Gender stereotyping and Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Bets people! Place your bets!

Mines on 6 pages then a locking.,..

Well, I didn't quite make that argument, so I'm not sure what to do with this statement.



No, social constructs are a direct result of human behavior and psychology. This is at best an indirect link to our genetics (and epigenetics).



Categorizing by anatomy is incomplete. Transgender and intersex people are the primary casualties of this form of categorization - admittedly, not a significant majority of the population, but I don't think pure numbers justifies suffering. More flexibility, less rigidity, less insistence for bodily conformity.

Is it necessary to record a sex on a birth certificate? If so, why?



Many of the supposed differences aren't differences at all. It's like the popular science versions of left and right brain vs. the actual divisions of neurological function across both hemispheres. Women aren't inherently bad at math, for example.



The last time I checked, doctors didn't check for fertility or the presence of actual ovaries, uterus, etc. when they assigned a sex based on what the newborn infants' genitals look like. Have you heard of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome?



No, gender has a ton of differences that are not reality-based at all - like the aforementioned idea that women are bad at math. Other differences include the idea that women aren't as intelligent as men, or that women are better suited to staying at home and raising children, or that women shouldn't own property or that women are property. Obviously, most of those examples are not still prevalent but they have been.

Gender does not have an independent existence outside of cultural contexts. It is not a natural, emergent property from sex. I don't see how it's possible for gender to have that existence as gender itself is a set of cultural descriptions about assumed-to-be inherent traits linked (often inappropriately) to sex.



The thing is that these supposed differences aren't supported by the data. The existing data is frequently exaggerated or misrepresented (as Cordelia Fine notes) to propose far greater support for these differences than actually exist.

Last edited by Verdandi on 06 Mar 2011, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's a trap!

I should probably mention that this is one of my interests.

Mine too. It's a frequent debate amongst myself and my boyfriend- it's become a running joke that if I want to distract him I just need to go 'men can't...'

Actually, in Norway girls do better than boys at math.

What good are gender roles in the first place?

So much of human behaviour is based on the culture we're raised in, so much of science is based on the culture of the researchers; I highly doubt it's possible to find any actual differences.

Behavior and psychology are rooted in perception and processing.Behavior and processing are rooted in neurology. Neurology is rooted in genetics. Social constructs cannot be separated from our genetics. Social constructs aren't random. The social constructs of chimpanzees are different than humans. Because of there genetics or because the develop independent of those genetics?




Of course it is incomplete. ANY categorization is incomplete. But it cannot be ignored. And you can't simply say it is irrelevant.




Perhaps. It depends on the social construct, now doesn't it? Your assumption is that recording this fact of biology is automatically socially detrimental. If I were projecting medical costs for the next 20 years, gynecological medicine is part of that cost. It would be very helpful to know how many females there are. In a dysfunctional society those projections of cost could be used in a policy of discriminating against women. In a functional society, those projections would be used to allocate resources more effectively..



Which is why good science is needs. Wuold you know that the supposed differences were without merit were it not for good science? Are you suggesting that ANY science that finds differences is bad science?





Invoking special cases is a poor rhetorical tactic. What is the incidence of complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? Are you suggesting that assigning sexuality at birth should incur the cost of insuring that a syndrome that occurs once in every 20,000 births is correctly identified?






You are conflating incorrect ideas as proof that gender difference don't exist.




A ridiculous notion. But still not proof that there are no gender differences.



You keep pointing to the clearly obvious artifacts of irrationally derived gender roles. We aren't even arguing the same thing. All I am suggesting is that the are differences and that you cannot discard gender differences simply because previous gender roles were invoked for specious reasons,





Culture has no existence independent of our genetics. The hubris of humanity is that the complexity of our social order is proof that is is somehow materially different than the social order of a troop of baboons. It is different only in complexity.



