• 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
Researching gender because I am still figuring out the whole topic. It seems difficult for people to comprehend as we tend to conflate sex with gender roles we socially place on sex. Ironically, I have been questioning gender roles since childhood, such as why must boys like blue and girls like pink, so I don't know why I struggled to figure the whole thing out. Probably because I wasn't listening to the scholarship behind the topic, but conservatives who react to the topic, such as Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder who don't understand the issue themselves. Also the crazy libs who propagate the topic but don't understand it themselves are also the problem, as they become the examples of how crazy the libs are in the eyes of non libs.

Anyway, below is a gender map I found:

Interactive Map: Gender-Diverse Cultures
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
It is a map that focuses on the notion of masculinity/virility in several Nations.

In my country, a Nation with a still strong Mediterranean culture, there is a gynocentric vision of masculinity.
That is, a man is masculine if he likes women. Particularly beautiful and classy women.

This is a very homophobic and sexist vision of masculinity...I know...and I do condemn it.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I was never big into most things “traditional” for my gender.
But in saying that, my father was surprisingly fluid in his ideals of masculinity and femininity (specifically how he raised me. He was very traditionally minded otherwise.)
So I just lived like me. I suppose from a nuclear traditional standpoint I’m into “both.” Which I think is accurate for a lot of people. Girls don’t always like pink. Some guys happen to enjoy ballet.
I hope our society reaches a point where people can just be people
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
It is a map that focuses on the notion of masculinity/virility in several Nations.

In my country, a Nation with a still strong Mediterranean culture, there is a gynocentric vision of masculinity.
That is, a man is masculine if he likes women. Particularly beautiful and classy women.

This is a very homophobic and sexist vision of masculinity...I know...and I do condemn it.

How do you think that that idea of masculinity came about?
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
Researching gender because I am still figuring out the whole topic. It seems difficult for people to comprehend as we tend to conflate sex with gender roles we socially place on sex. Ironically, I have been questioning gender roles since childhood, such as why must boys like blue and girls like pink, so I don't know why I struggled to figure the whole thing out. Probably because I wasn't listening to the scholarship behind the topic, but conservatives who react to the topic, such as Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder who don't understand the issue themselves. Also the crazy libs who propagate the topic but don't understand it themselves are also the problem, as they become the examples of how crazy the libs are in the eyes of non libs.

Anyway, below is a gender map I found:

Interactive Map: Gender-Diverse Cultures

Now I haven't read all of them but can all these customs be what we consider transgender today?

I think there is at least some impact on the gender from the biological sex. For example men have more testosterone so have a tendancy to be more agressive.

I always assumed that transgenderism happens because of a mix of different hormones in the body gave a biological male a female brain and vice versa.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I was never big into most things “traditional” for my gender.
But in saying that, my father was surprisingly fluid in his ideals of masculinity and femininity (specifically how he raised me. He was very traditionally minded otherwise.)
So I just lived like me. I suppose from a nuclear traditional standpoint I’m into “both.” Which I think is accurate for a lot of people. Girls don’t always like pink. Some guys happen to enjoy ballet.
I hope our society reaches a point where people can just be people

I think that people already don't hold to traditional standards for the most part, unless they are fundamentalist or something like that. I think the way that it is communicated is the problem. I have found that it is the terms being used rather than the actual concept of gender fluidity itself that is the issue. Those who are anti gender fluidity tend to say that there are only two genders when in fact what they are referring to are the sexes. If we get people in a group and we ask people what it means to be a man or a woman then we would get very fluid responses.

If the gender topic is marketed the right way and people are taught about it in the right way then the majority of people would accept the concept.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Now I haven't read all of them but can all these customs be what we consider transgender today?
I think to an extent yes. I think that what we call transgender today is in the context of current Western societies having such a binary gender classification. It could be that our transgender people could just be seen as man/woman/effeminate man etc, in certain cultures. To me the term transgender seems to be relative to the society that one lives in.

I think there is at least some impact on the gender from the biological sex. For example men have more testosterone so have a tendancy to be more agressive.

