Sunday School

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

And so you shoehorn T in with LG through linguistic shenanigans.

He’s not the one that has ‘shoehorned’ them together.

The difference is real and significant.

No one is saying there isn’t a difference between gender identity and sexual orientation.

 but it’s not relevant to whether we’re talking about whether the trans phenomenon.

It is relevant when talking about treatment because there is a repeated history of applying inappropriate treatments for the inappropriate reasons, especially where conversion therapy is concerned.

based on a mistake in physiology (did the genome literally dish out the wrong genitalia)

The most plausible current explanation is due to neurological development around the time of birth.

That said, there isn’t necessarily a singular cause and ‘transgender’ is an umbrella term including all the identities that aren’t cis, so there isn’t necessarily a singular reason/ cause for why people fall under the umbrella.

[_Robert_Participant]

As we are in a period of highly ordered peaceful society, sexuality-non-conformance and especially gender-non-conformance do become more common features than when society breaks down into war and famine and becomes a male-dominated situation. I would say the West is a more “feminine” culture today than tougher times. Even today in the Mid-East and African regions it’s not something to talk about if you value your health.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

I would say the West is a more “feminine” culture today than tougher times. Even today in the Mid-East and African regions it’s not something to talk about if you value your health.

I think this gets back to where the patriarchy – the ideal of the “manly male” – is weak, and where it’s strong, and why.  Islam used to be tolerant of sexual non-conformism, and it was only in reaction to the West (I believe) and wanting to appear manly, that they became so rabidly anti-non-conformism.  Similarly, there is a case to be made that anti-non-conformism was imported to Africa along with Christianity.

In Thailand there is the culture of ladyboys, I don’t know how old it is, but ladyboys are tolerated and even celebrated.

That said, there’s nothing to say that men have to be soft and weak, in order to be non-patriarchal.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

That said, there’s nothing to say that men have to be soft and weak, in order to be non-patriarchal.

Egalitarianism doesn’t imply male emasculation.

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

That said, there’s nothing to say that men have to be soft and weak, in order to be non-patriarchal.

Egalitarianism doesn’t imply male emasculation.

Thats the theory, but when the shit really hits the fan, women will look to their men for protection. Does Egalitarianism expect lady parts be strewn all over the battlefield with the men’s?

[AutumnParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

That said, there’s nothing to say that men have to be soft and weak, in order to be non-patriarchal.

Egalitarianism doesn’t imply male emasculation.

Thats the theory, but when the shit really hits the fan, women will look to their men for protection. Does Egalitarianism expect lady parts be strewn all over the battlefield with the men’s?

War and egalitarianism are largely antithetical absent some pretty desperate conditions which don’t need to exist in this era. However, the idea that women will look to their men for protection is a bit suspect. It is a cultural norm, but one that was also heavily reinforced by the disempowerment of women over decades and centuries. Perhaps there is some instinctual or practical aspect to protecting child-bearers from certain types of conflict, but the expectation that only men fight in the armed forces is likely a discriminatory gender norm—one bigoted norm out of several in our cultural history.

[UnseenParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

The most plausible current explanation is due to neurological development around the time of birth.

That doesn’t explain the surge in people who feel their genome screwed them over and gave them the wrong genitalia.

It’s the surge that’s suspicious.

[AutumnParticipant]

It’s not suspicious. It’s expected for several reasons:

i) decreased stigmatization—despite a recent wave of increased transphobia, there has also been a dramatic increase in acceptance

ii) increased awareness—while there was some vague awareness that transsexual people existed, knowledge was pretty limited and the subject was rarely broached, but now with greater knowledge and more expansive and widely known terminology, it makes it easier for people to process and talk about their identity and experiences

iii) increased support—whether it’s medical transition, counselling, legal services or just finding community, we’ve seen a lot of progress in recent decades (though more recently we’ve seen legislators return to legislative prohibitions in many jurisdictions).

iv) a more expansive definition of ‘trans’—the term ‘transgender’ is much broader than the prior term ‘transexual’

All of these things reduce barriers to people coming out. We saw similar shifts with regard to sexual orientation. When you looked at surveys breaking down the number of people identifying as LGB/queer by age, we’d see numbers like 3% in the older demographics, 5% in the middle age, and 7% in the younger groups. This also correlates roughly with the decreases in stigmatization and increased awareness over time, with decriminalization, with anti-discrimination protections, and with more expansive definitions of queerness.

