Gender Identity-Biological or sociological?

[robokitty]

Since it has come up in a couple other threads, I figured I’d go ahead and make a new one.

It seems like most everyone agrees that homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality are traits that you are born with. What about gender identity? Are we born with an innate sense of gender? How much of our gender identity is biological and how much is sociological?

I think that a great deal of our gender identity comes from our biology, while society tends to “fine-tune” what we think of as gender-specific behavior. For example, traits like males being more aggressive than women or more attracted to certain types of “rough-housing” play, are biologically encoded. Whereas ideas like men like beer, wear pants, and love GI Joes are socially influenced.

(That’s not to say that ALL men act with male-gendered behavior and ALL women act with female-gendered behavior. I’m just trying to outline the gross generalities here.)


I used to think that a lot of our gender identity was from sociological influences, but there were a few things that convinced me otherwise. One is the existence of transgendered people, who are generally raised as their biological sex yet decide to reject it. The other reason, which I think is most compelling, is the case of intersex children.

One type of intersex child is born biologically male but with underdeveloped genitals. It used to be common practice to simply cut off their “micropenis,” administer female hormone therapy, and raise these biological males as females. Overwhelmingly, these children grow to reject their assigned gender. Despite being raised as female, they show many “male-typical” behaviors in their play and express feelings of gender confusion.

If you’re curious to read more, here is one article (and a snippet from it): http://www.temenos.net/2007/11/intersex-children-into-the-han.html

In 1967, Money took on a case that would become a key test of this theory. It involved a pair of Canadian twin boys, Brian and Bruce Reimer, one of whom--Bruce--had lost his penis as a result of a botched circumcision when he was 8 months old. The distraught parents took Bruce to see Money, who recommended that the Reimers have Bruce castrated and raise him as a girl. The parents followed Money's advice. At almost 2 years old, Bruce underwent surgical castration and became Brenda. Money continued to monitor the Reimer twins as they grew, and published papers on their progress using the pseudonyms John/Joan. The case was cited in medical textbooks and journal articles as evidence of the malleability of gender. And although Brenda Reimer was not an intersexual per se, her case lent support to the practice of gender reassignment in those patients.
But in 1997, Milton Diamond, a biologist at the University of Hawaii; and Keith Sigmundson, a psychiatrist who had treated Brenda Reimer, dropped a bombshell. They reported in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that Brenda had rejected her assigned gender and exhibited boyish behavior throughout childhood and adolescence, even though she was not told the truth about her gender transformation until she was 14. After learning the truth, Brenda had reclaimed her male role, renaming herself David.

[Synthesis]

I can't probably offer much of a steady view on the issue, but honestly.

In 1967, Money took on a case that would become a key test of this theory. It involved a pair of Canadian twin boys, Brian and Bruce Reimer, one of whom--Bruce--had lost his penis as a result of a botched circumcision when he was 8 months old.

HOLY F---.

That pretty much put the whole "circumcision debate" to rest in my mind.

[spiderviveka_SC]

I think its both, but mostly sociological.

[Lemon&Lime]

I think this thread should be called "Gender identity; Biological or psychological or sociological?". Because somebody can feel that they were 'born in the wrong body' which is psychological, although may be related to social ideas of how genders should behave.

Personally, from a psychological point of view I think that if you look at different cultures you can see how people differ when it comes to identity in terms of their gender. In some countries people expect women to have different 'gender-specific' traits than in others, for example; and the same with men. Therefore everyone is socially-conditioned in to what 'role' they are supposed to play.

From a biological point of view I think only the most basic and primeval gender identity instincts come from our physiology. Most animals learn how to behave in their environment from their parents, but of course there are loads of exceptions.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

It depends which...
Like, transexuals are often chemically influenced

But people who cross dress... that's pretty much sociological (I mean it *is* society that tells girls to wear dresses and men not to... )

[frankie]

That is why if I had kids, I would only buy them neutral/unisex toys, such as educational toys, UNTIL they ask me for a doll or a car. That way I know that I was not the one who influenced their gender role. And even if I had a son and he asked me for a doll or I noticed that in the toy store he focused more in the girls' section, I would buy him whatever "girl" toy he wanted. Most parents would never do this. But because I grew up differently and used to play with dolls as a boy myself, who am I to say that my future son could not play with them? Besides, by buying them toys that are unisex, they don't feel the pressure of having to choose a gender role.

