Oct 8, 2022·edited Oct 12, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
"Gender dysphoria is completely sincere on the part of the sufferers, but it’s not something that occurs in every time and place — so it’s also a cultural creation." This is nothing short of brilliant. It's clear, succinct, and revolutionary, all at the same time. I aspire to be able to make sentences like this.
It's revolutionary because the hidden assumption that underlies most discussion of the malady is that it's somehow *biological* in its origin, rather than cultural. As your argument makes clear, the problem is the imposition of gender stereotypes, not an individual's predispositions or temperament.
Thank you, Lee, for taking the time to read this and for your very kind and generous words. I’m passionate about the need for a cultural shift so we allow people to be happy and satisfied with themselves just as they are.
There may well be some underlying biological predisposition to gender nonconformity; but how it's interpreted will be quite different depending on the culture. In our culture just 50 years ago, it simply meant you were a gnc person. Same for gender dysphoria: I chafed against the expectations of 1970s girlhood but my solution was a feminist framework that told me I could be fine just as I was. That also worked for a lot of women who were much more outwardly nonconformist than I.
“a feminist framework that told me I could be fine just as I was.”
This is such an important point -- and we tend to think of the passage of time as representing “progress” but in this case, our culture’s views on gender have become much more regressive.
I imagine that if a cultural context allowed gender expression to vary in ways that were not limited by rigid stereotypical cultural constraint, any biologically based gnc predispositions would simply express in ways that were consistent with the brain-based inclinations. In such a case, the person would not conform to gender norms, but the culture would be sufficiently flexible to accommodate unusual expressions. If so, it doesn't seem like there would be any distress associated with being required to express gender traits in ways inconsistent with one's natural inclinations. Hence, no gender dysphoria.
Yes, Lee, I agree. True progress would mean such complete acceptance that there would be no gender dysphoria. Someone’s body should not be associated with having whatever personality and inclinations they have. A very feminine boy, say, should be able to be feminine _and_ a boy _and_ be loved and accepted.
I cannot say enough regarding how cogent and thoughtful your original article is. I really appreciate the cultural and historical perspective you offer, which makes your framing so compelling. When dealing with such a phenomenon, one would expect it to be universal, no? If not, then it can't be innate or grounded in reality. It seems so obvious now, but that's just testament to how effective your explication is. I wish your article and ideas received more widespread attention. I have yet to see anyone else making the same arguments, at least not as cohesively as you have
Thank you very much, GS. I really believe that reframing this issue through a cultural and historical perspective — to as many people as will listen— is the key to getting our culture to reassess what we’re doing.
It’s not political. It’s not left / right. It’s not liberal / conservative. It’s not even open-minded / closed-minded (although it does seem like many people have their minds made up).
It’s certainly not a religious issue. Anyone of any faith or uncertain faith or no faith can see that this set of beliefs and practices is cultural and transitory, not universal.
I’m confident future generations will look back on this period as ignorant and barbaric. They’ll wonder how we could have possibly thought this was the right thing to do.
The quicker we can all work to get a cultural shift going, the better it will be for thousands of people who would otherwise be medically and emotionally harmed.
Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
A truly distinctive feature of today's concept of transgender identities is that no other society has insisted that gender nonconforming men are *really* women. This is a historically and cross-culturally novel claim. The other thing that's truly novel: medical intervention. But I've seen much more commentary on the latter than on the former.
TRAs are right to highlight that gender nonconformity exists pretty much in all historical eras and cross-culturally. They're wrong to label it trans. This pair of your posts highlights their error with satisfying clarity.
The historical contingency of identity categories has been demonstrated by scholars including - perhaps most prominently - Michel Foucault. Much of the current discourse on trans identities is not actually rooted in Foucault by way of Butler. The average TRA will insist that identity is innate and fixed. (A minority of them will trumpet fluidity - but that's not a politically useful argument, is it, when you want insurance and/or government to cover medical interventions.) Foucault and Butler both portray identity as contingent and shaped by discourse. They're pretty darn close to blank-slatists.