I always assumed that transgenderism happens because of a mix of different hormones in the body gave a biological male a female brain and vice versa.
Gender is a social construct. It is true that males (sex) have a tendency to be aggressive. But what it means to be a man, which is independent of sex unless we place the determining factor on sex, is pretty subjective, because both males and females have aggressive tendencies, with some females even being more aggressive than males, so based on those characteristics could even females be classed as men? Gender identification then becomes very tricky unless society forces social gender norms on people whether they like it or not.
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
I think to an extent yes. I think that what we call transgender today is in the context of current Western societies having such a binary gender classification. It could be that our transgender people could just be seen as man/woman/effeminate man etc, in certain cultures. To me the term transgender seems to be relative to the society that one lives in.

It just seems to be informing the binary though doesn't it? I mean they are switching between the two it seems to me. Also it seems to happen even on your map, very rarely they can be that the general hard and fast rule is there is a binary with a few exceptions couldn't there?

[/QUOTE]Gender is a social construct. It is true that males (sex) have a tendency to be aggressive. But what it means to be a man, which is independent of sex unless we place the determining factor on sex, is pretty subjective, because both males and females have aggressive tendencies, with some females even being more aggressive than males, so based on those characteristics could even females be classed as men? Gender identification then becomes very tricky unless society forces social gender norms on people whether they like it or not.[/QUOTE]
I would say that there are male and female traits. Males typically have more male traits than females do and vice versa. I mean even when 2 genders were anything people understood that there was nuance to it. I mean not every male was a super buff hyperly aggressive jock and they weren't expected to be. I mean we have a thing called "Tom boy" which is an acknowledgement of this.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
By men, I presume :shrug:

But why though? I also think that women had a big part to play in the cultural evolution of gender terms, especially when we throw in the influence of what type of males they are attracted to. If they are attracted to a certain type of man, the idea would be that the way to get a woman is to be that type of man, and that becomes what it means to be a man.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
It just seems to be informing the binary though doesn't it? I mean they are switching between the two it seems to me. Also it seems to happen even on your map, very rarely they can be that the general hard and fast rule is there is a binary with a few exceptions couldn't there?
I agree to a certain extent. I also think that it is informed by what the majority of the opposite sex is attracted to. The issue with gender, I think, is more the added stuff that is not informing the binary through sex, but through culture. So for instance, the idea that real men wear trousers and real women wear dresses in some cultures, whereas in other cultures men wearing dresses are the norm. Or that real men are overly aggressive and sensitive men are frowned upon. Or that real men play sports and males who do ballet are not real men.

Then there is the case of why even use the definitions at all unless man just means male human and woman means female human. What is the point?


I would say that there are male and female traits. Males typically have more male traits than females do and vice versa. I mean even when 2 genders were anything people understood that there was nuance to it. I mean not every male was a super buff hyperly aggressive jock and they weren't expected to be. I mean we have a thing called "Tom boy" which is an acknowledgement of this.
I agree with the male and female traits. But, as can be seen by the map, why do some cultures have more than two genders whereas we only have 2? Why are some of those non binary genders held in high esteem whereas traditionally in the West and Middle East etc, they are not?

Also, gender has a lot to do with how one feels about themselves as well. If a male identifies more with what the culture calls a woman and acts more like a woman than a man, why can't he call himself a woman?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
But why though? I also think that women had a big part to play in the cultural evolution of gender terms, especially when we throw in the influence of what type of males they are attracted to. If they are attracted to a certain type of man, the idea would be that the way to get a woman is to be that type of man, and that becomes what it means to be a man.
You presume a matriarchal society took place. Whilst such cultures did exist in human history, they are sparse. So it would be more reasonable to assume that men at the tops (not all men) had a hand in shaping such a model
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
You presume a matriarchal society took place. Whilst such cultures did exist in human history, they are sparse. So it would be more reasonable to assume that men at the tops (not all men) had a hand in shaping such a model

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.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
To broadly address the question of why and how gender (social construct) was invented, it works like any other social construct - the stories grow in the telling, and are believed in the more they are told and put into practice behaviorally. In many cases, social constructs are also a form of social control, establishing acceptable and unacceptable narratives and behaviors. This sort of thing is only relevant in social animals, and persists as long as the stories told remain good enough to keep a society viable. I mean viable in a biological sense - a population of individuals interbreeding successfully to maintain itself over time. Social controls don't have to be optimal, fair, or moral; they just have to be decent enough to maintain viability.

