Well, Shakey, hopefully your 12 year old will never be in this particular very difficult position and you can continue to be reductive about gender on the internet.
― one little aioli (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
Why do you even think this would come up in any way? It feels like you're conflating gender and sex?
― one little aioli (Laurel), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:48 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark
lol nonononononono. with that regrettable "girls gone wild joke", i was trying to point out that if we grant what we now consider "kids" more agency over their lives, then there will be scumbags out there willing to exploit it
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
My trans friend knew she was meant to be a woman when she was quite young.
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
wait how am I being reductive
xp
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
if it turns out she wants to be trans she can wait to make that decision imho. average 12yo is not a very rational actor.
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:53 (twelve years ago) link
I think the question of whether the average 11/12 year-old should be given the right and power to delay his/her own puberty is at least worthy of a debate and not dismissive comments as though it were illiberal to raise an eyebrow.
― happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:48 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
^ see, i agree with this, too. shit is complicated, really complicated.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:54 (twelve years ago) link
And I'm saying that you're making a big leap that positions gender and sexual er maturity/readiness/something close to each other as related things, but they're not, so this should not even be a component.
― one little aioli (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:54 (twelve years ago) link
if it turns out she wants to be trans
― max, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:54 (twelve years ago) link
to be clear my objection is not to kids figuring out their gender identity, it's to their confusion being exploited and catered to by total evil companies who do not have their health or best interest in mind.
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:55 (twelve years ago) link
I have a daughter...? I don't get what you're getting at.
I mean I wouldn't let a 12yo get a boob job either, you know?
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:56 (twelve years ago) link
shakey dont you see that this happens already regardless? its just that instead of the pharma industry its the entertainment/fashion/education/church/friends/life industry
― max, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:58 (twelve years ago) link
lol this thread
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:59 (twelve years ago) link
well duh. it's my job as a parent to help her navigate that stuff.
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:59 (twelve years ago) link
these were on the table next to my laptop
http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo305/lejospopo/photo-2.jpg
― judith, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:59 (twelve years ago) link
Sure, but Big Pharm can cause chemical imbalances that make dealing with education/church/friends/life worse.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:00 (twelve years ago) link
man, this thread
― plee help i am lookin for (crüt), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:01 (twelve years ago) link
oh, i see where yr coming from now. legally, like i said before, this case hinges on the sorts of decisions that children are legally permitted to take ultimate responsibility for and authority over. at present, in most western societies, this = "none". age-designated "children" are not legally responsible for themselves or their decisions. they have no authority to enforce their own will. this principle is what allows parents and the state to make decisions for and to "protect" children. it is what allows us to forbid sexual relations between children and adults.
sure, we could undo the special legal status of children if we want, either in this one particular case or in a more general sense. it's an interesting suggestion, but i do think there are risks involved and that they aren't trivial.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:01 (twelve years ago) link
lol judith
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:59 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― plee help i am lookin for (crüt), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:01 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark
yeah, who knew?
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:02 (twelve years ago) link
more like woman, this thread
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:04 (twelve years ago) link
also yeah, i've been reading a lot of deleuze lately and i think that way of thinking is pretty crucial for me at this point. i think "gender is a social construct" has been drained of a lot of its productivity. reading gender trouble was p crucial for me too but judith butler has herself gone beyond this way of thinking. her recent writing about tahrir square about spaces of appearance, the requirements of bodies. i think its important to understand that the social writing of bodies rewrites bodies themselves. a more radical reading of "one is not born a woman."
― judith, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:11 (twelve years ago) link
gender and sexuality need to be destroyed.
asexuality is the future.
