The Abolition of Gender

[Nepenthe]

Bah, all human behaviour, including gender-related, is based on hardware and software. To claim otherwise is just mixing ideology and reality - a common problem, I know.

 

My mother was (is) a real nazi when it came to teaching me manners, so holding doors open for people and other small old-fashioned courtesies are kind of hard-wired to my brain. If some think I'm a chauvinist, it's probably not far from the truth anyway, so don't mind.

[Walsingham]

Interesting post, Asol. But in a way haven't you hit on something larger there? Our culture panders to whoever consumes. But what defines how much you consume and of what? Answer that and maybe we'll know where we're headed? I don't know.

[Morgoth]

Physically the point is glaringly obvious

[Gfted1]

Hehe, clever picture. At first I thought it was a trasnsvestite but then I noticed the arms folded back.

[Cycloneman]

*busts into thread w/ a pile of books*

Alas, the mental illness has metastasized, establishing colonies of the mentally deranged in North America, including the California Teachers' Association, which, as reported by the Christian Examiner, held a conference during which the association's conference presenters and program received materials advocating "gender liberation."

 

According to the materials, male-female distinctions must be eliminated in order to "liberate" children from unnecessary stereotypes about what it means to be male or female. To be absolutely clear, the anti-genderists are not seeking "equal rights," but obliteration of the distinctions between male and female.

 

For example, the conference literature included this instruction on "gender etiquette":

 

[Calax]

Did I just hear a cartoonish "SPRONG!" in the backround there bucko?

 

The idea of removing all gender is just ridiculous. On the base biological level, men and women operate and thing different things. Women are hunting for a man who can provide for them and their offspring during the necessary parts of their lives, while the men are just siring up an entire civilization as fast as they can.

Nice biotruths, I'd like to see a scientific study verifying them! Oh wait, there is none, this is just pseudoscience! How do you explain asexuality or exclusive homosexuality?! Sexual promiscuity among women and sexual exclusivity among men?!

 

Societal/sociological pressures change how people act/react. I'll look up studies when I have the time to, but as it is right now, researchers have started to notice that animals catch "teh ghey" if they're in a population where mating chances are slim.

 

Although, if you're gonna go all "holier than thou" you could at least spent 10 minutes looking on google for the proper articles.

[Meshugger]

*too long to quote everything*

 

Oh come on, try a bit harder will ya? I saw no argument based on reason or anything that was linked. For example, men and women are not only biologically different externally speaking, but also on hormonal level as well, which in turn have an impact on behaviour, thought process and emotional states. That doesn't exactly go hand in hand with a genderless society. Well, unless ofcourse you happen to be a transhumanist.

[Walsingham]

In communist Russia, sex has YOU.

[Cycloneman]

Oh come on, try a bit harder will ya? I saw no argument based on reason or anything that was linked. For example, men and women are not only biologically different externally speaking, but also on hormonal level as well, which in turn have an impact on behaviour, thought process and emotional states. That doesn't exactly go hand in hand with a genderless society. Well, unless ofcourse you happen to be a transhumanist.

Oh, okay, right, it's my responsibility to establish that men and women are actually the same. How exactly am I supposed to do that? Spoilers: not possible.

Although, if you're gonna go all "holier than thou" you could at least spent 10 minutes looking on google for the proper articles.

Nice articles, and by nice, I mean lol. Women find men who are nice to children more attractive?? That is crazy. I know I get a huge boner when a woman beats a little kid up. The other two are some weak mushy guesswork evopsych crap.

 

Here's a link to a good book on the subject: Delusions of Gender. Really brief summary: the sexes have no difference in social skills; some societies have statistically identical std devs (and means, naturally) for female and male ability at mathematics; newborns have no difference in preference for systemizing versus empathizing stimulus based on sex; and there is a major negative psychological effect from gender stereotyping on relevant skills, which likely accounts for the known variations.

[Calax]

I cite 3 peer academic papers for peer review, you respond with a book designed for consumption by the audience.

 

At least it has works cited.

