Urban v's the Commentariat

[TruXta]

You mistake Marx's materialism for the crude kind, which is exactly what he was rejecting.

I also pointing out how biology can have a causal effect on the experience of gender dysphoria, but the it is a causal effect mediated through society. Christ I was even willing to provisionally accept the shaky claims of "sexed" brains to do so.

I can't believe I'm going to recommend someone read Judith Butler but I think you should.

I'm not advocating a crude kind of materialism, whatever that means. All I'm saying is that I can't think of a single instance here where you've lent the material basis of gender dysphoria/intersex any kind of causal weight. You keep banging on about it being mediated, but that explains fuck all. It's a descriptive label masquerading as an explanation.

If we're to follow your script where biological sex has more or less nothing to do with social gender typing and expression causally speaking, there's no reason at all for there to be a preponderance of two genders. OTOH if you think that there might just be a causal link between sex and gender, well, it's fairly obvious why we have that correspondence IMO.

 

[revol68]

I bloody knew it

That I have a guilty love for Butler, yeah I do, even if she is an awful liberal and her and Michael Douglas seem to be morphing into each other.

 

[revol68]

I'm not advocating a crude kind of materialism, whatever that means. All I'm saying is that I can't think of a single instance here where you've lent the material basis of gender dysphoria/intersex any kind of causal weight. You keep banging on about it being mediated, but that explains fuck all. It's a descriptive label masquerading as an explanation.

If we're to follow your script where biological gender has more or less nothing to do with social gender typing and expression causally speaking, there's no reason at all for there to be a preponderance of two genders. OTOH if you think that there might just be a causal link between sex and gender, well, it's fairly obvious why we have that correspondence IMO.

The fact you say "biological gender" speaks volumes.

You really should read some Butler,

http://autof.files.wordpress.com/20...inism-and-the-subversion-of-identity-1990.pdf

 

[TruXta]

The fact you say "biological gender" speaks volumes.

You really should read some Butler,

http://autof.files.wordpress.com/20...inism-and-the-subversion-of-identity-1990.pdf

It was typo ffs. Should've said "sex". I think you might wanna be quiet about malicious misreadings from here on out.

 

[Pickman's model]

That I have a guilty love for Butler, yeah I do, even if she is an awful liberal and her and Michael Douglas seem to be morphing into each other.

she looks more like face out of the a team than michael douglas

 

[Balbi]

YAY JUDITH 'GENDER TROUBLE IS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOUR EYES WEEP' BUTLER

 

[revol68]

It was typo ffs. Should've said "sex". I think you might wanna be quiet about malicious misreadings from here on out.

considering your argument it is far from clear it was a typo.

As for me addressing the articulation of biology in society, well here's what I said earlier,

The argument that gender dysphoria is a social matter doesn't deny the fact there is biological basis in many cases, rather it is how this biology interacts with societal factors, so we shouldn't be surprised that women with more typically "male" neurology might be more likely to experience gender dysphoria than those with typically "female" neurology.

Ofcourse the idea of "male" and "female" neurology is a social construction, as even proponents of "sexed brain" theory acknowledge it is a spectrum. The fact that people would wish to "sex" such a spectrum is interesting, it is as daft as sexing height, despite the fact the case for height being biologically related to sex is much stronger than "sexed brains", considering the role socialisation has on neurological development, so it shouldn't be that shocking that women tend to score higher on emotional intelligence whilst men tend to score higher on spatial awareness.

 

[TruXta]

It was clear as day, my post didn't make sense at all the way you (mis)read it. But again, you're reluctantly acceding a place for biology in these matters without ever actually placing it in your explanatory scheme except as some sort of Primordial Cause/First Mover, which is then utterly removed from the causal chain. What role does neurological development play in socialisation? How does biology shape and constrain society? These are questions you can't even begin to ask because of an ideological opposition to them being asked in the first place.

 

[Pickman's model]

considering your argument it is far from clear it was a typo.

As for me addressing the articulation of biology in society, well here's what I said earlier,



Ofcourse the idea of "male" and "female" neurology is a social construction, as even proponents of "sexed brain" theory acknowledge it is a spectrum. The fact that people would wish to "sex" such a spectrum is interesting, it is as daft as sexing height, despite the fact the case for height being biologically related to sex is much stronger than "sexed brains", considering the role socialisation has on neurological development, so it shouldn't be that shocking that women tend to score higher on emotional intelligence whilst men tend to score higher on spatial awareness.

so where dors the social begin here? you pooh pooh the notion of sexed neurology then provide an example of apparent sexual difference. why?

