Actually... there's something called genetic sexual attraction, so close relatives are actually more inclined to be sexually attracted to each other.

The reason we don't have siblings as couples all over the place is something else, known as the Westermarck effect, which causes people to be less likely to be sexually attracted to each other after growing up together.




________________
"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

Gender has nothing to do with someones sex. Jesus guys.



Sex has to do with your physical parts.

I am NOT talking about sexual orientation until the second part.

If you're going to "call me out" at least stop making stupid on the actual topic.

Okay I'm going to make mistakes. I'm not a biologist. I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But at least I know the difference between gender and sex.

Differences between Gender and Sex



I swear I've read in countless places though you aren't sexually attracted to people with too similar genetics.

Last edited by Kitteh_13 at 11:02 am, Jun 3 2011

________________

Heh. I felt kind of bad that you got 3 responses in a row following your message.

That being said, I was the only one who stated that I was confused about your statement. It was my mistake, as gender was a grammatical characteristic before it become almost interchangeable with sex and I wasn't aware that feminists had embraced it to describe it more precisely as a social construct.

Still, using that more acceptable and precise terminology, what "physical differences between men and women that have nothing to do with the social construct of gender" are you referring to?


I heard/read that a lot too, often to prove that "opposites attract".

I actually forgot GSA existed. Despite that, I remember more clearly that most studies on the science of attraction suggest that "birds of a feather flock together" holds more true than "opposites attract".

I was basically (In a 4am manner) just saying that sex "physical differences between men and women" have nothing to do with "Gender: social construct of gender". Meaning your parts don't define your gender.

My frustration was more centered at the person who commented after you who was being very condescending.

Referring to GSA though, there was a recent instance in Ireland. An interesting read to say the least:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/mar/23/sun- ireland

________________

I guess I am just confused about social constructs. I assumed that having a penis (physical difference) would make one be considered "masculine". Same way as having breasts (physical difference) would make one be considered "feminine". Even slightly more subtle things like like BWH ratios.

What's frustrating about this is that to say that there are "physical differences between men and women that have nothing to do with social construct of gender" implies an almost willful ignorance on the part of society. Like, physical differences between men and women exist, but most of us don't know about them or willfully choose to ignore them.

(Don't get me wrong, I can totally sympathize if you and/or others mean to say that your sex/gender doesn't define you as an individual.)



I remember the first time I read about the Westermarck effect long ago. I wondered how it would apply to childhood friends. No one in society minds childhood friendships developing into romance.

The social constructs are traditional gender roles and society's notion of typical male and female behavior. A biological male may be either masculine or feminine. Likewise for females.
the terms "gender" and "sex"
Sex and Gender: Same or Different?


No. That's really the whole point behind raising a genderless child. Rather than just preaching equality to their kids, Storm's parents are simply taking it to the next level by trying to avoid early gender socialization altogether.The idea is to let the kid be their true self right from the start, free from society's expectations.



________________
[Url=http://goo.gl/WMSVJ] k'><u>Looking for... shoujo with a canned peach confession.</u></a><!--url_type_2_end--><BR><!--url_type_2--><a href='<!--Auto_parse_begin--><a target='_blank' rel='nofollow' href='http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-soundsipa.htm''><u>http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-soundsipa.htm'</u></a><!--Auto_parse_end--> target='_blank'><u>Don't English Me I'm Panic</u></a><!--url_type_2_end--><BR><!--url_type_4.5--><a href='<!--Auto_parse_begin--><a target='_blank' rel='nofollow' href='http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3839'><u>Guess'><u>http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3839'><u>Guess</u></a><!--Auto_parse_end--> the Manga/Anime Name</u></a><!--url_type_4_end--><BR>'Shojo manga has no boundaries, and never did!’ -Shimizu Reiko, Himitsu - Top Secret fanbook interview

I don't think you understand where I got lost.

This is about the statement that "physical differences between men and women that have nothing to do with the social construct of gender".

Physical differences between men and women are not just a matter of opinion. A "physical difference" is an observable reality. A biological male can be feminine, but an accepted physical difference between men and women like testicles is universally accepted as masculine characteristic for humans. I can't even think of an acknowledged physical difference that isn't gender-specific or even gender-defining.