One of my cousin's co-workers has a son and she buys him a play kitchen set, and the other co-workers snicker about it behind the woman's back and call her son a freak. That is just wrong. So what if a boy wants to play with a toy kitchen set? Unfortunately, any type of household toy imitations are still considered for girls in society's view. I don't get that. Why can't boys prepare themselves for life instead of just girls?

Speaking of this, I have a question. Why is it that typical girls' toys are always more focused on life preparation and family, etc., and typical boys' toys are always emotionless and about action and war, etc. If you gave a typical boy two action figures and a typical girl two action figures, the results on how each plays with them will be extremely different. Girls will be less inclined to use them for war purposes than boys. Maybe girls will feel like they are lacking a house with a family whereas boys will not want a house for them, they will want a fortress or a cave. :(

[Doddibot]

Why is it that typical girls' toys are always more focused on life preparation and family, etc.
Because females bear the children and nurse them in all mammalian species. So mothers with an innate preference towards family care are likely to have more children grow up to adulthood, and those children are likely to carry the genetic disposition towards family life in females.

and typical boys' toys are always emotionless and about action and war, etc.
Because the females are nursing the young, any disposition towards dangerous activities like war is likely to fail (unless that disposition only arises when the children are threatened).

Males, on the other hand, have to compete for females, hunt for food to feed their their mate and protect her and her children. So, a genetic disposition towards home care will not be useful in males, and males who don't like to compete and don't like to hunt for food are not likely to have had many children, so the genetic disposition for competitive physical activity is likely to be more common in males.

A little lesson in evolutionary psychology.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

That is why if I had kids, I would only buy them neutral/unisex toys, such as educational toys, UNTIL they ask me for a doll or a car. That way I know that I was not the one who influenced their gender role. And even if I had a son and he asked me for a doll or I noticed that in the toy store he focused more in the girls' section, I would buy him whatever "girl" toy he wanted. Most parents would never do this. But because I grew up differently and used to play with dolls as a boy myself, who am I to say that my future son could not play with them? Besides, by buying them toys that are unisex, they don't feel the pressure of having to choose a gender role.

One of my cousin's co-workers has a son and she buys him a play kitchen set, and the other co-workers snicker about it behind the woman's back and call her son a freak. That is just wrong. So what if a boy wants to play with a toy kitchen set? Unfortunately, any type of household toy imitations are still considered for girls in society's view. I don't get that. Why can't boys prepare themselves for life instead of just girls?

Speaking of this, I have a question. Why is it that typical girls' toys are always more focused on life preparation and family, etc., and typical boys' toys are always emotionless and about action and war, etc. If you gave a typical boy two action figures and a typical girl two action figures, the results on how each plays with them will be extremely different. Girls will be less inclined to use them for war purposes than boys. Maybe girls will feel like they are lacking a house with a family whereas boys will not want a house for them, they will want a fortress or a cave. :(


I always made mine have sex... or played Jurassic Park with them.... where in half of them were eaten or slaughtered.
It's really a myth of how girls play with dolls.

A lot of my friends had weird games too.... not just lets make dinner for Ken.
Not ever lets make dinner for Ken, actually.

My barbies were almost always fighters.... and when I played with my American Girl doll with other kids.. it was about social issues like bad schools or racism... or adventure stuff.


So.... I think girls just don't tell people how they really play. And when people watch us... we kind of don't play what we usually would because it's weird.



Lol, Dodd. If you can't read it in a bio book, then it's just not as convincing, is it?
The hunter gatherer society was just ONE of the prehistoric types of gender roles. Just came out to be the most famous.
Nor do all mammalian females have that "stay at home" role. For example... Lions. Females are the main hunters, while also bearing cubs.

Not to mention.... that whole competing for females...
There are more females than males. Men are the minority in humans. Technically... women compete for men... we just do it in a subtle way.