We’ve never even had good data on how many trans people existed in the first place. Even now it’s a challenge to get accurate numbers. With recent progress on trans rights, awareness, and acceptance, it was natural to expect an increase in the number of people who were out in current data over previous data, especially at younger ages. Whether this entirely accounts for the increase of people who identify or trans or not, I am not sure anyone can say for certain, but an increase makes a lot of sense.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

I think this gets back to where the patriarchy – the ideal of the “manly male” – is weak, and where it’s strong, and why.  Islam used to be tolerant of sexual non-conformism, and it was only in reaction to the West (I believe) and wanting to appear manly, that they became so rabidly anti-non-conformism.  Similarly, there is a case to be made that anti-non-conformism was imported to Africa along with Christianity.

Patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarchy.

Not only is it an ambigous word with at least three meanings: 1) A social system in which the father is the head of the family; 2) A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men; 3) Dominance of a society by men, or the values that uphold such dominance. It is also a loaded word. It’s used pejoratively as well.

Men wanting to appear manly. Is there something wrong with wanting to represent the male gender as different and distinct from the female gender? As being the more hard-edged, ready for action, prepared to protect those who are less able to do so, and so on?

Are you part of that segment that maintains that the only difference between men and women is social/cultural baggage?

Beyond that, there’s a lot of unsupported historical speculation there.

In Thailand there is the culture of ladyboys, I don’t know how old it is, but ladyboys are tolerated and even celebrated. That said, there’s nothing to say that men have to be soft and weak, in order to be non-patriarchal.

I have to admit, LOL, that I wasn’t expecting to be reading about ladyboys in AZ today. Did you check out the meanings of “patriarchy” I gave above? They are from an English dictionary.

It’s not difficult to pick up on an undercurrent in certain movements that men should be more like women (more feminine).

BTW, isn’t the trans “thing” about a person born one gender wanting to become the other gender based on a firm and distinct difference between the genders? Otherwise, why bother?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Thats the theory, but when the shit really hits the fan, women will look to their men for protection.

That’s an interesting question.  Male protection of women is part of the classical model of patriarchy – of the great ape male, competing with other great ape males to control and protect “his” females in his harem.

But men are (on the whole) bigger and stronger than women, and women are (on the whole) smaller and physically weaker than men, not to mention the child-bearing.  Any time you get someone bigger and stronger and someone else smaller and weaker, it behoves the stronger to protect the weaker.

That goes both ways.  In some circumstances you might get women protecting men.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

3) Dominance of a society by men, or the values that uphold such dominance. It is also a loaded word. It’s used pejoratively as well.

That’s the sense I’m using it in.  I believe it comes from nature: in great apes, males compete with each other to control and dominate females so that they can reproduce.  This is opposed by female solidarity (“feminism”) with varying degrees of success according to the species.  So, famously, bonobos are not patriarchal since there is a lot of female solidarity in that species for some reason.  The alternative model is egalitarianism where males attempt to attract females by being an ideal mate, instead of dominating and controlling them into reproduction.

Humans are capable of either.

If the word “patriarchy” is pejorative – is that surprising?  It’s blatantly unfair to women.  It’s like saying the word “dictator” gets a bad press.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

War and egalitarianism are largely antithetical absent some pretty desperate conditions which don’t need to exist in this era.

I think that’s a matter of opinion.  The circumstances that gave rise to egalitarianism in our past (personal autonomy, communal sharing, etc.) are antithetical to the circumstances that allowed patriarchy to reassert itself (dependence on others, private property, etc.).