If you follow Foucault's logic on identity, you can't help but notice that the "trans child" is an invention of the past 15-20 years that only began to break into the consciousness of the average American 5-10 years ago. (This isn't my original point. Heather Brunskell-Evans has written about this.) But the "trans child" has become integral to lobbying for everything trans activists desires. It creates sympathy for the poor adult deprived of early transition and spawns a discourse of protecting endangered trans children. On the other side, GC people advocate for an entirely different sort of child protection, but the TRAs got there first in the U.S. and outflanked left-leaning GCs. Of course the right wing is all about protecting children, too (some cynically, some sincerely). American hyper-partisanship combined with near-complete capture of the mainstream media ensures that these two competing visions of child protection never come into dialogue - to the detriment of the kids in both red and blue states.
The closer we look at what’s been going on in the past 15+ years, the more we can see how novel it is -- and therefore invented (and it seems to serve a whole host of purposes).
The more I read what you write about this issue, the more it makes sense as opposed to what seems to be the current day popular 'narrative'. Will read the longer article when I have more time. Meantime, props. Didn't have much interest in this particular subject until I read the first piece of yours I saw about it some time ago. But the more I've read, the more interesting I've found it. Especially what you wrote here. Just haven't seen this perspective anywhere - and I do mean *anywhere* - else.
Thank you M! I appreciate you taking an interest in an issue that was not initially particularly interesting to you! I think it’s going to take a lot of us, trying to persuade people of seeing the “trans” big picture in another, healthier, more positive and more accepting way.
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
In theory we can uncreate the status of "being trans," but certain realities would make it very difficult to do so. One of them is the capture of professional associations, industry groups, governments and educational institutions, among other key elements of our society, by trans ideology.
When this happens to medical and mental-health associations, the effect is especially pernicious because they set the standards of treatment and care that other sectors rely upon. For example, in a medical malpractice case against a doctor for negligence in practicing affirmative care, the physician's counsel might cite the World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards of care in her client's defense.
Quite often the organizations' general membership are only vaguely aware of their groups' stance on trans issues because policies and programs are determined by smaller and more powerful subgroups within the leadership structure. When members do dissent, they face the daunting prospect of confronting eminent individuals in their field who might be able to harm their careers.
Secondly, business has discovered the trans market and is starting to cater to it in many ways. From so-called "transgender health programs" within leading hospitals to the scholastic publishing companies that produce the workbooks that kids in elementary school unscientific and age-inappropriate misconceptions about gender to the malign influencers who entice confused teens with artificial images of trans glamor, American capitalism is creating a multifaceted industry that won't surrender its revenues willingly.
These are not my original ideas but rather a compilation of knowledge I have gained by listening to the podcast "Gender, A Wider Lens." Knowledge is power, and the only way to uncreate the social condition of "being trans" is to have a thorough understanding of the obstacles to achieving that goal.
I agree there are many obstacles! I think these are powerful forces too. Yet other countries like Finland are starting to back way off of transition because of the evidence it doesn’t help. It’s easy now, with such a lack of evidence, to claim it’s such a cure-all. Once enough people are harmed it becomes harder to ignore. Once enough people are harmed, they become more vocal (and attract business vultures — I’m sure detransition surgeries will be the next big thing).
I think the inherent harm in these practices will, like lobotomy, lead to their ultimate disfavor. But the sooner we can get that moving, the fewer will be harmed.
Great piece, but I am confused by one one aspect of your argument. It doesn't seem to me that before the trans phenomenon exploded that our culture was particularly uncomfortable or hostile to gender non-conforming behaviour. Since the 1960s we've seen acceptance of cross-gender behaviour and expression grow, so why such an extreme reaction now? Some have suggested there is a socio-political agenda involved, that is, the "queering" of society. How do the two fit together, or can you explain this differently?
I think there are many cultural threads all coming together to create this phenomenon, not so much a deliberate agenda driving it, although politics is definitely _one thread_ (or perhaps a couple different ones).
In other words, some people probably do have an agenda — just as we all do, right? My “agenda” is to make sure we have better treatments for unhappy people, and better ways for them to be happy with themselves, fit in and be accepted — but to the extent people with a “queering” agenda have any influence, their influence would not be possible without all these other threads.