[frankie]

Doddibot, thanks for the lesson, I never realized it like that and it sounds like something I should know. But keep in mind that there are female animals that are very ferocious when protecting their young, some of them can indeed be more so than males. But that is only what I got from animal documentaries, which I love by the way. :)

Another question. Most boys who play with dolls, like myself when I was a boy, seem to have a stronger preference with the long-haired ones, like Barbies for example. I found it to be so boring playing with a short-haired Barbie, even if the hair came down to the shoulders. But I had so much fun when the hair was waist-length or longer. I remember holding the doll by the legs and just twirling the hair around because long hair on females just always fascinated me. Even when I used to play with those practice heads from the beauty schools (a gay uncle of mine who died of AIDS in 1996 used to be a hairdresser) I would only play with the ones that had long hair. But I know I'm not the only one like this. I find that many boys who play with dolls prefer dolls with long hair. And look at me, I am not a transsexual or anything. I'm just an average gay male who is slightly effeminate, I'm not even a raging queen or anything, which is ironic. I'm still a lot more masculine compared to all the raging queens out there. And when I have dressed up as a female for Halloween, I would still prefer long wigs and not short ones, as they are much more fun to wear. I will still twirl some of the hair with my fingers as a habit, sometimes without even realizing it. Yet again, I still don't want to become a female. So why is this? I myself am confused.

[Doddibot]

The hunter gatherer society was just ONE of the prehistoric types of gender roles. Just came out to be the most famous.
It appears to be true for most of the hominids, as far as we can tell.

Nor do all mammalian females have that "stay at home" role. For example... Lions. Females are the main hunters, while also bearing cubs.
Yes, that's true. But the male lions are still generally more aggressive, because there is a lot of competition between males for the females. A pride usually only has a few males with many females and juveniles, if I recall correctly.

Not to mention.... that whole competing for females...
There are more females than males. Men are the minority in humans. Technically... women compete for men... we just do it in a subtle way.
That's also true. You just need to look at an all-girl's school to realise that competition for males is just as common. But far less likely to end in a physical fight.

Doddibot, thanks for the lesson, I never realized it like that and it sounds like something I should know. But keep in mind that there are female animals that are very ferocious when protecting their young, some of them can indeed be more so than males. But that is only what I got from animal documentaries, which I love by the way. :)
Yes, in most mammals that is the case. In fact there is one, the type of antelope (the dik-dik) in which the male does absolutely nothing to protect his female nor his young. Just follows the female around all day.

So why is this? I myself am confused.
Long hair is hot on women. Shows health and vitality - a woman with hair is a woman who can bear lots of children. So the men who like women with a full head of long hair are the men who have the most babies, and those babies all end up liking long hair. That could be all it is.

Then again, it could be something far more complicated than my mere evolutionary explanation, and for that I shall need to hand over to somebody with psychology training....

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Lulz.... less common to end in a physical fight?
OmG... you must have never been to an inner city school

[Doddibot]

Lulz.... less common to end in a physical fight?
OmG... you must have never been to an inner city school
No, I went to a suburban school.

But still, I'd think that would be fairly typical. Are there any surveys on this that show physical bullying to be just as common for girls as for boys?

[lockshockbarrel]

Lulz.... less common to end in a physical fight?
OmG... you must have never been to an inner city school


Oh, I dunno. My school had a really bad fight recently, so people were talking about fights in general. One of my teachers who used to work in an inner city school said that guy fights were much more common, but much less intense.

He said that guys would fight over things like being looked at funny, "What? You gotta problem?" and then try to pretend they weren't fighting as soon as a teacher came.
Girls would fight after weeks or month of brooding, stewing conflict and would attack each other, not stopping until someone physically stopped them.

I'm sure those are big generalizations, and I don't have any actual numbers, but if it's a worthy contribution, it's yours for the taking. (And, by the way, the really bad fight at my school was between two girls. One of them had to go to the hospital because the other was bashing her head against the floor)

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

I dunno.


But from personal experience.... guys do more "fake fighting" than girls.
But when it comes down to *real* fights, it's about equal.

[frankie]

What's an "inner city school?" I've never heard of that.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Lol, really?

An inner city school is just what it sounds like...
Schools that have their campus inside a city.

As opposed to being in the suburbs, or away from the town.

They are stereotypically overrun, and usually lower income kids go there.

My inner city school was an art school, actually, and was really good. So I am kinda joking sometimes when I talk about it. But some aspects were still very "inner city" even with the art stuff.... and our fights were at times quite serious. ; )
Especially when we were temporarily moved into OakCliff... which was the highest crime rated area of the highest crime rated city in America for several years (atleast according the the paper).