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

War and egalitarianism are largely antithetical absent some pretty desperate conditions which don’t need to exist in this era.

I think that’s a matter of opinion.

Not really. You can’t rationalize war under egalitarianism. At most you can make concessions that wars of defence may be required because egalitarianism is, at present time, more of an ideal than a reality.

[_Robert_Participant]

Unfortunately, Autumn, I doubt the human race is done with global warfare. Our showdown with China and Russia looms in a world fast using up its precious resources. There is India vs Pakistan, Saudi vs Iran.

You can’t demand egalitarianism and then when the ship is going down, it’s women and children first in the lifeboat. That was the cost men paid to have their “patriarchy”. Those chivalry-days are over, for now. It’s pretty much every man or woman for themselves.

Now say in 50 or 100 years, we fail to solve global warming/climate change. There are mass crop failures, floods, widespread malnutrition, supply chain breakdowns and it becomes a survival of the fittest world. You will be amazed how fast society reverts to back to full blown patriarchy. It’s how we survived through the millenniums. There will be no pride flags flying when hungry gangs with machetes are on the prowl. Don’t kid yourself this can’t happen either. In fact, from my experience knowing human nature, it’s very likely. We’ll talk a good game until it’s too late.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

3) Dominance of a society by men, or the values that uphold such dominance. It is also a loaded word. It’s used pejoratively as well.

That’s the sense I’m using it in. I believe it comes from nature: in great apes, males compete with each other to control and dominate females so that they can reproduce. This is opposed by female solidarity (“feminism”) with varying degrees of success according to the species.

“Solidarity” is a political term and it’s bizarre to talk about solidarity outside the human species. In nature, if anything, the females accept their role and don’t feel a need to conspire against males. Such would involve a degree of intent that would be absurd to apply to the lower species.

Even among the human species joining in on or even feeling a need or inclination to join with other women in solidarity would only happen among politicized women. Many women are  quite happy with things as they are. You haven’t noticed that?

So, famously, bonobos are not patriarchal since there is a lot of female solidarity in that species for some reason.

That you’re unaware of how bizarre the idea of solidarity among female bonobos is places you in your own little world where thoughts run free, unanchored to reality.,

The alternative model is egalitarianism where males attempt to attract females by being an ideal mate, instead of dominating and controlling them into reproduction.

With individual exceptions, of course, that is exactly the situation we are in now. I, for example, have a daughter and did not dominate or control my now ex into getting pregnant. When she got pregnant, by accident, I told her that whatever he choice (to keep or not) she would have my support.

Humans are capable of either. If the word “patriarchy” is pejorative – is that surprising? It’s blatantly unfair to women. It’s like saying the word “dictator” gets a bad press.

That patriarchy is unfair to women ignores the tradeoffs which are unfair to men. Women, on the whole, for example, look forward to parenthood in a way that men do not. They prefer to be the parent primarily responsible for childrearing. They are happier with stability than men. Men (or patriarchs) do not force this on them.

From our genomes, we inherit certain drives, such as hunger. Women, it seems obvious, as a group, want children t0 a degree men do not. (Now, when I say “as a group” I’m not implying anything universal but more like generality.)

Few single men wake up in the morning hoping to find “that someone” from whom they can acquire a child. More likely, he’s waking up dreaming of that motorcycle he’s  been obsessing about.

If you go to the typical magazine rack, there will always be magazines directed at women and devoted to weddings. From their cover art, it will be clear they are not directed at the male market.

Many prospective brides find it frustrating that they can’t get their prospective husbands nearly as involved in wedding planning as they’d like.

I suspect that the males who obsess about preparing for their wedding are marrying another man. Yes…the gays. Daydreaming about and looking forward to the wedding is not something most hetero men engage in. To getting it over with and to cohabiting with their partner, yes, but the wedding  and raising a child, generally not.

[Author]

Posts