I started to write a full answer to you here, explaining how I see the various cultural threads coming together to create this phenomenon, but then it was getting really long and I can’t do it justice in a comment-reply. Instead, I plan to address this in a future post!
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to your analysis of other factors. I came across this article after I wrote my post here. It suggests another of the strands that have contributed to the current situation:
Thanks for that link, really interesting article. As a woman who supports free speech and inquiry as the best way to promote human well-being, I found a lot of those surveys troubling.
Though some/many feminists will argue that gender is all social construction, I've always agreed with those that say (most) men and most women have innate gender qualities of the sort suggested by the article, so that how we express gender is a combination of sex attributes and conditioning. To argue that gender is all conditioning makes it much harder to oppose the most disruptive aspects of gender identity ideology.
I agree with your point. I don’t think that anyone but the most lunatic fringe (who are making a political point versus an evidence-based claim) would attempt to argue that gender roles are all conditioning. There is abundant evidence to the contrary.
If you look at other mammals, the males and the females have different instinctual patterns of behavior and roles. Why would humans be different?
Again, there are universal core attributes common to humans in all times and places— the underlying nature of our species I suppose —and then each culture layers a lot of stuff on top of that.
In our species women are generally more nurturing and interested in caring for babies. That’s a useful trait since human babies have a long period of dependency and until recently only mom (or other lactating women in the group) could feed them.
And the men tend to be the more aggressive ones willing to deal with the outside world (hunting or fighting attackers) which is a useful trait because women are “burdened” if you will with the babies. You’re not going to hunt an elk or fight an enemy with your baby strapped to your back.
But culture has constructed a lot of different ways in which women end up “nurturing” and men end up “protecting.”
In a hunter-gatherer culture, you might carry your baby on your back while digging for roots, and the men would do the more dangerous hunting or be the ones to fight other groups.
In 1950s America, (nurturing) women were expected to stay home with the kids and (aggressive) men were expected to go out and earn a living every day.
In 21st century America where most adults other than the very wealthy have jobs, it’s still (nurturing) women who end up being the default parent in most homes, doing much of the child care (feeding, dressing, bathing, choosing schools and doctors, arranging kids’ social events, etc.) and (aggressive) men who build the fences, fix the toilets, carry the heavier things, and check on scary noises in the middle of the night.
The traits nurturing versus aggressive play out in different ways in each culture, time and place — society no doubt “conditioned” my husband to know it’s his role to carry heavy stuff and build fences.
His entire role is “conditioned” in that sense, as was my role to be the default parent.
But that doesn’t mean he could have been conditioned to want to be the nurturer if society tried to condition him that way, or that I could have been conditioned to want to be the protector of the family.
There are these underlying realities, our animal nature, which is true of most of us — the occasional Joan of Arc notwithstanding — and then culture does its thing and conditions us in a million different ways to fit into our present society.
If we remember we’re just fancy animals, it becomes a lot more intuitive.
You are correct. I do not think this is about gender, per se. I don't know anyone who has an issue with what adults do in their personal lives. The broader movement has more to do with social and financial power, in my opinion. And, it's exploiting the most vulnerable among us.
Both of your posts on this topic have been great, thank you! I completely agree that we desperately need a cultural shift in our thinking. Shifting our thinking to compassion that aligns with reality rather than misguided ideology will lead to better policies in many areas.
Oct 11, 2022·edited Oct 11, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
This is a very thoughtfully written and well reasoned essay. I agree with you. And, what's interesting is the degree to which 'nonconforming' behavior occurs in a variety of animals (as you allude to in the beginning).... In the end, everything is biology.
That said, I would like to clarify one point... As Lee Patterson correctly commented, the malady is not "biological in its origin" in the sense that it is caused by the interaction between a particular biological system (a unique person) within the context of a particular, non approving environment. (That's the cultural part.) But, the physical and psychological pain is biological, indeed. It's the equivalent of having a rock dropped on your foot. All the discomfort is of biological origin. The cause — the rock — is equivalent to society's norms and strictures. Without the rock, your foot would feel fine (or at least better). Consequently, it seems, a reasonable approach would be to help those truly dysphoric individuals feel more comfortable about themselves, as they are, within the particular culture in which they live. Simultaneously, we should all be working hard to change the norms that cause the pain, in the first place. Again, thank you for the essay, Frederick
Re “ … it seems, a reasonable approach would be to help those truly dysphoric individuals feel more comfortable about themselves, as they are, within the particular culture in which they live. Simultaneously, we should all be working hard to change the norms that cause the pain, in the first place. “
Absolutely. Even in the 70s we were more accepting of gender nonconforming behavior than we are now. That would be a good attainable starting point.