Most of the violence was about sh&%talking.... or was racial... since our school was roughly a 30 percent white, 30 percent black, and 30 percent hispanic.
But most of us got along just fine.

[frankie]

Okay, I guess I was thinking of it being something else. Then in that case my high school was that, too. It was just a typical public school with a D grade as the school's average education level and out in the ghetto of Detroit. Then again, it's Detroit, where is it not ghetto? But yeah, we had mostly blacks and Latinos and plenty of whites, the whites were usually trying to be either of the two, very few of them were themselves.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Well then you went to an inner city school too.

You and I are brethren in a sense. ; p

[frankie]

I had to look that word up in the dictionary. I have a few learning disabilities and A.D.D. so to top it off with Major Depression, homosexuality and the things I mentioned in this thread, I'm just quite the catch, aren't I? LOL ;)

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

OMG
Don't down yourself so much.

Lot's of people have ADD
Major Depression isn't a death sentence (though at times it may feel so)
Homosexuality isn't even blinked at in lots of circles

Plus, you're cute.
That makes up for most things.

[frankie]

*blush* Thanks. lol

Well, getting back on topic before we get in trouble, I had a question. And this may seem like a stupid one but knowing how far technology has gone, I wouldn't be surprised. Is there a pill or injection to make you more masculine or more feminine? That way, those who are, say, born as males but act females and instead of putting up with society's narrow-mindedness, can just rely on these to make life easier for them. I mean, that is, if they would even function correctly. And I'm talking where you can truly be more masculine as in the way you walk, speak, etc. Or is this just wishful thinking?

[bacon164]

... don't you think that would be going completely in the opposite direction that we need to go?

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Masculine and feminine are society standards that fluctuate from culture to culture, Frankie.

There *are* pills that can change you from male to female... testosterone and estrogen are common.
Estrogen is the happy drug. ; )


BLAH
But I should note...
In one of my psych classes... the prof talked about a study that said...

People who are less like their "gender" tend to me happier.

Like men who aren't extremely masculine and women who aren't overly feminine tend to be happier in the long run in their life... and have an overall "freer" sense of who they are.

But I forgot who did it so I dunno about sources.
But I don't know why my prof would Lie to me either. Lol.


So don't feel bad if you aren't butch.
Butch men turn me off....ick.

[frankie]

Really??? My God, butch men are a turn-on, though, I do like non-butch men, too. ;)

Bacon164, yes it is in the opposite direction, but I was asking mainly for myself. Plus I just thought for the ones who are in my shoes, you know? Maybe they would be as desperate as I am. :(

Faith, I knew about those but I guess they aren't the ones I was asking about. So I am assuming the answer is "no" or "not yet." Yet because God only knows if there will ever be any. Plus for me to take more testosterone would be unpleasant for me because I don't want to be very hairy and I assume I would be. Plus, not to sound ignorant, but... wouldn't that boost my sex drive? I just figured since males typically seem to be more hormonal than females because they are men. But I could be wrong, of course. :)

[BigBadBrat]

That is why if I had kids, I would only buy them neutral/unisex toys, such as educational toys, UNTIL they ask me for a doll or a car. That way I know that I was not the one who influenced their gender role. And even if I had a son and he asked me for a doll or I noticed that in the toy store he focused more in the girls' section, I would buy him whatever "girl" toy he wanted. Most parents would never do this. But because I grew up differently and used to play with dolls as a boy myself, who am I to say that my future son could not play with them? Besides, by buying them toys that are unisex, they don't feel the pressure of having to choose a gender role.

One of my cousin's co-workers has a son and she buys him a play kitchen set, and the other co-workers snicker about it behind the woman's back and call her son a freak. That is just wrong. So what if a boy wants to play with a toy kitchen set? Unfortunately, any type of household toy imitations are still considered for girls in society's view. I don't get that. Why can't boys prepare themselves for life instead of just girls?

