Friday, November 5, 2021

On Gender


 "A new study published last week in the journal Nature dispels the widely held gender stereotype that women are more emotional than men."  https://www.today.com/health/new-research-debunks-gender-stereotypes-about-emotions-t237160    

That doesn't surprise me in the least;  I knew as much when I was a kid.  Of course my parents, being conventionally middle-class, raised me with the usual stereotypes -- but when they weren't watching I went off and played with other kids, and the society of little kids is a practical meritocracy: how well can  you fight, how well can you play ball, how many sweets can you come up with and share, and kid-relevant stuff like that.  My mother, aunts, and various schoolteachers might try to give me Lady Lessons, but I didn't believe any of it.  Much to Mama's despair, I always preferred riding horses to going shopping -- and I preferred hanging around with boys who felt the same.  

Yes, I went off to school every week-day dressed in clothes Mama had picked out for me ("cute" skirts, "pretty" blouses, "nice" shoes and all), but when I got home I'd promptly change into workmanlike jeans, T-shirts and sneakers -- in other words, "like a boy" -- and then I'd run outside and go play with the other kids.  It wasn't because I thought I was a boy;  I knew perfectly well that I wasn't, and a single glance into my pants always confirmed that.  It wasn't because I wanted to be a boy;  I definitely did not want to have a body that was clumsy, smelled bad, and had its tender parts hanging out in the breeze, at just the right height to be kicked, poked, or snagged on thorny bushes.  No, it was because I wanted to be treated like one -- as a standard, default-setting human being -- not as an adjunct to humanity, a special class, a decorated weakling, required to take Lady Lessons and pretend to agree with them.  

I'd seen too much of reality to believe that female mammals, including humans, were naturally weaker, more hysterical, less self-controlled, more submissive, etc. than males.  I'd seen too much to believe much of anything my elders told me about sex, beyond the simple mechanics.

I recall one day in June, off at a summer camp that was a working farm the rest of the year, when the weather was warm and the air was sweet with fresh flowers.  I was sitting on the top rail of a fence, beside my friend Nancy, watching a pasture full of mixed farm animals going at each other with a nice disregard for gender, species or size.  We saw two steers and a cow take turns mounting a Percheron mare, who was more interested in eating the fresh grass.  We saw two yearling colts busily giving each other oral sex.  We saw a dog mounting a sheep mounting a pig, and couldn't tell the sex of any of them.  We saw a lonesome bull, fenced off alone in an adjacent paddock, cock his hind leg on the fence and beat himself off against a fence-post.  It was quite a display.

I traded glances with Nancy, and then asked:  "Okay, tell me.  Just what is an 'unnatural act'?"

She only shrugged.

I kept that incident in mind in years afterward, while Women's Lib and Gay Lib rose to legal standing and won social equality -- what I'd wanted for myself since I was little -- for gays and women.  I thought we'd finally made progress, and that we'd keep it.

Alas, anybody who's read The Peter Principle can understand why it didn't stay that way.  The principle that "cream rises to the top, and then sours" holds true for political movements as well as corporate managers.  Also remember that power corrupts.  And finally remember that once a reform group has won its goal, it has only two honorable opti0ns: to close down or to become a 'veterans' organization.  There's a third option which is less honorable -- and that's to keep inventing new reasons to be outraged, so as to give the group excuses to keep on collecting money and political power for its staff.  Sound familiar?

Too many of the organizations and high-ranking personnel of the sexual/gender revolution were unwilling to honorably quit or to be reduced to mere veterans/memorial societies.  To  keep themselves relevant, they gave up aiming for equality and took up chasing 'equity' -- which means demanding "compensatory" payoffs, which soon turns into an extortion racket.  To maintain and hopefully broaden their membership, they expanded the definition of  "oppressed" gender.  This explains the current popular flight away from equality, the endless laws and lawsuits defining anything and everything as "sexist" or "transphobic", and  noisily demanding that all of society rearrange itself to fit he latest of the movement's fashions far beyond the ludicrous point.

Let's pause here for some statistics, facts, and perspective.   

Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population and have been legally oppressed in Europe and Asia and countries developed from them for the last 3000 years, as a result of a religious war dating some 2000 years earlier (see "When God Was A Woman" by Merlin Stone).  By "oppressed" I mean can be lawfully attacked and even murdered in public for any infraction -- not "micro-aggressions" or  "silence is vi'lence".  Simple rudeness or thoughtlessness doesn't count.    

Gays/lesbians/bisexuals make up slightly less than 5% of the population and have been variably oppressed in Europe and Asia etc. for the last 2000 years, primarily as a result of the Abramic religions' political and military ambitions.  Consider that "womanish" men are despised only in cultures where women are seen as decorated weaklings, and women who refuse to breed cannon-fodder are despised primarily in cultures whose governments want large armies.  In any case, they could always avoid punishment by behaving conventionally in public and being discreet in private.

Transgender people make up less than 1% of the population, and were treated as gay/lesbian until very recently -- say, after World War Two -- when successful transition surgery became possible.  Like gays and lesbians, they could avoid punishment simply by being discreet.

Note that in every case, the "oppression" depends on the culture's attitudes towards women.  Once women became legally and politically equal, it became possible for the other two groups to gain equal treatment too.  Equal treatment, and freedom from real oppression, isn't the problem -- and hasn't been for at least 30 years.  Being treated like a standard default-setting human being isn't the problem.

The problem is that the various groups and activists of the gone-decadent sexual/gender revolution are now demanding something other than equality.  They want "equity", which translates to special treatment and compensations, and we know where that leads.  They want to discard public discretion and shove their sexuality in everybody's faces, and to punish anyone who complains.  This, of course, creates resentment and an inevitable backlash which could damage the cause of gender equality.  So why are they doing it?

The obvious answers are money and power.  Invent a new form of "discrimination", get the courts to believe it, and you can sue anybody for a lot of money.  Accuse anybody of "discrimination" and you can ruin their careers, financial or political.  Current examples are too numerous to repeat here.  This may be rewarding in the short term, especially for civil-suit lawyers, but it won't last;  the resentment and backlash are already growing.  It would be best for the activists to plan their escape route now, and the real supporters of gender equality to plan their future tactics.

First, let's clear away the crap and admit that gender is natural and real, but gender roles are artificial.  Regardless of what ages of cultural prejudice may claim, women are not naturally more emotional, weaker, more dependent, less aggressive, etc. than men.  Studies of the few known ancient and modern ambiarchal cultures (see "The Dominant Sex", by Mathilde and Matthias Vaerting) bears this out.    

The gender of all mammals is set by the genes in every cell in their bodies, but what effect this has on character and behavior is wide open to speculation.  All we can say for certain, looking at other mammals, is that females are more likely than males to feel affection for small, helpless, fuzzy, squeaky creatures much like their own young.  

In order to learn more than that, we have to raise humans -- for at least two generations -- with the children of both genders being treated exactly the same: same nutrition, same exercise, same training, same dress, same education and same expectations.  One thing I expect we'll find is that females, unless firmly embedded in solid pair-bonds and extended families, will expect to take at least five years out of their educations and/or careers for every child they plan to have.  This must lead to different attitudes toward marriage, family, and responsibility for child-rearing.

What I expect to see coming out of this is women, as well as men, spending their early adult years not only developing their careers but collecting volunteer extended families -- and enforcing these with new laws and customs.  

That's the "gender equality" society that I hope for and still fight to create.  


--Leslie <;)))><           


   

    


  

16 comments:

Technomad said...

A big part of the problem here is the people who have either become addicted to outrage, or whose whole life is "the movement." Without "the movement," they have no friends and no social outlets, so they do everything they can to keep things going.

A lot of the backlash is building, at least IMHO, because the gays went beyond wanting acceptance to wanting applause. A lot of what they do strikes me as a lot more about lashing back endlessly at the parents, relatives and authority figures who weren't pleased when they came out as gay, than it is about getting gays a better deal.