If a girl likes Legos, she is a girl who likes Legos. Teachers and friends have no business asking her if she’s “really a boy,” if she’s learned about “gender,” if she’d “rather be a boy, because you can, you know!”
She is a girl who likes Legos.
It’s fine to be a girl who likes Legos. There is nothing wrong with her. That would bring us back to the 1070s, and it would be a huge improvement.
Think of how quickly all our institutions— all our corporations and schools and medical facilities were on board with “transition or die” — it happened really, really fast. (Granted, there was money to be made, and easy social justice points to be made.)
But if our entire culture was able to turn on that dime, it could hypothetically turn on the dime over to “we accept everyone as they are. There is no such thing as being in the wrong body. There is no medical evidence for that. There is no medical indication for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries. None. Everyone can be as feminine or masculine as they feel, and none of that hinges on what type of body you have. There is no wrong way to be a girl or boy, man or woman.”
These are very simple and easy concepts. They align with the same axis of “acceptance” and “inclusion” and “diversity” that these well-meaning people and organizations wish to promote.
The only necessary intermediate steps are to make it more widely known that
1. Transition doesn’t do much if anything for most who undertake it: the cost-benefit just isn’t there. That’s a hard sell at present, because even prestigious medical journals are filled with falsehoods to the effect that transition is beneficial (see my substack, Jesse Signal’s or others).
2. There is no such thing as “being in the wrong body.” Gender dysphoria is just a wish, really, that someone has for a different body. Most of us have experienced this wish in some other form. I’d like my 19-year-old body back: that would do nicely. I’d like my pre-breastfeeding breast back, while we’re at it. But my current body is my reality and I need to face that. “Wrong body” is not a thing, and therefore changing someone’s body with unneeded medications and surgeries is wildly inappropriate and often harmful.
Yes, I agree with you. I also agree with you that we were more accepting in the 1970s at the macro level. But, people were often less accepting at the micro level. My father regularly criticized me for not being "masculine" enough because of my interests (reading, writing, art, NOT MOST SPORTS), and the fact that most of my friends were girls. This, despite the fact I was a competitive weightlifter at the time. I just didn't fit into his stereotype of what a son should be. Then, between academic careers, I owned a fine jewelry design business and was single. Obviously, everyone thought I was gay (which I'm not). Now, as middle-aged academic, everyone assumes I am transphobic, or worse. You just can't please everyone. Luckily, I am at the point in my life where I don't care what anyone thinks... it's a relief
Same. The older I get, the less I care about what others think of me. It’s nice.
You’re absolutely right. While sporty masculine-ish “tomboy” girls used to be accepted, feminine boys -- even if we paid lip service to approving of some feminine pursuits (remember when some pro football players where famous for knitting and crochet?) it’s also true that society did a MUCH poorer job across-the-board ensuring that boys with some feminine interests were fully accepted.
Especially dads seem to have horror (maybe because they remember back to how horribly gay men are treated) about sons, even straight sons, who don’t fit the masculine mold as they see it and god forbid have a “feminine” interest or two.
That’s really hard. We’ve got to do better for all kids but especially for our boys.
"Gender dysphoria is completely sincere on the part of the sufferers, but it’s not something that occurs in every time and place — so it’s also a cultural creation." This is nothing short of brilliant. It's clear, succinct, and revolutionary, all at the same time. I aspire to be able to make sentences like this.
It's revolutionary because the hidden assumption that underlies most discussion of the malady is that it's somehow *biological* in its origin, rather than cultural. As your argument makes clear, the problem is the imposition of gender stereotypes, not an individual's predispositions or temperament.
Fantastic article. Thank you.