For social constructs that are potentially very old - predating written language - there is really no way to know the specifics of why and how the construct was invented. Ultimately, I'm not sure this question matters. The question that matters is: do these narratives continue to serve contemporary needs and for whom?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Researching gender because I am still figuring out the whole topic. It seems difficult for people to comprehend as we tend to conflate sex with gender roles we socially place on sex. Ironically, I have been questioning gender roles since childhood, such as why must boys like blue and girls like pink, so I don't know why I struggled to figure the whole thing out. Probably because I wasn't listening to the scholarship behind the topic, but conservatives who react to the topic, such as Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder who don't understand the issue themselves. Also the crazy libs who propagate the topic but don't understand it themselves are also the problem, as they become the examples of how crazy the libs are in the eyes of non libs.

Anyway, below is a gender map I found:

Interactive Map: Gender-Diverse Cultures

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.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
To broadly address the question of why and how gender (social construct) was invented, it works like any other social construct - the stories grow in the telling, and are believed in the more they are told and put into practice behaviorally. In many cases, social constructs are also a form of social control, establishing acceptable and unacceptable narratives and behaviors. This sort of thing is only relevant in social animals, and persists as long as the stories told remain good enough to keep a society viable. I mean viable in a biological sense - a population of individuals interbreeding successfully to maintain itself over time. Social controls don't have to be optimal, fair, or moral; they just have to be decent enough to maintain viability.

For social constructs that are potentially very old - predating written language - there is really no way to know the specifics of why and how the construct was invented. Ultimately, I'm not sure this question matters. The question that matters is: do these narratives continue to serve contemporary needs and for whom?

This makes sense.

So if I understand you correctly, it could be the case that the gender constructs in the past used to serve the biological purpose and social growth? Such as in a society where the population is few, to be a man is to mate with a beautiful woman.

In the modern society then, that is no longer valid, because societies have grown and can be sustained without the gender roles.

Would gender roles then still make sense from a tribalistic point?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I think that people already don't hold to traditional standards for the most part, unless they are fundamentalist or something like that. I think the way that it is communicated is the problem. I have found that it is the terms being used rather than the actual concept of gender fluidity itself that is the issue. Those who are anti gender fluidity tend to say that there are only two genders when in fact what they are referring to are the sexes. If we get people in a group and we ask people what it means to be a man or a woman then we would get very fluid responses.

If the gender topic is marketed the right way and people are taught about it in the right way then the majority of people would accept the concept.

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

The jargon throws it off. When I think sex, I think chromosomes, breasts (etc), physiology, and mindset (make protector type of thing). When it comes to male 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.
 
Last edited:

tarasan

Well-Known Member
I agree to a certain extent. I also think that it is informed by what the majority of the opposite sex is attracted to. The issue with gender, I think, is more the added stuff that is not informing the binary through sex, but through culture. So for instance, the idea that real men wear trousers and real women wear dresses in some cultures, whereas in other cultures men wearing dresses are the norm. Or that real men are overly aggressive and sensitive men are frowned upon. Or that real men play sports and males who do ballet are not real men.

Then there is the case of why even use the definitions at all unless man just means male human and woman means female human. What is the point?


I agree with the male and female traits. But, as can be seen by the map, why do some cultures have more than two genders whereas we only have 2? Why are some of those non binary genders held in high esteem whereas traditionally in the West and Middle East etc, they are not?

Also, gender has a lot to do with how one feels about themselves as well. If a male identifies more with what the culture calls a woman and acts more like a woman than a man, why can't he call himself a woman?
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.

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 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.
 
Top