3 ms·
For statistical purposes, the number of people whose sex and “gender” are not the same is negligible.
by larnmar 7y ago
For statistical purposes, the number of people whose sex and “gender” are not the same is negligible.
- JacksonGariety 7y agoYou seem to be thinking of the labels 'male' and 'female'; but I was referring to 'sex' as biologically reproduced characteristics, and 'gender' as sociologically reproduced characteristics. The labels are statistically consistent, but the concepts are quite different. Sex is stored in our genes whereas gender is stored in cultural artifacts.
- macawfish 7y agoThere are many possible hormonal modes and they are expressed dynamically, not deterministically, even within the same body. Hormonal behavior can be learned, it's not purely deterministic. People can be trained to habitually perform certain kinds of behaviors and postures that may not feel natural, and can grow into them, just as people can be trained, pressured, shamed: to carry certain attitudes or use certain language, to eat certain foods, to exercise certain muscles... but not others. Nature and nurture are not clearly separable as biological and social reductionists like to think. They intermingle in countless ways on multiple scales. People exist on many spectrums, and are dynamic, not predetermined.
- JacksonGariety 7y agoTotally agree. This is the "fuzzy overlap" to which I referred in my OP. I use the word 'fuzzy' because we just don't know how nature and nurture affect each other.
- shillremover 7y agoWow, I had never thought about that before! How does it impact the practical conclusions of the OP?
- gherkinnn 7y agoI find it hard to make such a clean cut. Even within these sociological aspects, how much is nature? What is nurture? So far, I remain unconvinced by any “blank slate” theory to explain gender expression (or anything else for that matter).