 

[cesare]

It was clear as day, my post didn't make sense at all the way you (mis)read it. But again, you're reluctantly acceding a place for biology in these matters without ever actually placing it in your explanatory scheme except as some sort of Primordial Cause/First Mover, which is then utterly removed from the causal chain. What role does neurological development play in socialisation? How does biology shape and constrain society? These are questions you can't even begin to ask because of an ideological opposition to them being asked in the first place.

There has to be a place for biology, because it is what it is. But gender is what you do rather than what you are.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, some people, but most of them probably only get a kick out of it cos they've genuinely ended up in a place where they believe they're helping.

From previous experience, I think "most" is too kind. A majority, maybe.
Problem is, identity politics is pretty much honey to bees looking to feed their egos - it can be a non-critical environment, once you're part of the in-group, unless you're into self-criticism.

 

[revol68]

YAY JUDITH 'GENDER TROUBLE IS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOUR EYES WEEP' BUTLER

It get's a bad rep and she isn't the greatest writer but well worth the read.

It was clear as day, my post didn't make sense at all the way you (mis)read it. But again, you're reluctantly acceding a place for biology in these matters without ever actually placing it in your explanatory scheme except as some sort of Primordial Cause/First Mover, which is then utterly removed from the causal chain. What role does neurological development play in socialisation? How does biology shape and constrain society? These are questions you can't even begin to ask because of an ideological opposition to them being asked in the first place.

Join the dots, if I suggest it's not surprising that a woman born with a more typically "male" neurology are more likely to experience gender dysphoria, that would hint towards this neurology having a causative role in their behaviour in such a way that they may feel an affinity to more traditionally masculine roles or interests and reject the feminine gender role imposed on them by society based on their genitalia.

Again though there are so many levels of mediation involved that this is only a rough speculative explanation of how it could have an affect.

 

[TruXta]

There has to be a place for biology, because it is what it is. But gender is what you do rather than what you are.

Sure, but what you do (socially) is so often partly because of what you are (biologically). To use a different analogy: Imagine an earthquake happening where a town is built. The earthquake itself is a geological phenomenon, but the damage caused is socially constructed in a most literal sense. If you want to mitigate the effects of future disasters you have to take into account both the material side of things (local geology and seismic risk) as well as the built environment writ large (engineering, politics, economics, health etc etc.). In my view gender/sex is the same - whilst gender - the doing - is socially constructed by and for all of us, you can't ignore biology.

 

[cesare]

Sure, but what you do (socially) is so often partly because of what you are (biologically). To use a different analogy: Imagine an earthquake happening where a town is built. The earthquake itself is a geological phenomenon, but the damage caused is socially constructed in a most literal sense. If you want to mitigate the effects of future disasters you have to take into account both the material side of things (local geology and seismic risk) as well as the built environment writ large (engineering, politics, economics, health etc etc.). In my view gender/sex is the same - whilst gender - the doing - is socially constructed by and for all of us, you can't ignore biology.

No-one is suggesting that biology is ignored. But the argument is that gender is a continuum (you could argue that biology is a continuum too, but let that pass for a moment) and free floating - and it's society that acts as the magnet - in a manner of speaking - to attach gender to biology.

 

[revol68]

Why am I not surprised that TruXta, always soo quick to jump in with an unwarranted accusation of sexism or misogyny (see Jack Monroe/Laurie Penny threads) is clueless when it comes to actual feminist analysis of gender.

 

[TruXta]

No-one is suggesting that biology is ignored. But the argument is that gender is a continuum (you could argue that biology is a continuum too, but let that pass for a moment) and free floating - and it's society that acts as the magnet - in a manner of speaking - to attach gender to biology.

I certainly agree that sex as well as gender is, if not a continuum, then at least not binary. I don't agree really that gender is free-floating - it's very much based on the biologically lived fact of sex - genitals, hormones and the rest. If gender was truly floating then why the overwhelming correspondence across history and cultures between two sexes and two genders? With the obvious caveat that many cultures recognise more than two genders/sexes - but even in these the vast majority of people are assigned to one of two archetypal genders, man and woman.

