are hermaphrodites. That is already an objective inbetween.

And as the map shows, historically there are cultures that already have genders other than man and woman in their culture and language, showing that just having two genders is an arbitrary limit on the definitions.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Well... I really don't know.
I just think that women here want men to be romantic, caring...but dominant at the same time.
So...I guess it is that...:p
I may not be as worldly as you for all I know, but based on my limited samples I would argue that different people, man and woman, tend to often want different things. Sometimes, the same person may even want different things, depending on their mood, state of mind, or situation in life. For this reason, I tend to be careful not to overgeneralize, although like anybody, I do occasionally lapse into that sort of intellectual laziness when I'm not watching myself.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I am not assuming a matriarchal society. I am just using natural social influence of sexuality. Males will adapt themselves to what females think are attractive. But this is just a theory but I think a pretty evidential one.

Even in a patriarchal society, women had influence in shaping men, considering they raised the children and could manipulate men through sexuality. In those societies in many cases women gained power through their sexuality whereas men gained power through dominance.

Or at least from what I have read and have seen.
I personally doubt we can so neatly map highly irregular phenomena like sexual attraction so neatly to wide-ranging, complex and highly varied social systems such as patriarchy.

For one, you're missing a big chunk of people who are not attracted to the opposite sex here, yet still live under the rules of patriachial society. How is a lesbian to gain power through her sexuality? Why would gay men be driven by dominance to the same degree when they are not attracted to women?
And that's just the neat categories we're using here, ignoring even more complex issues such as the spectrum of bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and the question of gender roles and gender identity, which again do not map so neatly to biological attraction or even biological sex.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I personally doubt we can so neatly map highly irregular phenomena like sexual attraction so neatly to wide-ranging, complex and highly varied social systems such as patriarchy.

For one, you're missing a big chunk of people who are not attracted to the opposite sex here, yet still live under the rules of patriachial society. How is a lesbian to gain power through her sexuality? Why would gay men be driven by dominance to the same degree when they are not attracted to women?
And that's just the neat categories we're using here, ignoring even more complex issues such as the spectrum of bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, and the question of gender roles and gender identity, which again do not map so neatly to biological attraction or even biological sex.

Isn't sexual attraction different to the gender issue?

My point, which could very well be wrong, is that the majority of people in certain societies were heterosexual and thus the interplay between the sexes was what I mentioned, which shaped the idea of gender in these societies.

I know that there were a good amount of bisexual people in history. I do not know whether other complex sexual orientations actually existed in the past or are a recent development. But the ideas of the majority would shape society, not the minority.

The very idea of a patriarchy means that people of the past were viewing the world through a limited lense, that men had to be a certain way, and this would mean that the majority at least would have subscribed to the point that I was making.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Isn't sexual attraction different to the gender issue?
I've heard/read accounts of transgender people who found their sexual preferences change as they biologically transitioned to their gender of choice, so I'm guessing the answer depends on the individual, and is probably also very complicated, given the complex nature of sexual attraction.

My point, which could very well be wrong, is that the majority of people in certain societies were heterosexual and thus the interplay between the sexes was what I mentioned, which shaped the idea of gender in these societies.
"Heterosexual" is a very modern category that does not so neatly apply to ancient societies and their norms. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, did not consider male-on-male sex to be the hallmark of a different kind of sexuality than the norm, and in fact did not seem to recognise.

Our sexual norms and even our fundamental understanding of sexuality and sexual attraction arguably differs from these societies,and a not insignificant amount of historians tend to avoid projecting our modern categories of sexuality onto ancient peoples for that very reason.

I know that there were a good amount of bisexual people in history. I do not know whether other complex sexual orientations actually existed in the past or are a recent development. But the ideas of the majority would shape society, not the minority.
Again, we are talking in part about societies whose norms and understanding concerning sexuality, sexual attraction, and sexual mores were substantially different from our own.

The very idea of a patriarchy means that people of the past were viewing the world through a limited lense, that men had to be a certain way, and this would mean that the majority at least would have subscribed to the point that I was making.
As far as I can tell, your point is that heterosexual women determine male gender norms, correct?

I don't see why that's necessarily the case, given the outsized influence on social, cultural and political norms that (a minority of) men have wielded throughout history in most human societies.
 
Top