― Banaka™ (banaka), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:16 (twelve years ago) link
feel compelled to post itt but I'm not sure I can be more explicit than I was before tbh
that said: "there's a clear, scientifically established connection between testosterone and competitive behavior in males" demands citation
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:17 (twelve years ago) link
this case hinges on the sorts of decisions that children are legally permitted to take ultimate responsibility for and authority over. at present, in most western societies, this = "none"
this hasn't been true for the last 10 to 20 years btw, US and UK laws to my knowledge have enshrined certain rights for children in relation to for example family law
― dayove cool (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:22 (twelve years ago) link
how come nobody ever asks, is it deterwomened? think about it
― still driving steen, banning deez, gettin my dick xhuxked (Curt1s Stephens), Sunday, April 4, 2010 4:39 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:23 (twelve years ago) link
I LOVE GENITAL GINGERBREADS
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:25 (twelve years ago) link
well, here's a general overview type thing that touches on the subject in a number of ways: http://www.shoreline.edu/psparks/researchnotes/articles/testosteroneaggression.pdf
also, for the sake of o_O the study of a very dubious study as coughed up by the internet: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20110311/Testosterone-associated-with-dominant-behavior-and-competitive-success-in-attracting-women.aspx
Findings from a recent study at Wayne State University give a clearer understanding of the links between testosterone and human mating behavior, and how testosterone is associated with dominance and competitive success when men battle for the attention of an attractive woman.
The study engaged pairs of men in a seven-minute videotaped competition for the attention of an attractive female undergraduate. Pre-competition testosterone levels were positively associated with men's dominance behaviors in the mate competition-including how assertive they were and how much they "took control" of the conversation-and with how much the woman indicated that she "clicked" with each of the men.
all apologies for the way that study was set up and described ("an attractive woman" ffs), but the observations and conclusions seem potentially valid nonetheless.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:30 (twelve years ago) link
the social writing of bodies rewrites bodies themselves.
i think this is an important idea to take into consideration w/r/t the genetic basis of gender(or even any social thing). inasmuch as our bodies are sensory processing machines with real physical networks in our brain that govern how we 'think', genetics certainly had a role in the initial wiring of these structures. but then stuff like neuroplasticity goes and shows us that we can actually change the way we think; blurring the lines between nature and nurture even further
― radiant silverfish (diamonddave85), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:31 (twelve years ago) link
that xpost was for gbx
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:31 (twelve years ago) link
Do all transgendered people "know" from an early age though? I mean there have been a lot of challenges to that narrative as it pertains to homosexuality ("I always knew"). My mother has a friend who became a woman in his 40s after having a family -- I have no idea whether she always "knew." I worked with her one summer while she still held herself out as a man and there was nothing that would have clued me in. I'm sure she experienced at very least confusion but I wonder if she would have been confident enough at 11 -- in a more accepting society -- to make life-altering choices, even ones that just delay the decision.
― happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:33 (twelve years ago) link
― dayove cool (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:22 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark
okay, good point. i knew i was kind of overstating things there. but "rights" for children does not necessarily = legal responsibility for self and/or authority over one's life, right? can i ask what kind of rights you mean and how they apply here? assume you're not talking about emancipated minors and so forth.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:34 (twelve years ago) link
BTW in re testosterone studies, just googling around a little I notice that even the way "aggression" gets defined is problematic. E.g. one of the "refuting" studies defined it as "risky and egocentric behavior" and what "disproved" the link was that testosterone seemed to lead to more "fair" negotiations. So everything is already colored by this idea that "male aggression" and "competition" is synonymous with acting like Michael Douglas in Wall Street.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm
― happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:38 (twelve years ago) link
So everything is already colored by this idea that "male aggression" and "competition" is synonymous with acting like Michael Douglas in Wall Street.
well, or that one study, anyway. we do have to define these things somehow...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:43 (twelve years ago) link
thx con I'll take a look at those
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:45 (twelve years ago) link
What we need is testimony from a female to male trans person who's taken or is taking supplemental testosterone therapy.
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:46 (twelve years ago) link
Obv, we all have tesosterone and estrogens but it was my understanding that young men have the highest concentrations of testosterone, on average, of any population.
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:47 (twelve years ago) link
Also I mean there's the questionable probativeness of a study of males that were injected a single time with testosterone right before they did something. Hormones are complex things that interact with our physiology in complex ways.
― happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:49 (twelve years ago) link
(xposts) I found a lot of stuff like this in that paper you linked to:
This study indicates that young men who are from a culture where honor is important do respond to an insult—a challenge to honor—with an increase in testosterone levels, and also with more aggressive, domineering, behavior. Whether the testosterone surge plays any causal role cannot be inferred from the study.
&
The other side to the challenge hypothesis—and indeed its whole point in adaptive terms—is that the testosterone surge should increase aggressiveness in competitive situations. The evidence for this is hard to find in studies of humans, which have tended to examine the association between levels of testosterone and aggressiveness among samples of adults (see Section 9), or have involved the impact of competition on testosterone levels.
This seems to be in line with other studies I perused which suggest that there is little evidence that testosterone generates aggressive behavior or that there is any proof that differences in testosterone levels between genders has anything to do with differences in aggression.
― Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:49 (twelve years ago) link
fwiw, i'm not trying prove that i'm right. i think laurel was absolutely right that an endless, research-driven back-and-forth about the "correct" interpretation of the available science would accomplish nothing. afaict, there's a LOT of research out there, more than enough to provide adequate support for any position one might choose to take. rather than get hung up on it, i'd rather agree that it's okay have diverging opinions and more forward.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:51 (twelve years ago) link
afaict, there's a LOT of research out there, more than enough to provide adequate support for any position one might choose to take. rather than get hung up on it, i'd rather agree that it's okay have diverging opinions and more forward.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:51 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
not to snipe but dogg this attitude is why we can't have nice things. or say confront global warming or w/e
― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:54 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, i'm pretty over "can't we all just be friends??/agree to disagree??" when it comes to certain issues
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:59 (twelve years ago) link
oh maybe that should go on 'things you're fascist about' thread...
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:00 (twelve years ago) link
okay, point taken. but there are also these sorts of things in that study:
Testosterone levels showed a low but positive correlationwith measures of aggression and higher correlations withdominance, variously measured by leadership, toughness,personal power, and aggressive dominance. A study of 13-year-old boys found the highest associations with testosteronefor being a tough leader, and little sign of an associationwith measures of fighting. There was also evidence that menwith higher testosterone levels were more prone to react insituations that were perceived as challenges, such as anangry face or a more psychologically-induced challenge totheir self worth. These studies broadly support theprediction that there would be an association betweenaggression-based dominance and testosterone levels. Theyalso go beyond this, in indicating that challenges and statusmatters more to high testosterone people, and influencestheir behavior.
and this:
High testosterone men tend to be stableextraverts, and to show a range of characteristicsindicating that they tend to prioritize shorter-term goals.For example, high testosterone men show more antisocialbehavior, take more risks, and have less stable sexualrelationships. There was evidence that high and lowtestosterone males tend to set out on different life coursesfrom a relatively early age, although it is clear that anyinitial dispositions interacts with social circumstances.
i mean, there seems to be little doubt that testosterone affects human behavior in all sorts of ways, many of them measurable on a statistical/demographic scale.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:01 (twelve years ago) link
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
oh, i know. was hoping this wasn't one of them. and i sort of wish people on ILX were more inclined to accept certain kinds of dissent, but i suppose that if they were, it wouldn't be such a brilliant and hospitable place...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:02 (twelve years ago) link
Wait, so high-testosterone males are stable extraverts who engage in antisocial and risk-taking behavior?
― happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:04 (twelve years ago) link
but seriously, oh what a world it would be if we could all voice our opinions and then use rigorous scientific method-like analysis to call bullshit on the ones that don't serve the wholexpshm
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:05 (twelve years ago) link
obv i'm not talking about quantitative science itself there BUT choosing to fund certain projects could be determined in such a way. i'm being a socialist now tho with this line.
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:09 (twelve years ago) link
Science is the only known corrective for the limits of human cognition. No matter how discomforting the truth of what it reveals, we must abide by its findings until better findings come along.
― Banaka™ (banaka), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:10 (twelve years ago) link
lol
― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:12 (twelve years ago) link