 

Stealing from the books wiki page

 

Simon Baron-Cohen, whose work is heavily criticized by Fine in Delusions of Gender, reviewed the book in The Psychologist. In it, he responded to Fine's criticisms of the studies in which he had been involved and criticized the book as "fusing science with politics," writing, "Her barely veiled agenda, in this long, scholarly book, is to show that any sex difference found in humans can be made to vanish!" ^[5] Fine responded in a published letter to The Psychologist arguing that there were still flaws in Cohen's study that he did not adequately address, and defended her positions in the book as scientific and not political. ^[6] Diane Halpern, whose paper "The Science of Sex Differences in Mathematics and Science" is also criticized by Fine in Delusions of Gender, reported mixed feelings about the book, arguing that it was "strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science...and weakest in failing to also point out differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research.

[Orogun01]

Can you cite something that's not written by the cousin of Borat? I cannot stop reading that in a Borat voice.

[Cycloneman]

I cite 3 peer academic papers for peer review, you respond with a book designed for consumption by the audience.

 

At least it has works cited.

 

Stealing from the books wiki page

 

Simon Baron-Cohen, whose work is heavily criticized by Fine in Delusions of Gender, reviewed the book in The Psychologist. In it, he responded to Fine's criticisms of the studies in which he had been involved and criticized the book as "fusing science with politics," writing, "Her barely veiled agenda, in this long, scholarly book, is to show that any sex difference found in humans can be made to vanish!" ^[5] Fine responded in a published letter to The Psychologist arguing that there were still flaws in Cohen's study that he did not adequately address, and defended her positions in the book as scientific and not political. ^[6] Diane Halpern, whose paper "The Science of Sex Differences in Mathematics and Science" is also criticized by Fine in Delusions of Gender, reported mixed feelings about the book, arguing that it was "strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science...and weakest in failing to also point out differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research.

Whoa, a dude whose work was criticized gets mad about it? Too bad his point basically amounts to "she had an agenda!"

 

edit for content:

For example, in our newborn study (Connellan et al., 2001), which showed that girls look longer at a human face and boys look longer at a mechanical mobile, Fine attempts to dismantle this evidence by saying we should have presented both stimuli at the same time, since one at a time may have led to fatigue-effects. However, she overlooks that it was for this very reason we included counter-balancing into the experimental design, to avoid any risk of such order-effects.

 

Secondly, she argues that the experimenter may not have been totally blind to the baby's sex because there might have been 'congratulations' cards around the bed ('Congratulations! It's a boy!'). However, she overlooks that it was precisely for this reason that we included a panel of independent judges coding the videotapes of just the eye-region of the baby's face, from which it is virtually impossible to judge the sex of the baby.

Actually, dude, the point is that the experimenter may present the stimulus of the human face in a different way depending on the sex of the baby, not that the experimenter is interpreting the evidence differently. Further, she actually gave another study with a similar methodology that did divorce the experimenter from possible knowledge of the baby's sex and they found that... you guessed it, there was no sex-based effect. Christ, I read this book like a year ago and I remember that.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Cycloneman

[Calax]

I cite 3 peer academic papers for peer review, you respond with a book designed for consumption by the audience.

 

At least it has works cited.

 

Stealing from the books wiki page

 

Simon Baron-Cohen, whose work is heavily criticized by Fine in Delusions of Gender, reviewed the book in The Psychologist. In it, he responded to Fine's criticisms of the studies in which he had been involved and criticized the book as "fusing science with politics," writing, "Her barely veiled agenda, in this long, scholarly book, is to show that any sex difference found in humans can be made to vanish!" ^[5] Fine responded in a published letter to The Psychologist arguing that there were still flaws in Cohen's study that he did not adequately address, and defended her positions in the book as scientific and not political. ^[6] Diane Halpern, whose paper "The Science of Sex Differences in Mathematics and Science" is also criticized by Fine in Delusions of Gender, reported mixed feelings about the book, arguing that it was "strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science...and weakest in failing to also point out differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research.[/quote]

 

Whoa, a dude whose work was criticized gets mad about it? Too bad his point basically amounts to "she had an agenda!"

 

Here, I've bolded what I was really looking at rather than the first part.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Calax