 

[TruXta]

Why am I not surprised that TruXta, always soo quick to jump in with an unwarranted accusation of sexism or misogyny (see Jack Monroe/Laurie Penny threads) is clueless when it comes to actual feminist analysis of gender.

Please stay on topic or fuck off eh.

 

[cesare]

I certainly agree that sex as well as gender is, if not a continuum, then at least not binary. I don't agree really that gender is free-floating - it's very much based on the biologically lived fact of sex - genitals, hormones and the rest. If gender was truly floating then why the overwhelming correspondence across history and cultures between two sexes and two genders? With the obvious caveat that many cultures recognise more than two genders/sexes - but even in these the vast majority of people are assigned to one of two archetypal genders, man and woman.

One explanation, and it's just one, is that people confuse biological function with gender.

 

[TruXta]

One explanation, and it's just one, is that people confuse biological function with gender.

I don't follow.

 

[cesare]

I don't follow.

That biological functionality equals gender performative.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure, but what you do (socially) is so often partly because of what you are (biologically).

But here's the kicker - what we do socially, whether partially biologically-determined or not, is mediated (hah! ) through prior social exposure and experience. There's no "ideal-type" situation where a human animal can avoid this. "No man is an island, entire of itself..." and all that.

To use a different analogy: Imagine an earthquake happening where a town is built. The earthquake itself is a geological phenomenon, but the damage caused is socially constructed in a most literal sense. If you want to mitigate the effects of future disasters you have to take into account both the material side of things (local geology and seismic risk) as well as the built environment writ large (engineering, politics, economics, health etc etc.). In my view gender/sex is the same - whilst gender - the doing - is socially constructed by and for all of us, you can't ignore biology.

Your analogy sucks whale dick. Cost/benefit analysis has little to do with social constructionism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't follow.

People confusing having a dick with being male, etc.

 

[revol68]

Truxta, class divisions are as ubiquitous as the two genders model, are they rooted in biology?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I certainly agree that sex as well as gender is, if not a continuum, then at least not binary. I don't agree really that gender is free-floating - it's very much based on the biologically lived fact of sex - genitals, hormones and the rest. If gender was truly floating then why the overwhelming correspondence across history and cultures between two sexes and two genders? With the obvious caveat that many cultures recognise more than two genders/sexes - but even in these the vast majority of people are assigned to one of two archetypal genders, man and woman.

One explanation for the dominance of a gender binary (at least for the last 2,000 years) is normalisation of Christian religeous belief. Christian socio-moral normativity calls for a gender binary conforming to biology.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Truxta, class divisions are as ubiquitous as the two genders model, are they rooted in biology?

Only if you're Francis Galton.

 

[TruXta]

Truxta, class divisions are as ubiquitous as the two genders model, are they rooted in biology?

To cut short this line of questioning - yes, but in a much more distant sense. Like many other apes we seem to easily reproduce social hierarchies. There's nothing predetermined about this btw. Ought does not follow from is.

 

[TruXta]

One explanation for the dominance of a gender binary (at least for the last 2,000 years) is normalisation of Christian religeous belief. Christian socio-moral normativity calls for a gender binary conforming to biology.

It predates that by many thousands of years. Look at early neolithic art. Not a huge amount of third genders, a whole lot of big dicks and massive tits.

 

[cesare]

It predates that by many thousands of years. Look at early neolithic art. Not a huge amount of third genders, a whole lot of big dicks and massive tits.

Images of big dicks and massive tits are images of sex not gender.

 

[TruXta]

Images of big dicks and massive tits are images of sex not gender.

So it's not possible that they are both? If, as many scholars believe, such images had social and performative functions other than illustration (for hunting, magic, religious purposes or whatnot) surely they also represent gender and gendered roles in those societies.

 

[cesare]

So it's not possible that they are both? If, as many scholars believe, such images had social and performative functions other than illustration (for hunting, magic, religious purposes or whatnot) surely they also represent gender and gendered roles in those societies.

Of course it's possible, but it's also possible that they're not. We can't know for sure how gender and gender roles mapped onto Neolithic society, we can only guess by using our own society as the frame of reference.