Thank you, Lee, for taking the time to read this and for your very kind and generous words. I’m passionate about the need for a cultural shift so we allow people to be happy and satisfied with themselves just as they are.
There may well be some underlying biological predisposition to gender nonconformity; but how it's interpreted will be quite different depending on the culture. In our culture just 50 years ago, it simply meant you were a gnc person. Same for gender dysphoria: I chafed against the expectations of 1970s girlhood but my solution was a feminist framework that told me I could be fine just as I was. That also worked for a lot of women who were much more outwardly nonconformist than I.
“a feminist framework that told me I could be fine just as I was.”
This is such an important point -- and we tend to think of the passage of time as representing “progress” but in this case, our culture’s views on gender have become much more regressive.
I imagine that if a cultural context allowed gender expression to vary in ways that were not limited by rigid stereotypical cultural constraint, any biologically based gnc predispositions would simply express in ways that were consistent with the brain-based inclinations. In such a case, the person would not conform to gender norms, but the culture would be sufficiently flexible to accommodate unusual expressions. If so, it doesn't seem like there would be any distress associated with being required to express gender traits in ways inconsistent with one's natural inclinations. Hence, no gender dysphoria.
Yes, Lee, I agree. True progress would mean such complete acceptance that there would be no gender dysphoria. Someone’s body should not be associated with having whatever personality and inclinations they have. A very feminine boy, say, should be able to be feminine _and_ a boy _and_ be loved and accepted.
I cannot say enough regarding how cogent and thoughtful your original article is. I really appreciate the cultural and historical perspective you offer, which makes your framing so compelling. When dealing with such a phenomenon, one would expect it to be universal, no? If not, then it can't be innate or grounded in reality. It seems so obvious now, but that's just testament to how effective your explication is. I wish your article and ideas received more widespread attention. I have yet to see anyone else making the same arguments, at least not as cohesively as you have
Thank you very much, GS. I really believe that reframing this issue through a cultural and historical perspective — to as many people as will listen— is the key to getting our culture to reassess what we’re doing.
It’s not political. It’s not left / right. It’s not liberal / conservative. It’s not even open-minded / closed-minded (although it does seem like many people have their minds made up).
It’s certainly not a religious issue. Anyone of any faith or uncertain faith or no faith can see that this set of beliefs and practices is cultural and transitory, not universal.
I’m confident future generations will look back on this period as ignorant and barbaric. They’ll wonder how we could have possibly thought this was the right thing to do.
The quicker we can all work to get a cultural shift going, the better it will be for thousands of people who would otherwise be medically and emotionally harmed.
A truly distinctive feature of today's concept of transgender identities is that no other society has insisted that gender nonconforming men are *really* women. This is a historically and cross-culturally novel claim. The other thing that's truly novel: medical intervention. But I've seen much more commentary on the latter than on the former.
TRAs are right to highlight that gender nonconformity exists pretty much in all historical eras and cross-culturally. They're wrong to label it trans. This pair of your posts highlights their error with satisfying clarity.
The historical contingency of identity categories has been demonstrated by scholars including - perhaps most prominently - Michel Foucault. Much of the current discourse on trans identities is not actually rooted in Foucault by way of Butler. The average TRA will insist that identity is innate and fixed. (A minority of them will trumpet fluidity - but that's not a politically useful argument, is it, when you want insurance and/or government to cover medical interventions.) Foucault and Butler both portray identity as contingent and shaped by discourse. They're pretty darn close to blank-slatists.
If you follow Foucault's logic on identity, you can't help but notice that the "trans child" is an invention of the past 15-20 years that only began to break into the consciousness of the average American 5-10 years ago. (This isn't my original point. Heather Brunskell-Evans has written about this.) But the "trans child" has become integral to lobbying for everything trans activists desires. It creates sympathy for the poor adult deprived of early transition and spawns a discourse of protecting endangered trans children. On the other side, GC people advocate for an entirely different sort of child protection, but the TRAs got there first in the U.S. and outflanked left-leaning GCs. Of course the right wing is all about protecting children, too (some cynically, some sincerely). American hyper-partisanship combined with near-complete capture of the mainstream media ensures that these two competing visions of child protection never come into dialogue - to the detriment of the kids in both red and blue states.
