Genetic disposition, and non sexually oriented metrosexuality.

'Genetic predisposition' conjures up many ideas.

If our biology holds certain dominion over our personality, then it follows the same road as the philosophy of hard determinism, that is to say, if we take it to the extreme, any free will is simply an illusion!

Assuming the alternative, that we do have freewill, does it mean we have control over such things as our brain chemistry? our hormones levels? etc

It's interesting...

I've always been in love with the idea that we can control our brain chemistry....though....If I could, I'd just produce heaps and heaps of dopamine and it's receptors! lol

 

I imagine it's not completely one way or another. I do think our conscious thought has indirect influence over brain chemistry and thus our feelings.... But not entirely. Again...who knows.

 

Indeed, shades o' grey

 

@ Invisible soul: Money believed that our gender identity was pratically all enviornmental not physical. His belief was that we are raised our whole life as 'girl' 'boy' so that's what we associate with. So he figured if Reimer was treated as a girl he would just respond to the enviornment and associate himself with the role of a girl.

 

i was gonna reply to what you responded to in the first page but you erased it

are personalities and genetic predispositions separate to you?
a genetic trait is very much part of personality like how a certain family is known for being messy. doesnt mean there is a gene that forces each person to follow a destiny of unorganization, just means certain personality traits that the person will gain throughout their life is variable between different genetic foundations. for example, i think homosexual thought in myself has come by from a kind of eccentricity within myself from an early age. the homosexual thought is a preference, a part of personality that can't be traced to a gene. eccentricity on the other hand is more likely to be traceable in genes.
so your metrosexuality is something that would more likely be brought by predispositions. sexual preference on the other hand, no.

 

Im taking it you must have not read my posts, or completely overlooked them, as I most certainly did not overlook genetic pre-disposition in my points.

I clearly stated that there are fundamental differences between males and females that extend beyond the external features and anatomy. While genetic-predisposition may be a factor in why people display gender stereotypical behaviours, for at least some of these stereotypes that pre-disposition can effect either gender, because they're not gender specific. Although society likes to condition us that they are.

I also think its highly unlikely that all personality traits are entirely independant of biological factors. I think in some ways things like envoironment can impact on someone's personality, either in a negative or a positive way. But I think to some degree at least, aspects of our personality, we are born with. Because many people defy their true personalities to fit in with their peers, and/or society, or what have you. But that doesnt mean that their true personality isnt still there nonetheless.

 

Yes, that's basically what I was saying in my post on the previous page. This is the reason why I equated it to what happened to me. Because although he, unlike me, wasnt born with any physical abnormality, the reasons why Money decided it would be a good idea to raise David as a girl, is really no different to why doctors decide to artificially assign a baby's gender in cases where the external anatomy is ambiguous. Its the belief that gender identity is determined soley by envoirenment and upbringing.

It is a classic arguement used by narrow-minded people who think that gender identity issues in children are purely down to envoirenment, and blame it on the parents. And I think the medical profession must bear the brunt of the blame for these attitudes by doing things like trying to cover up intersex conditions. But, the case of David Reimer, and people like myself who are basically genetically one sex, but raised as the opposite sex who knew at a very early age that the gender assigned was wrong, proves that gender identity has far more to do with biological factors than envoirnmental ones.

 

and i find that equally disgusting as what was done to Reimer. i believe we've already exchanged views on this subject once before. i think every child should have the right to grow into who they are, and when doctors and parents are confused they should own up to it and let necessary amount of time to pass to dissipate the confusion. it will dissipate once the kid is old enough. what should not be done is parents and doctors laying down an artificial judgment and going as far as to remove, cut off, and remodel ---all actions that cannot be taken back if they turn out to be mistaken, as often is the case--- the genitalia of a person who can't speak up for themself. it is child mutilation and a crime against another human being. unfortunately, the society is uncomfortable having kids with undetermined sex existing in it for even a temporary amount of time, so these procedures are seen as necessary. which goes to show just how fucked up this society is.

 

Yep, I think the treatment of intersex conditions over the years is a damning example of how twisted and wrong our society is when it comes to issues of gender. This surgery is carried out for one reason only: To pander to a society that cannot, or will not accept the cold hard fact that gender is not as clear cut as vagina at birth=female/penis and testicles at birth=male. You are right. In situations where the sexual anatomy is ambiguous at birth, the child should be left alone until they're old enough to speak up for themselves, and assert what gender they are. Only then, should steps be taken to surgically assign the child's sex. But as you said, society would be very uncomfortable with the idea of a child existing with an undetermined sex for the first 4/5 years or so of life. Which is why delaying the assigning of someone's sex would be seen as inappropriate.

Ive actually heard a couple of doctors who've operated on intersex babies saying, "the baby needs to have its sex registered, so it can be put on the birth certificate". The birth certificate cannot be registered unless either the female or male sex is put on it. Of course this is merely a lame excuse, and alternative measures could be taken in cases where the anatomy is ambiguous. But that would upset the status quo too much, and the society which is blissfully ignorant of the true mechanics of gender. It is a disgrace, really.

Luckily, things are slowly getting better as regards to that. Some countries now recommend that all babies born with my condition who have ambiguous genitalia be brought up as female. Because although males can also be born with the condition, it is not an intersex condition in males, because they are naturally supposed to produce higher levels of androgens, so they dont get the ambiguous genitalia. There is a long way to go though I feel, before this horrific practice is stamped out altogether.

 

I would positive rep you if it let me just because I think my original repping was at the fault of my own misunderstanding. I was also getting at this in my original point, that the genes (albeit if they exist) are not limited to one gender, but the traits of which are associated (by society as a whole) to one gender in particular.

 

this thread confused me..

 

yea me too.
I don't really know what it's about.
It somehow reminds me of a 'sexual orientation is a choice' thread but I don't know.
and I haven't slept in 24 hours so I'd better go to bed.
loving the squirrels ^^

 

I didnt realise you had negative repped me. Ah well lol

Well, there are many in society who believe that certain personality traits are just as intrinsic to gender as the sex organs. But in most cases those traits are not limited to one gender only. Whether genes gave a role to play in them or not.

Although strangely, society seems to have a much harder time dealing with and accepting, males with so-called "feminine" personality traits, than the vice versa scenario. Nobody seems to find any problem with females displaying behaviour that would be typically associated with males. However, it all of a sudden becomes unacceptable when its males displaying female gender stereotypes. In this respect, I think society expects men to conform to a very narrow stereotype of their own sex, whereas women can be much more flexible within the stereotype of their own sex without being labelled as weird, funny, or wrong.

 

Yeah it is a lot like that. But I do have a lesbian friend, but she is very boyish, as in has a buzz cut, kinda has a boyish but still girl face, dresses in baggier clothing, has boy like mannerisms. Perhaps someone like that is accepted more nicely, but there is still a taboo aspect to it... She says she can hear people making comments about her, sometimes pretty much right in front of her.

 

Well, I think women can be ridiculed for that also. However, usually women have to dress and act in a very stereotypically male way before criticsm from others comes. With males, usually any slight showing of any "feminine" behaviour is frowned upon, and not seen as acceptable. Especially in young people. Tomboys for instance, usually are seen as perfectly fine, whereas a young boy showing femininity would not be seen as acceptable. Women can be criticised for it, but they usually have to take the stereotype to extremes before they'll experience ridicule and criticsm. With males, any slight showing of "feminine" qualities will be looked down upon.