Speaking of this, I have a question. Why is it that typical girls' toys are always more focused on life preparation and family, etc., and typical boys' toys are always emotionless and about action and war, etc. If you gave a typical boy two action figures and a typical girl two action figures, the results on how each plays with them will be extremely different. Girls will be less inclined to use them for war purposes than boys. Maybe girls will feel like they are lacking a house with a family whereas boys will not want a house for them, they will want a fortress or a cave. :(
I think children should be free to play with whatever toys they want. Not just boys playing with typical boy toys and girls playing with typical girl toys. Just because a boy likes girl type toys doesn't neccessarily make him gay or vice versa. We totally have to get over these stereotypes. There's nothing wrong with a boy wanting a kitchen set. Honestly, there's only so much you can do with G.I Joes. I always gravitated to the more sensitive type guys,myself. I never cared for the big muscle bound jocks. Just cuz a guy is sensitive and emotional doesn't make him gay either. I think it's because of these ignorant stereotypes that many sensitive more feminine guys struggle with their sexuality,and the more masculine tomboyish women as well. Because society says .......
I was all tomboy growing up. I use to beat up my dolls,and that doesn't mean squat. Iam all woman as an adult and very straight. I think the key is to not make a big deal out of it with your kids. Dont be a homophob and they wont either.

[weirdloverwilde]

I think gender identity is in the brain and set from before birth. But "gendered behaviours" are mostly bullsh*t stereotypes, hammered into peoples minds by society. This is easy to see when you look at how different cultures had different gender roles and stereotypes, and even different/extra gender identities (American Indian Two-Spirits, Hijras in India, Eunechs in the Bible, etc). Even the most well-known gender stereotype; pink is for girls, blue is for boys. Actually used to be the other way around.

On the subject of intersex: I have an intersex friend who was raised as a girl, but he rejected that and he now identifies as a man.

[SwiftSign_SC]

Gender identity can be explained a lot through conditioning, even from an early age, and so society plays a big part of it.

For instance, Freudian theory claims that boys imitate their father figure because he gets to sleep with the child's mother. Now if this was a lesbian couple who have a child by which ever means they wish then we would expect that child to a) be more open to the idea of homosexuality and b) more feminine no? Of course it depends on the femininity of his mother's partner but yeah, thats what freud would figure.

Conditioning is not necessarily to people with your gender, it is to people who you look up to which can change your views and position. Therefore if at an early age a girl has only male role models she will most likely be more masculine, this is all she knows. After school however other factors come into it, since she would be told she was a girl and would know who the other girls are she is likely to accept she should be similar to them.

Biology of course plays some parts, as someone mentioned earlier it is hormones that effect levels of aggression and emotion and since each person has varying levels it does has a part to play on personality. However saying it is biological also infers that we can fix it by applying different hormone levels, I'm not sure about this but do you think a woman of 20 years would act differently [other then anger] if under testorone treatmeant? Would it be enough to completely undo the years of previous gender identity?

Women / Men that undergo hormone treatment do not change their gender identity, and since they were already identified with the opposite gender (despite their biological gender hormones), So this is proof against biological input.

However the above could be explained as an instance of abnormality as is statistically rare and deviates from the social norm, therefore it could be argued transgenders only feel they are not the right sex because of cognitive failure (or other explanations of abnormality).

Intersex children, which I had never head of before, so anything I say could be complete rubbish...

It seems to be that people assume a child being raised as a girl would in theory work. Which it would. But perhaps the parents of the child, who know is a male, could on some occasions 'slip-up' with their subconscious still acknowledging their baby as a boy. Also its possibly safe to assume, backing biological this time, that genetics of the XY lead to different instincts of the XX females. Once again conditioning of those that look or sound alike may take place - although younger children have little difference in sound it is often easier to tell them apart from looks, so some intersex children may assossiate with their born gender this way.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Really??? My God, butch men are a turn-on, though, I do like non-butch men, too. ;)

Bacon164, yes it is in the opposite direction, but I was asking mainly for myself. Plus I just thought for the ones who are in my shoes, you know? Maybe they would be as desperate as I am. :(

Faith, I knew about those but I guess they aren't the ones I was asking about. So I am assuming the answer is "no" or "not yet." Yet because God only knows if there will ever be any. Plus for me to take more testosterone would be unpleasant for me because I don't want to be very hairy and I assume I would be. Plus, not to sound ignorant, but... wouldn't that boost my sex drive? I just figured since males typically seem to be more hormonal than females because they are men. But I could be wrong, of course. :)
Men are not more hormonal than men.
Women usually are more hormonal, actually..... but really we just have different levels of the same hormone.

In my Abbie psych class I heard about this women who.. had some surgery on something and it lowered her sex drive extremely. So her gyno have her testosterone pills.. But she took so many that she would like, lol, be very aggressive and she's have sex with her husband like 4 times a day or something.
It was funny.