I love this analysis, Patty. Thank you!
The closer we look at what’s been going on in the past 15+ years, the more we can see how novel it is -- and therefore invented (and it seems to serve a whole host of purposes).
The more I read what you write about this issue, the more it makes sense as opposed to what seems to be the current day popular 'narrative'. Will read the longer article when I have more time. Meantime, props. Didn't have much interest in this particular subject until I read the first piece of yours I saw about it some time ago. But the more I've read, the more interesting I've found it. Especially what you wrote here. Just haven't seen this perspective anywhere - and I do mean *anywhere* - else.
Thank you M! I appreciate you taking an interest in an issue that was not initially particularly interesting to you! I think it’s going to take a lot of us, trying to persuade people of seeing the “trans” big picture in another, healthier, more positive and more accepting way.
In theory we can uncreate the status of "being trans," but certain realities would make it very difficult to do so. One of them is the capture of professional associations, industry groups, governments and educational institutions, among other key elements of our society, by trans ideology.
When this happens to medical and mental-health associations, the effect is especially pernicious because they set the standards of treatment and care that other sectors rely upon. For example, in a medical malpractice case against a doctor for negligence in practicing affirmative care, the physician's counsel might cite the World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards of care in her client's defense.
Quite often the organizations' general membership are only vaguely aware of their groups' stance on trans issues because policies and programs are determined by smaller and more powerful subgroups within the leadership structure. When members do dissent, they face the daunting prospect of confronting eminent individuals in their field who might be able to harm their careers.
Secondly, business has discovered the trans market and is starting to cater to it in many ways. From so-called "transgender health programs" within leading hospitals to the scholastic publishing companies that produce the workbooks that kids in elementary school unscientific and age-inappropriate misconceptions about gender to the malign influencers who entice confused teens with artificial images of trans glamor, American capitalism is creating a multifaceted industry that won't surrender its revenues willingly.
These are not my original ideas but rather a compilation of knowledge I have gained by listening to the podcast "Gender, A Wider Lens." Knowledge is power, and the only way to uncreate the social condition of "being trans" is to have a thorough understanding of the obstacles to achieving that goal.
I agree there are many obstacles! I think these are powerful forces too. Yet other countries like Finland are starting to back way off of transition because of the evidence it doesn’t help. It’s easy now, with such a lack of evidence, to claim it’s such a cure-all. Once enough people are harmed it becomes harder to ignore. Once enough people are harmed, they become more vocal (and attract business vultures — I’m sure detransition surgeries will be the next big thing).
I think the inherent harm in these practices will, like lobotomy, lead to their ultimate disfavor. But the sooner we can get that moving, the fewer will be harmed.
Great piece, but I am confused by one one aspect of your argument. It doesn't seem to me that before the trans phenomenon exploded that our culture was particularly uncomfortable or hostile to gender non-conforming behaviour. Since the 1960s we've seen acceptance of cross-gender behaviour and expression grow, so why such an extreme reaction now? Some have suggested there is a socio-political agenda involved, that is, the "queering" of society. How do the two fit together, or can you explain this differently?
These are great questions / thoughts, PeterM!
I think there are many cultural threads all coming together to create this phenomenon, not so much a deliberate agenda driving it, although politics is definitely _one thread_ (or perhaps a couple different ones).
In other words, some people probably do have an agenda — just as we all do, right? My “agenda” is to make sure we have better treatments for unhappy people, and better ways for them to be happy with themselves, fit in and be accepted — but to the extent people with a “queering” agenda have any influence, their influence would not be possible without all these other threads.
I started to write a full answer to you here, explaining how I see the various cultural threads coming together to create this phenomenon, but then it was getting really long and I can’t do it justice in a comment-reply. Instead, I plan to address this in a future post!
I look forward to that post, it seems to me a key question. How and why is this happening now?
Lots of factors! And of course I’m interested when I write it to hear other factors that you all might see as well.
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to your analysis of other factors. I came across this article after I wrote my post here. It suggests another of the strands that have contributed to the current situation:
https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/sex-and-the-academy/
Thanks for that link, really interesting article. As a woman who supports free speech and inquiry as the best way to promote human well-being, I found a lot of those surveys troubling.