To argue against that is confusing as Hell to me and surely involves willful ignorance on the part of society.

i.e. an acknowledged physical feature of men that women don't have is a penis.
I can accept that some people who have that feature aren't necessarily masculine.
However, can you honestly say that having a penis, the feature itself, is not masculine?

Of course, that illustration is very blatant to get the point across. Sure, we can assume gender is a social construct, but that would mean that society would have to be (willfully) ignorant - they know biological physical differences between the sexes exist, but they disavow the knowledge.


I don't get it. Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said (or meant)? Without nitpicking or going into precision semantics, what I wrote is essentially supported by the very link you provide and the context in which it was used!

EDIT: The part you're quoting isn't important to me and was basically a tangent. I was asking why people claim that sexual orientation is fixed while gender identity is mutable. My only guess was that social engineering overrode objective study in this case.

I.E. regardless of fact,
- perception that sexual orientation is fixed makes LGBT's more sympathetic to more hardline conservatives.
- perception that gender identity is mutable gives children more options and makes them feel better about their own gender identity.

Last edited by N0x_ at 3:39 pm, Jun 3 2011

I believe I understood where you got lost, but I guess I'm having trouble explaining myself. Even right now I'm not sure how to go about it, but here goes...

Sociologists or other people that make the separation between sex and gender would not call having a penis a masculine trait because the penis is NOT a social construct. It is a physical reality. It is a universally accepted MALE characteristic for humans. It is not a masculine trait simply by definition. The "gender" related terms masculine and feminine are only applied to traits that are considered to be socially constructed. For example, favoring the color pink is feminine. Having a passion for sports is masculine. The acknowledged physical differences are what define sex (male, female, intersexual), not gender. The distinction between sex and gender was made so that we can have a proper discourse about biology and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to sociology. Of course it gets confusing because in everyday speech the terms are used interchangeably.


I think you misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you! You asked if there was more to it and I meant to answer "No, there is nothing more to it. I agree with you." So that "No" was actually a "yes" in a sense. That link I gave was for anyone reading that may not know what I meant (not necessarily you).


________________
[Url=http://goo.gl/WMSVJ] k'><u>Looking for... shoujo with a canned peach confession.</u></a><!--url_type_2_end--><BR><!--url_type_2--><a href='<!--Auto_parse_begin--><a target='_blank' rel='nofollow' href='http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-soundsipa.htm''><u>http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-soundsipa.htm'</u></a><!--Auto_parse_end--> target='_blank'><u>Don't English Me I'm Panic</u></a><!--url_type_2_end--><BR><!--url_type_4.5--><a href='<!--Auto_parse_begin--><a target='_blank' rel='nofollow' href='http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3839'><u>Guess'><u>http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3839'><u>Guess</u></a><!--Auto_parse_end--> the Manga/Anime Name</u></a><!--url_type_4_end--><BR>'Shojo manga has no boundaries, and never did!’ -Shimizu Reiko, Himitsu - Top Secret fanbook interview

Yeah, thanks for taking the time. I understand now that gender and sex, by modern definition are supposed to be completely disjoint. Obvious physical differences are not considered for gender.

I wasn't sure how to see it before because then we have so many blurred cases like "feminine shapes" which can be characteristic of both sex and gender. Such cases border on physical realities and abstractions.

"That figure has a feminine shape." On one hand, it is feasibly a social construct, but on the other hand, females are biologically inclined towards certain figures ("feminine" figures). Such physical differences, when we look at art history, were and still are tightly coupled with gender. People acknowledged the physical differences, and celebrated not only the physical reality but the abstractions as well.


Yeah, I think I'm just going to leave it on hold, because there's no need to keep bumping this particular subtopic. Don't need to hold more of your time on this. I actually did a bit of searching on other forums and reddit.

All I wanted to know is if everyone else knows something I don't about the apparently lack of correlation between the mutability of gender identity and that of sexual orientation. If it's just semantic as we suspect, then I'll just stop there. I have genuine interest if it's there's genetic knowledge/study.