He said when she came in she was really shifty and couldn't sit still. He was like "woooow.... you need to lower your testosterone".
But.... it didn't make her walk or talk more like "a guy". Just... imbalanced her and freaked out her hubby.


I say estrogen is the happy drug, because he said most of time time when he gives people estrogen they get really happy.



And yeah: I talked kinda about this on another thread (sexiest person alive) but I am not really into butch men. Since I'm both feminine and masculine, I'm more attracted to men who have a more balanced gender than just really masculine... because then we'd be like.... imbalanced or something.

I dunno how to explain it. Lol.

[frankie]

BigBadBrat, actually I hear that in Italy you can get away with being a little effeminate because they have different views on how men should behave. But unfortunately in the U.S., it is different. The media portrays the man having to be butch. Look at how many of the thuggish rappers and what not, how butch and cocky they are. And it influences men because now when a feminine man behaves in front of a butch guy, the butch guy makes fun of the effeminate man and believes it is all wrong.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Not everywhere in the US, Frankie.

[frankie]

Seems like it to me. Unless of course you're emo or goth, then you can get away with it.

[BigBadBrat]

BigBadBrat, actually I hear that in Italy you can get away with being a little effeminate because they have different views on how men should behave. But unfortunately in the U.S., it is different. The media portrays the man having to be butch. Look at how many of the thuggish rappers and what not, how butch and cocky they are. And it influences men because now when a feminine man behaves in front of a butch guy, the butch guy makes fun of the effeminate man and believes it is all wrong.
Awww that's so true and so sad about America. Arrogant ,cocky, neanderthal type men just totally turn me off. They also have very antiquated ideas about a womans role in the home too. I run in the other direction from men like this. I dont care how hot society says they are. If an effeminate male heres the abuse enough and the names.These effeminate males start believing it. Then for the first time they engage in an act of homosexuality, then more and more. It's a downward spiral. I just thing the more these effeminate males here the taunts the more they believe what is being spoken about them. Well personally give me a man who loves to cook, shop,and get emotional. Give me a man who is tender and kind. A man that loves to have a deep conversation. It doesn't make them gay. The stereotypes got to go. Cuz they are part of the problem. If these effeminate males feel they are gay then stop the ridicule and bashing.

[frankie]

Well, I'm not gay because of that reason, lol. I have never heard of anyone turning gay because of that.

[BigBadBrat]

Well,Frankie,I know we have had this discussion before,but I dont believe your born that way. Then that's just my opinion, and I know not a popular one. I dont want to start a argument though with anyone. We can all agree to disagree.

[frankie]

It's okay, I know not everyone can agree on that, but it's definitely the most logical of everything else. Have you read my other post in the "born gay" thread? I even went as far as to admit my sexual experience with a female and I'm still the same, still attracted to men. And no, I didn't think you were arguing. :)

[BigBadBrat]

It's very sad that you are still attracted to men. What a sad loss for my gender. By the way isn't my avatar cute. She's my new baby. Her name's Chloe Grace. She's a sheltie pup. I love animals. I have three shelties. Two blue merle color shelties, and Chloe who's sable and white. Okay Iam getting way off topic sorry about that.

[frankie]

Why is it a sad loss to your gender? You confused me for a moment.

[BigBadBrat]

Because you are unavailable for women. Because you are attracted to men and not women.

[spiderviveka_SC]

The more gay men, the better, imo. I wish they were all gay and we could just reproduce by binary cloning.

At least that way I wouldn't have to live in fear from them.

[BigBadBrat]

So I take it you dont like men,Spider?

[frankie]

Well it's not that I am repulsed or disgusted by women or anything. It's just that there is a whole different feeling. When I daydream about a girl, it is so different than when I daydream about a guy. I should say woman because I'm almost 29, lol. Girl sounds a bit young now for my age. But you know what I mean. So anyhow, I think about a man and being held in his arms and so it makes me feel comfort, it makes me more passive, it makes me melt, makes me happy and safe. I can't get that when a woman holds me. Actually relating this to the topic of this thread, I feel like I am usually a passive person, physically anyway. If a woman were to hold me, it would make me so uncomfortable, so awkward, I don't feel that melty feeling, that sigh of happiness, that natural smile that grows like I would with a man. Also, with a woman, I feel like the roles would change. I feel like I'd have to hold her, get her gifts, etc. I'm usually the one getting all the gifts when with a guy, lol. Not that I really want it that way just happens to be that way. Besides, if I had been with a woman, I'd be way too embarrassed to tell my family and would keep it a secret. The pressure would just be unbearable! And if it had ended which I know it would (I'd be missing being with a man so much) my family would expect me to continue dating women because, well, if I dated one why not another? It would be way too overwhelming. Okay, this is such a rant! lol