Though some/many feminists will argue that gender is all social construction, I've always agreed with those that say (most) men and most women have innate gender qualities of the sort suggested by the article, so that how we express gender is a combination of sex attributes and conditioning. To argue that gender is all conditioning makes it much harder to oppose the most disruptive aspects of gender identity ideology.
I agree with your point. I don’t think that anyone but the most lunatic fringe (who are making a political point versus an evidence-based claim) would attempt to argue that gender roles are all conditioning. There is abundant evidence to the contrary.
If you look at other mammals, the males and the females have different instinctual patterns of behavior and roles. Why would humans be different?
Again, there are universal core attributes common to humans in all times and places— the underlying nature of our species I suppose —and then each culture layers a lot of stuff on top of that.
In our species women are generally more nurturing and interested in caring for babies. That’s a useful trait since human babies have a long period of dependency and until recently only mom (or other lactating women in the group) could feed them.
And the men tend to be the more aggressive ones willing to deal with the outside world (hunting or fighting attackers) which is a useful trait because women are “burdened” if you will with the babies. You’re not going to hunt an elk or fight an enemy with your baby strapped to your back.
But culture has constructed a lot of different ways in which women end up “nurturing” and men end up “protecting.”
In a hunter-gatherer culture, you might carry your baby on your back while digging for roots, and the men would do the more dangerous hunting or be the ones to fight other groups.
In 1950s America, (nurturing) women were expected to stay home with the kids and (aggressive) men were expected to go out and earn a living every day.
In 21st century America where most adults other than the very wealthy have jobs, it’s still (nurturing) women who end up being the default parent in most homes, doing much of the child care (feeding, dressing, bathing, choosing schools and doctors, arranging kids’ social events, etc.) and (aggressive) men who build the fences, fix the toilets, carry the heavier things, and check on scary noises in the middle of the night.
The traits nurturing versus aggressive play out in different ways in each culture, time and place — society no doubt “conditioned” my husband to know it’s his role to carry heavy stuff and build fences.
His entire role is “conditioned” in that sense, as was my role to be the default parent.
But that doesn’t mean he could have been conditioned to want to be the nurturer if society tried to condition him that way, or that I could have been conditioned to want to be the protector of the family.
There are these underlying realities, our animal nature, which is true of most of us — the occasional Joan of Arc notwithstanding — and then culture does its thing and conditions us in a million different ways to fit into our present society.
If we remember we’re just fancy animals, it becomes a lot more intuitive.
I fully agree. Though I don't think those who believe gender is all conditioning are as rare as you think.
You are correct. I do not think this is about gender, per se. I don't know anyone who has an issue with what adults do in their personal lives. The broader movement has more to do with social and financial power, in my opinion. And, it's exploiting the most vulnerable among us.
I do see some people exploiting a situation to gain social and financial power. You can find that in many contexts!
Hopefully when I write the next post about all the various threads, it will prompt some more great conversation about this aspect of it!
Both of your posts on this topic have been great, thank you! I completely agree that we desperately need a cultural shift in our thinking. Shifting our thinking to compassion that aligns with reality rather than misguided ideology will lead to better policies in many areas.
Thank you so much Heyjude! I appreciate so much the time you spend reading and giving input here!!
Both this and your original piece are awesome, thank you!
Thank you so much, Elizabeth, for taking the time to read and comment!
I have read countless essays on this topic, and this is the first one I've ever seen that articulates my own sense of this issue. Thank you.
Thanks very much, David! Let’s keep spreading this way of looking at it, and hope it catches on a bit.
This is a very thoughtfully written and well reasoned essay. I agree with you. And, what's interesting is the degree to which 'nonconforming' behavior occurs in a variety of animals (as you allude to in the beginning).... In the end, everything is biology.