You keep switching between perceived differences and actual ones. The perception that women are worse at math is wrong. Proved by what? Good science. You seem to be saying that there is NO good science that illuminates differences in males and females. If substantive differences actually exist, then social constructs MUST accommodate those differences. The real question is HOW those differences are accommodated. Clearly, keeping women as property is not a good social construct.

Genetics aren't a program that we all run without variation. Does genetics cause math, science, philosophy, architecture, art, politics, economics? No. Does genetics make these possible? Certainly. Are these all good things? They're things. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes there's no viable distinction. What do you know about epigenetics?



I didn't say it was irrelevant. I think this is the second time I have pointed this out. I think it's quite relevant, or there wouldn't even be a conversation to be had.



I didn't state any assumptions, I asked if it was necessary.

There are other ways to determine the data - for example, the census. Your health care provider should also be aware of your medical needs, but this doesn't mean that sex needs to be recorded on everyone's official paperwork and identification, does it?



Why do you keep asking me if I am suggesting things I have not said? I am not trying to be subtle or fill my posts with subtext, I'm trying to express my perspective as clearly as possible.

I have not in fact stated anywhere that science is unneeded or unwanted. However, the way science is framed is dependent upon the researchers' biases and assumptions. Good peer review should filter this out, but even then research that falls along cultural assumptions can have an easier time getting by. Which isn't to say that any science that finds differences is bad science, but it seems likely that science that fails to question those differences is likely suspect.



Because CAIS is the only possible intersex condition? The only possible condition that results in infertility? I don't consider human beings to be special cases. My point is that sex is assigned based on a visual inspection, not a complete physical and anatomical workup. That is why I used the words "looks like" instead of the word "does."



No, I said that there are a ton of gender differences that are not based in reality. This is not the same as saying they do not exist - social constructs are real, of course, and I linked stereotype threat earlier.

However, I do not believe the majority of culturally defined gender differences are actually related to anything biologically innate to human beings (beyond the assignment of gender based on anatomy). I do not believe that gender exists outside of cultural definitions, so I do not believe it is possible to have gender differences outside of a cultural context.



I haven't actually taken a position on discarding gender differences.



Of course culture has no existence independent of genetics, because without genes there'd be no humans and thus no culture. This does not mean that everything humans produce is strictly dependent on genetics. This perspective strikes me as overly reductive.



My argument is consistent, and I am not switching between these things arbitrarily. Most neurological studies that find neurological differences don't seem to locate strictly defined, easily noted differences, but rather ranges that may be slightly distinct for males and females but overlap significantly. The majority of research about differences between men and women downplays the significant overlap and overplays the slight distinction.

This is actually not dependent on my argument that gender roles and stereoetypes are sexist constructs that typically define women as subordinate and inferior to men, and I don't think any good science needs to draw upon these things to find any psychological, neurological, or behavioral differences between males and females.

I have not made an argument that no good science illuminates differences in males and females. In fact, if you go back to my first post you will find that I argued in defense of the study Lene linked.

This thread is making me think about how I was raised. When I was a child my parents gave me both typical male and female toys. I had toy cars, building blocks, barbies and my little ponys. When I got a little older I started to be interested in sword and swordplay, in response I was given a toy dagger and a book about swords throughout time, I was also allowed to watch movies with swordplay (after my parents made sure it was suitable for my age). My parents didn't seem to force a gender role on me.

I compare this with my memorys of observing my Aunt and a child female cousin. The female child cousin had just pulled a christmas cracker and won, my Aunt thought that the 'male' toy was inappropriate for the female child bespite the female child wanting what she won and made her switch it for a 'female' toy that I had won. Two years later, the girl child was shunning 'boys' toys because "they're not for girls".

I don't know if my Aunts behaviour made my cousin think this way or if she would have thought this way herself anyways but I think it's possible that she was guided/pushed toward the female role that she was 'supposed' to play.

I haven't read the book, but I read a review of it. I never bought the whole "extreme male brain" thing. Besides it makes me imagine autistics as a group of burly football players.

Never mind.

I'm tired of not understanding other people, and having what I say misunderstood because it is said based on something not communicated.