For instance: I acknowledge that gay couples often got treated pretty shittily by relatives and the authorities, which became a big problem when AIDS came along. However, they could have had this problem solved at least a decade before they did, by being willing to settle for something like "registered partners," or something like that. Instead, they held out for the word "marriage," not caring that to a lot of religions, that's a term-of-art, and then, as if to rub it on in, insisted on suing venues and vendors who didn't want to participate in their ceremonies. It's like they aren't happy until someone's "mistreating" them. The unwisely broad way in which the anti-discrimination laws were written doesn't help, either.

As for "transgenders," my view is that there are a lot of unhappy, very suggestible people out there, and many of them can be conned into "transitioning." Kind of like the "recovered memories" panic some years ago, where people were convinced by "therapists" that they'd repressed memories---always, by an incredible coincidence, of their fathers or other adults sexually molesting and abusing them. These days, the same kind of quack "therapists" will tell anybody who's troubled that their problem is that they're "born in the wrong body" and need to "transition." After the tumult and shouting is over, these people find they've still got the same ol' problems, and now have a bunch of self-inflicted medical problems to deal with as well. Ooops!

A lot of "transphobia" can also be traced to the fact that most straight men want women. No Y chromosomes need apply. Also---the "male to female" transgenders I've met could maybe pass for women, on stage. With lots of makeup, and distance from the audience, they could maybe pull it off. Compared to Thai "katoeys" (lady-boys), though, they're pathetic wanna-bes at most.

I have an online friend who's an out-and-proud butch lesbian, and she sees "transgenderism" as a way to get rid of such as her. Girls with those tendencies are, instead of being encouraged to come out as gay, pushed into "transitioning," with all its attendant problems. It's an interesting theory, at least.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Nomad. Good points, all. I notice that one thing the pro-transition doctors, et al, don't mention is that "transitioning" renders you *permanently, irreversibly sterile*. This may be no big deal to prepubescent children, but adolescents and adults might think twice about it. Once that fact sinks firmly into the public consciousness, the fashion for transitioning may go out of favor faster.

--Leslie <;)))><

Technomad said...

I would be willing to bet that once this "transgender" fad is over, there's going to be some doctors and "therapists" getting sued by unhappy ex-patients that they talked into "transitioning." Buyer's remorse in these matters is a very real thing.

Leslie Fish said...

Ah, more grist for the lawyers, as always. I know three people who transitioned (two female to male, one male to female) and were happy with the result over a long stretch of time; all of them transitioned when they were well over 18 -- in fact, well over 30. They'd had plenty of time to think over their choices and understand the effects, all of them had been successful in their jobs, were highly placed in their particular society (fandom), and were in fact considered quite handsome in their original bodies. In other words, they didn't have serious social or psychological problems to start with. All of them looked, and acted, quite convincing (and handsome) in their new genders.

...unlike a certain "first female four-star admiral" who was never female and never in the military. I'll name no names, but if that's a woman, it's the ugliest woman I've ever seen in my life -- and if that's a man, it's a miserably flabby excuse for one. I can't imagine anyone wanting to take him/her to bed. And, incidentally, Grace Hopper was the first woman admiral -- and she worked her way up through the ranks.

Yes, I can see a *lot* of lawsuits coming once the fashion for transgendering has run its course.

Leslie Fish said...

Addendum: Interestingly enough, there are many accounts from history and folklore ('way back in the bad old pre-equality days), of women disguising themselves as men in order to get certain professions -- usually soldier or sailor -- and who accounted well for themselves in those jobs. Cases of men disguising themselves as women were treated as comedies, at best. This says something about the relationships of the sexes in the old days.

Technomad said...

A large part of my problem with this whole thing is the other side's arrogant attitude of "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, so shut up, prole!" If they had more humility, and acknowledged that this is a big, wrenching change in our culture, a change, moreover, that most of us did not ask for and did not much want, I'd be a lot more sympathetic. Acknowledging that it comes with problems attached, instead of screaming "Thoughtcrime! Thoughtcrime! DISCRIMINATION!" would also help a lot.

I react very, very badly to their implications that disapproval of their behavior, or just lack of enthusiasm, is a mental illness. As it happens, I have a real live phobia, and I know exactly what one feels like. I don't feel that way about gay people, or about "transgenders." Annoyance, irritation and resentment of their attitude do not a phobia make. Trust me on this.