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/evolution-and-bisexual-monkeys
That said, I would like to clarify one point... As Lee Patterson correctly commented, the malady is not "biological in its origin" in the sense that it is caused by the interaction between a particular biological system (a unique person) within the context of a particular, non approving environment. (That's the cultural part.) But, the physical and psychological pain is biological, indeed. It's the equivalent of having a rock dropped on your foot. All the discomfort is of biological origin. The cause — the rock — is equivalent to society's norms and strictures. Without the rock, your foot would feel fine (or at least better). Consequently, it seems, a reasonable approach would be to help those truly dysphoric individuals feel more comfortable about themselves, as they are, within the particular culture in which they live. Simultaneously, we should all be working hard to change the norms that cause the pain, in the first place. Again, thank you for the essay, Frederick
Thanks Frederick. I appreciate your comments!
Re “ … it seems, a reasonable approach would be to help those truly dysphoric individuals feel more comfortable about themselves, as they are, within the particular culture in which they live. Simultaneously, we should all be working hard to change the norms that cause the pain, in the first place. “
Absolutely. Even in the 70s we were more accepting of gender nonconforming behavior than we are now. That would be a good attainable starting point.
If a girl likes Legos, she is a girl who likes Legos. Teachers and friends have no business asking her if she’s “really a boy,” if she’s learned about “gender,” if she’d “rather be a boy, because you can, you know!”
She is a girl who likes Legos.
It’s fine to be a girl who likes Legos. There is nothing wrong with her. That would bring us back to the 1070s, and it would be a huge improvement.
Think of how quickly all our institutions— all our corporations and schools and medical facilities were on board with “transition or die” — it happened really, really fast. (Granted, there was money to be made, and easy social justice points to be made.)
But if our entire culture was able to turn on that dime, it could hypothetically turn on the dime over to “we accept everyone as they are. There is no such thing as being in the wrong body. There is no medical evidence for that. There is no medical indication for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries. None. Everyone can be as feminine or masculine as they feel, and none of that hinges on what type of body you have. There is no wrong way to be a girl or boy, man or woman.”
These are very simple and easy concepts. They align with the same axis of “acceptance” and “inclusion” and “diversity” that these well-meaning people and organizations wish to promote.
The only necessary intermediate steps are to make it more widely known that
1. Transition doesn’t do much if anything for most who undertake it: the cost-benefit just isn’t there. That’s a hard sell at present, because even prestigious medical journals are filled with falsehoods to the effect that transition is beneficial (see my substack, Jesse Signal’s or others).
2. There is no such thing as “being in the wrong body.” Gender dysphoria is just a wish, really, that someone has for a different body. Most of us have experienced this wish in some other form. I’d like my 19-year-old body back: that would do nicely. I’d like my pre-breastfeeding breast back, while we’re at it. But my current body is my reality and I need to face that. “Wrong body” is not a thing, and therefore changing someone’s body with unneeded medications and surgeries is wildly inappropriate and often harmful.
These are such simple points.
Once seen, they can’t be unseen.
Yes, I agree with you. I also agree with you that we were more accepting in the 1970s at the macro level. But, people were often less accepting at the micro level. My father regularly criticized me for not being "masculine" enough because of my interests (reading, writing, art, NOT MOST SPORTS), and the fact that most of my friends were girls. This, despite the fact I was a competitive weightlifter at the time. I just didn't fit into his stereotype of what a son should be. Then, between academic careers, I owned a fine jewelry design business and was single. Obviously, everyone thought I was gay (which I'm not). Now, as middle-aged academic, everyone assumes I am transphobic, or worse. You just can't please everyone. Luckily, I am at the point in my life where I don't care what anyone thinks... it's a relief
Same. The older I get, the less I care about what others think of me. It’s nice.
You’re absolutely right. While sporty masculine-ish “tomboy” girls used to be accepted, feminine boys -- even if we paid lip service to approving of some feminine pursuits (remember when some pro football players where famous for knitting and crochet?) it’s also true that society did a MUCH poorer job across-the-board ensuring that boys with some feminine interests were fully accepted.
Especially dads seem to have horror (maybe because they remember back to how horribly gay men are treated) about sons, even straight sons, who don’t fit the masculine mold as they see it and god forbid have a “feminine” interest or two.
That’s really hard. We’ve got to do better for all kids but especially for our boys.
Your original post was extraordinary. Thank you!
ps, Interesting to note the many updates over the past two years to the Faʻafafine Wikipedia page.