Last edited by N0x_ at 5:59 pm, Jun 3 2011

Last point: Gender, Sex, and Sexual Orientation are all different things.
If anyone is going to properly comment on this thread it is important to know the differences.

________________

Really? I thought this thread was about:



And on topic, I don't really care.

________________
This week's favorites:

- Golden Kamui





ççççççç[Ô .Ô] tsutopodus© will eat your manga and steal your cats!

are you responding to Kitteh_13?

I don't see the point.

A cookie for you, for the pointless post. And I take it back for not getting the point of my post.

________________
This week's favorites:

- Golden Kamui





ççççççç[Ô .Ô] tsutopodus© will eat your manga and steal your cats!

to the issue of the home schooling of the kids, I have been home schooled and public schooled (also private school for a year) and let me say this, home schooling sucks if you have even an ounce of brain matter. I finished the whole years course work in under two month(mom would only let me do one year at a time ). School suck also, but less so. I learned quick at home and at school most of the teachers' time was taken up by problem students or the real gifted leaving normal students to fend for themselves. But at least I made friends got into clubs and learned about life. These parents are insane to do "Unschooling" with their kids. Kids need to learn there are rule in society and even if you do not agree with them you have to obey them. It is on of the most important lesson that you learn at school. School can also teach you how to work around the rules, or even bend them a little, with out breaking them, that is if you are willing to learn between the lines.
In regards to the genderless thing, I do not care if you are gay, straight or what ever, but I feel that if a child grows up sexless it will lead to all manners of confusion latter in life. the child is to young to even understand what is going on. i feel that it will hurt the child in in such a way that it will be irreparable. I also feel that the parents are trying to make a political statement with their children and that is unfair to the kids. A parent should never use their children in such a way.

Last edited by geekrocker at 10:00 pm, Jun 3 2011

This is a little convoluted and weird. I'm all for breaking gender stereotypes, in large part many of them are directly negative or the lack of acceptance of good ones for the opposite sex produce more issues.

But first, just for clarification's sake- GENDER is the social constructs of masculinity, feminity (or the lack there of: undifferentiation, or the combination androgyny). SEX is the biological component (generally penis vs. vagina but in special cases can be more basic such as XX or XY- such as individuals with androgen insensitivity syndrome which are male genetically male with XY genetics but their body doesn't respond to the testosterone their body creates and so end up looking like generally attractive girls from birth and fail to ever reach puberty without medical intervention).

My issue with this paper is that they're trying too hard to make the kid UNDIFFERENTIATED rather than ANDROGYNOUS. Androgyny is good, undifferentiation is kinda bad in all sorts of domains. Let the kid be confident and strong, but also let him know that its okay to be caring/nurturing. Take the good things from both sides of the coin and help them avoid the less-desirables of gender stereotypes (agression, emotional inhibition etc in masculinity, passivity, self-silencing, self-neglect for others etc in feminity).

The kid is either a male or a female (or somewhere in the middle), rather than hiding this fact they should accept it but rather enforce the notion that sex is something biologically driven and stable. They can put on a dress and grow out their hair but they've still got the same bits and pieces. They should also not try to shelter the kid from notions of gender. The majority of the population has been risen in a masculine vs. feminine environment and will resist change and will try to force it on others even if they're not conscious of it. The child needs to know this and be given counter examples and made aware of the issues, you can't hide the kid from all forms of media and society forever. Make the kid question what they see and are told- when that commercial comes on where its got the blue things for boys and the pink things for girls talk about it. When they say things like all doctors are men and all nurses are women find counter examples to tell them its okay to pursue non-gender typical endeavors.

The kid is going to figure out sooner or later, I think it'd be better to prepare him rather than keep him naively oblivious.



As far as I've come across sexual orientation and gender are two very separate things. As for the "cause" or homosexuality there isn't a lot of conclusive evidence. Identical twin studies have shown an elevated incidence of homosexuality from average for the second twin when one is homosexual, but its more around an r value of 50- so its not exclusively genetic, but there does seem to be some sort of genetic disposition perhaps. Its pretty up in the air last I read about it.

Last edited by Rhyu at 10:30 pm, Jun 3 2011