[BigBadBrat]

Well Iam glad you're at least not repulsed, but it sounds as if your unavailable emotionally to women. It would be hard for any woman to deal with not being able to give you that feeling. Not to be stalkerish or anything, but I checked out your profile and thus your music. OUTSTANDING. It has a really awesome beat and sound. Do you play instruments? If so what? guitar? or just sing? Way off topic. Sooooo sorry. Okay to bring this back on topic,but really not wanting a fight. Believe it or not I hate major confrontation. Anyway I think the choice to become homosexual is psychological. In other threads I have stated my views so I wont even go there. I also believe God can set anyone free from homosexuality that wants to be free from this bondage. I guess first though you have to want to be free and see it as bondage.

[ChaoticNeutral]

I think genetic plays a role on one's tendency to be gay. Not something that radically decisive anyway, so sexuality is mostly sociological. And I believe it can be molded and changed if one so wills.

Of course I believe one's efforts should be to get adapted to both genders so sex won't ever get in the way of love and affection since gender won't matter. And of course, no change should be done to please imaginary figures we create to make them responsible for what is, in fact, in our hands.

[frankie]

Oh trust me, I have tried very hard to NOT be gay and prayed countless times to not be gay anymore back when I was a Christian but it never works, which is proof that we are indeed born gay because I was never raised that way and I still ended up being gay with absolutely no influence whatsoever. And to relate this to this thread, it is not like gender identity where it can be influenced by your social awareness. You don't just become gay because it's cool or because this person is. Trust me, if it were the case, I'd have been straight ages ago, lol. And this is not an argument, so we are definitely cool. :)

EDIT: Plus there are too many gay men who end up married to a woman and cheat on her with another guy, just using the woman as a cover-up. I could never do that, it is sick and wrong. And selfish! I would never put A WOMAN THROUGH THAT! :(

[ChaoticNeutral]

Now on topic, "gender identity" is a very subtle term to begin with. The idea of "this is for women" and what "this is for men" is purely sociological so the "gender identity" is, obviously, sociological as well.

[spiderviveka_SC]

So I take it you dont like men,Spider?


I like men. I just find it exceedingly difficult to trust them. Whenever they are affectionate to me, I always have a terrible anxiety they they are going to hurt me while i am at a disadvantage. I also hate that they seem to think about sex most of the time. Of course, this is acceptable if they don't talk about sex all the time. At least that way I can delude myself out of thinking that they are playing a porno film through their head while they talk to me, or other women.

But yes, I do find them attractive, both sexually and intelectually. But I think thats more of a visceral reaction on my part. In the logical portion of my brain, any of these feelings are overridden by an extreme distrust, verging on hatred of the male gender, not as individuals, but as massive mechanism.


Anyway, like I stated earlier, i believe that homosexuality is both genetic and sociological. I think the only real reason that I have any homosexual persuasion is because I can trust and respect other females more than males. I find both very attractive however, but there are a lot of conflicting feelings.

[weirdloverwilde]

Because you are unavailable for women. Because you are attracted to men and not women.
Well Iam glad you're at least not repulsed, but it sounds as if your unavailable emotionally to women. It would be hard for any woman to deal with not being able to give you that feeling.
I don't mean to butt in on yours' and Frankies' conversation (okay, I guess I'm doing that anyway), but. If you're using this line of thought... isn't it a sad loss to your own gender, because you are unavailable for any woman, and she is not able to give you that feeling? That would be just as hard for her to deal with.
A gay man is emotionally available and capable of having loving relationships with 1 gender (which just so happens to be his own gender), and you (assuming you're a heterosexual woman) are also emotionally available and capable of having loving relationships with 1 gender (which happens to be the opposite gender). What's the difference?
Does this mean that you think more highly of bisexuals than gay or hetero people? Because afterall, bisexuals are capable of having romantic relationships with a larger percentage of the population, seeing as they're not cancelling out a whole group of people based on gender. So there is less "emotionally unavailable-ness" there.