Lastly (at least for now), I know you remember what I said to you before about not allowing anybody to dictate what I shall and shall not like. That applies with full force here.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Nomad. Amen to that! I recall when the Woke crowd was howling to change the name of the Washington Redskins on grounds of "racism". Plenty of real Indians (yeah, Indians!) that I know (not to mention my own relatives, and me) were royally p!ssed off by this campaign, and for good reason. Who the hell are these Wokey-dokes to come and tell *us* what *we* should or should not find insulting? We can figure that out for ourselves, thank you.

Technomad said...

If I were of "Native" descent, and proud of it, I'd love seeing headlines in the sports press to the effect that "Redskins Trounce Vikings, 11-0," or "Braves Win, Yankees Lose." It's not like we name sports teams after people we despise, after all. Otherwise, the Washington DC team would be the "DC Politicians" or the "DC Bureaucrats."

JustSomeone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Star Ranger4 said...

A lot of this discussion strikes too close to home. Why? Because my Nephew (he was born with an XY 23rd pair) decided "SHE" was actually supposed to have been born with a XX pair. This was AFTER she'd been in therapy, and had been attending a group. So, it is quite probable that the LGBT members of that group convinced her that HE/SHE was also LGBT.

Also, as a further point for discussion... or argument, may I point out that the communities in question cannot generate their own progeny, and therefore MUST recruit if they are too survive?

Technomad said...

One last thought: What ever makes you think that animal behavior in captivity is at all "natural" to them?

Star Ranger4 said...

Because the Animal Behavioralists claim it is and I have no data to call BS on them, Technomad!

Levana said...

Fucking humans. Shut up with your goddamn "gender" bullshit and accept some people might know themselves better than you know them.

Levana said...

Like fuck, obviously people should know what any medical treatment will do to them (and any good doctor, which if you've got a doctor who thinks people can decide what they want to do to themselves you're a lot more likely to have than if you have a doctor who thinks "call yourself a woman, but if you do you're insane and you've still got an ICBM in your pants", would), but that sure as fuck ain't a reason to go "hmm, what if the Gays have a secret plot to CONVERT OTHERS TO THEIR SIDE by telling them what options they have?" Oh, transgender fad this transgender fad that- the same reasoning derides anarchism and communism as sinister, wanting to do such unreasonable naive things as "keeping the world livable" and "helping build systems that help allow every person to be safe and happy"- clearly they must be up to something, and they must be in league with the other people I hate!

Star Ranger4 said...

*takes a deep breath*
*blows it out*

Okay, sorry that seemed to hit you in a personal spot, Levana. I will point out that it is more than possible to call Bull Poop on me without all the F bombs though?

As to your real point, MINE was that this person *MIGHT* (but not willing to claim *WAS*) have been convinced by others. Not that She was or was not, but allowing for the possibility, as over the last 90 days I've read SEVERAL posts about people feeling they were the wrong gender.

I, personally, am unwilling to claim why that is. What I *WILL* point out is that I have dealt with 'Mental Health' professionals for over THIRTY (expletives' deleted) YEARS; and that more than a few seem to follow the Diagnosis Du Jour as far as if it is Biological, Chemical, or what.

Over said years I've seen them claim Everything is schizophrenia, then Bipolar, and other strictly mental heath diagnosis. Until YOU can prove that her doctor did not follow the tides of change can we at least avoid the F bombs?

Leslie Fish said...

Consider, Lev, that some people don't know themselves very well, and doctors are quite capable of being bigots and greedy opportunists too. I notice that the Transgender Movement never mentions the first famous Trans, back in the '50s: Christine Jorgensen. Is that because s/he never used the word "transgender" or even "transsexual", but always admitted to being Gay? Or is it because s/he didn't age very well, or very long?

But consider too, that if you can change your gender (not including your DNA), then why stop there? Why not change your race? Think about Michael Jackson. Or even, should medical science get to that point, your species? Would you like to be a lion, or a centaur, or a unicorn? Maybe at that point you could change your DNA too. How far do you think it fitting that human beings should go?