Of course it is, and so is culture, but I strongly believe it's dishonest to appropriate the culture of another group and say you belong to it when you don't, especially if you're doing it for personal advantage and have never experienced the oppression of that disadvantaged group.
Who knows to what extent gender is determined by hormones? If there's ever a culture where children aren't treated differently because of gender then I'll believe the differences are hormonal, but we ain't seen that yet, have we?
The arguments about female and male brains are ridiculous if you know anything about neuroplasticity.
I find the concept of race to be interesting. Biologically speaking, it's irrelevant...there is less of a genetic difference between a black person with the same hair and eye color as a white person that there is between two white people with different hair and eye color. It's a construct that only matters because it has been awarded social significance, probably because it's a huge visual difference.
The whole notion of "black culture" exists as a result if subjugation, as a side effect of being defined as different, but it nonetheless exists. I'm sure if all brunette people were defined separately, they would have an according culture. Now it's a matter of recognising and respecting a separate culture whilst pretending it doesn't exist...it's sort of a PC cyclical catch 22.
As far as gender goes, I agree that there are definitely cultural components, but there are genetic components as well. There are countless people who identify as transgender before pubescence, males with estrogen specific features who exhibit more stereotypical feminine traits, differences in brain chemistry (for eg, females release oxitocin after orgasm, men don't)...
There's so much evidence supporting each side of the nature vs nurture argument...it's hard to weed through all of it.
Present day black culture may be a result of subjugation, but African peoples had distinct cultures before white contact, as did Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals and of course countless other indigenous peoples.
I don't get your Catch-22 reference: surely it's possible to respect something which you believe has been socially constructed? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What do genes have to do with when transgender people identify as another gender? None of them have grown up in a society without distinct constructed gender stereotypes. The oxytocin reference doesn't seem relevant to me either, that's like saying men are different because they produce sperm: we know that, it doesn't mean that there are huge or indeed any differences in brain chemistry.
I'm sure you know all the rubbish that's been believed in the past about gender differences: that men provided the foetus and the woman nothing; that women had wombs that wandered all over our bodies; that men can't be nurturing and all women are maternal ........ don't start me!
I don't see what's so threatening or radical about people being whoever they are without labelling certain characteristics feminine or masculine. I don't believe I'm either, sometimes I'm into cooking and craft and being bossed around in bed; other times I enjoy splitting firewood and being a strong leader. I can argue logically with the best & worst and also cry my eyes out over nothing much.
Is it normal I see a clear parallel with transgenders?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Of course it is, and so is culture, but I strongly believe it's dishonest to appropriate the culture of another group and say you belong to it when you don't, especially if you're doing it for personal advantage and have never experienced the oppression of that disadvantaged group.
Who knows to what extent gender is determined by hormones? If there's ever a culture where children aren't treated differently because of gender then I'll believe the differences are hormonal, but we ain't seen that yet, have we?
The arguments about female and male brains are ridiculous if you know anything about neuroplasticity.
--
CountessDouche
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
I find the concept of race to be interesting. Biologically speaking, it's irrelevant...there is less of a genetic difference between a black person with the same hair and eye color as a white person that there is between two white people with different hair and eye color. It's a construct that only matters because it has been awarded social significance, probably because it's a huge visual difference.
The whole notion of "black culture" exists as a result if subjugation, as a side effect of being defined as different, but it nonetheless exists. I'm sure if all brunette people were defined separately, they would have an according culture. Now it's a matter of recognising and respecting a separate culture whilst pretending it doesn't exist...it's sort of a PC cyclical catch 22.
As far as gender goes, I agree that there are definitely cultural components, but there are genetic components as well. There are countless people who identify as transgender before pubescence, males with estrogen specific features who exhibit more stereotypical feminine traits, differences in brain chemistry (for eg, females release oxitocin after orgasm, men don't)...
There's so much evidence supporting each side of the nature vs nurture argument...it's hard to weed through all of it.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Present day black culture may be a result of subjugation, but African peoples had distinct cultures before white contact, as did Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals and of course countless other indigenous peoples.
I don't get your Catch-22 reference: surely it's possible to respect something which you believe has been socially constructed? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
What do genes have to do with when transgender people identify as another gender? None of them have grown up in a society without distinct constructed gender stereotypes. The oxytocin reference doesn't seem relevant to me either, that's like saying men are different because they produce sperm: we know that, it doesn't mean that there are huge or indeed any differences in brain chemistry.
I'm sure you know all the rubbish that's been believed in the past about gender differences: that men provided the foetus and the woman nothing; that women had wombs that wandered all over our bodies; that men can't be nurturing and all women are maternal ........ don't start me!
I don't see what's so threatening or radical about people being whoever they are without labelling certain characteristics feminine or masculine. I don't believe I'm either, sometimes I'm into cooking and craft and being bossed around in bed; other times I enjoy splitting firewood and being a strong leader. I can argue logically with the best & worst and also cry my eyes out over nothing much.