[weirdloverwilde]

Now on topic, "gender identity" is a very subtle term to begin with. The idea of "this is for women" and what "this is for men" is purely sociological so the "gender identity" is, obviously, sociological as well.

When people speak of "gender identity", it is usually separate from "gender expression". Gender identity being man/woman/etc, gender expression being masculine/androgynous/feminine. And then sex, being male/female/intersex.
The "this is for men" and "this is for women" is pointing to gender expression, not identity. I agree with you that "this is for men/women" is purely sociological, but I doubt that gender identity (a sense of belonging to a particular gender regardless of whether you are feminine or masculine) is sociological.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

Because you are unavailable for women. Because you are attracted to men and not women.

BigBrad

Gender= society's views of bx according to sex
Sex= biological male or female

So it's a sad loss to your sex.

And Frankie
AMERICA'S NOT THAT BAD.
I mean, I know the conservative right wing has gone ape crazy on gay people.
But it's still
1) Legal
2) Can get civil unions at least in many states
3) In many countries you can legally be put to death for it.

So stop acting like America is the worst place to live for gay people.
Europe may seem nicer... and it may be. But there are gay bashings there too.


CHAOTIC:
While it has been shown in studies what *particularly* you are attracted to is often based on culture.
Orientation so far is mostly linked to a genetic predisposition. And a strong one at that.


Example:

My mother and I both have huge hips.
My mother's generation..... big butt's seen as bad thing.
My Generation... Big butts= me getting hit on about 5 times a day with "girl you got a tight ass". *eyeroll.... slight smile*

But it's still straight men hitting or not hitting on me.
The fact that big butts are in season will not make gay men attracted to straight girls.

[spiderviveka_SC]

Faithlove, you are always defending the US. But really, we have a LOT of problems here. Socially, environmentally, and economically, and if we don't try to fix them soon, our mighty empire will crumble, just like Rome did.

People live in poverty, we start wars with people we can't possibly defeat, there is prevailant discrimination against americans for their race, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation. Really this place is a mess. I want to fix it, not because i "hate america" or anything, but because this is my home and I love it here. I love the people here, and I think we all deserve better lives and better treatment.


1. In many other westernized countries, you can legally MARRY someone of the same sex.
2. It most other westernized, first world countries, you can be openly gay and serve in the military.
3. It can be exceedingly difficult to adopt children, or gain custody of children if you are gay.
4. I don't know of any states that currently allow homosexual marriage, or "civil union" (which is a total cop out, btw)

Also, Its hard for a heterosexual to make accurate judgments on how fairly homosexuals are treated. Just like men have no real right to weigh in on womens issues, nor whites on issues of minorities. And so on and so forth.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

I'm not saying the US is the best.
And yeah, I love America so I'll defend it when it is being misunderstood.


America isn;t the worst place for gay people.

It;s true.

[frankie]

No but why is it that Canada and Spain have gay marriage and we don't? Most Americans seem to want to take the country back to the 1950's. Why is it that I only hear of "The American Dream" and not the "The British Dream," "The Spanish Dream," "The Greek Dream," etc. "The American Dream" does not include gays. It's your typical fantasy that many straight people have about the perfect husband-and-wife-with-children deal in a nice suburb with a picket fence. It's unreal and it gets on my damn nerves that people are just that gullible. Sure, in New Jersey and other states you can have a civil union which is ONLY recognized in that state. Plus what benefits are there? None that I know of. And yes, other countries can put you to death for being gay. That's not the point and that is a whole other story. America is supposed to be of freedom and modernization, but it's only limited. Last that I checked, the term freedom has no limitations.

So that is why I am frustrated with the U.S. and if I could move out I would, but where to? I don't know what life is like in other countries. And it's not easy to move to another country anyway.

[Faithlove13xxx_SC]

I support gay marriage.

And I think that's a fault of America.
It really doesn't even make sense from a lawful viewpoint.

But you have to understand that It's not that bad, things do change, and the whole country isn't against you. Even though at times it may feel that way.

[frankie]

I understand. As I mentioned in the previous Obama/Clinton thread, I have a love/hate relationship with the U.S. It's annoying at times! lol