Do you think finding someone attractive for their gender rather than sex is actually *sexist*? Why do some think gender is more important than sex?

[Mesonfielde]

I think it is sexist to claim that you find someone attractive primarily for the feminineness of their mannerisms and the way they dress. That has almost nothing to do with neither the individual physical appearance, nor the individual behavior, nor the individual values, nor the individual qualities of their personality. It's just a set of arbitrary socially defined qualities, and I find it disappointing that some people think adherence to that is sufficient to fill a role as a member of a specific sex. In a typical and optimal relationship, you will eventually have sex. Therefore, biological sexual compatibility with the biological sex of your choice is essential. Heterosexual people for example would like to have sex with members of the other sex, not their own sex. No matter how feminine you are, most heterosexuals aren't interested in rubbing their penis together with another one. So on this particular website, I am surprised that people are sexist enough to claim that the way you dress is more important than who and what you actually are. You might call it transphobia, I call it logical thinking. TL;DR: your sex is in my opinion more important than gender, and gender by definition is the root of all sexism and sex-based stereotyping. Liking someone for adherence to stereotypical concepts is shallow, and matching stereotypes won't make you biologically and thus sexually compatible with others. I don't see why people are fooling themselves, trying to accept everyone and anyone unconditionally. Do you think gender is sexist? Because I sure do.

[wölfin-fräulein]

you put on clothes according to what you are or think you are. if you do otherwise you are either an actor or an idiot.

Gender is not all socially constructed. but social norms and extreme religious morality have effected it. this is but a generalization to call gender a social construct. And an ignorant deed to part it from sex. sex is the root of the creation of gender in the society as a social construct. and the creation of many norms is based on biological sex's effects on behaviour, made by the different chemical reactions of the bodies of the males and females.
you cannot talk about masculinity as a mere idea in a masculine and femininity as a mere constructed idea in a feminine. Masculinity that causes masculine behaviour in a male is a biological reality of the mind and brain. the same with femininity. and the 'gender' constructed rolls was constructed through generations based on what you can do and how you behave according to your biological nature. and they were all nearly one set of rolls in all cultures in every single 'unrelated' culture in the world, with very slight differences. even the brain wiring of males and females is different making their brains work differently and be good in different areas.

Gender was never, and is never 'just' a social construct.

One time I told you about this shit, and you couldn't provide any logical explanation against it except yelling your "There is no point in arguing with people who don't even understand how their beliefs are sexist or problematic."

so I double

"I like what i like and fuck you if you want to put a lable on it"

I like masculine men, I like manly men who follow gender roles. and I am pretty sexist towards other types of men. and that is my damn fucking preference. and no fucked up man or woman with a communist mentality can tell me do or like it otherwise.

your shit is shit. and it's so damn bullshit. Do it in your land of Huns, we do it our way in Germany.

[Mesonfielde]

I put on clothes based on what I like, and partly influence that decision based on what would get me murdered on the streets by insane people (as such, I am not interested in pink. Green, blue, and grey are good. They are neutral enough for people not to care. Also, skirts would just get me harassment, so that is also off the table.) As for the differences in the brain, "correlation does not equal causation". They don't know the exact effects of the brain differences, most of it is hypothesis. The term is called neurosexism, by the way. And it's disappointing to see if someone's preferences are shaped blindly by peer pressure. Similar level of closed mindedness as those who choose to obey a certain religion, just because it is in the book. In this case, that "book" being cultural traditions themselves.

[wölfin-fräulein]

"They don't know the exact effects of the brain differences, most of it is hypothesis." the hypothesises is based on the general behaviour. that didn't change even in 40 years of pressuring standards. "And it's disappointing to see if someone's preferences are shaped blindly by peer pressure." and again, your assumption is bullshit like always. biological nature, hormones that change the behaviour is not pressure but willingly followed. It is disappointing to see someone repeats his excuses without being able to reason. repeat I can't care.

[wölfin-fräulein]

you have something in your mind that is based on nothing realistic. in your dream world you have something and you want to stand for it by anything. I could respect that, as far as it is your concern and you don't act upon it and step forward to label others by it. your dream is your dream, keep it to yourself, and in your life. the society live as they want.

[ladsin]

Gender is not entirely social as we can see (i went slightly more into depth in my comment) but all begin as female brain and due to testosterone and some abnormality (which we can see) so some males end up with female brains and vice versa. Much of gender is socially based though, such as the whole "pretty girl" that girls are dumb, only care about looks, superficial, etc.

[wölfin-fräulein]

@ladsin "such as the whole "pretty girl" that girls are dumb, only care about looks, superficial, etc." I was actually discussing degrading terms towards women looking at it in some books some days ago and nearly most of these so called degrading terms for women about their intelligence and inability was made in the last 150 years. Before it we see some philosophers talking about women, some being pessimist some optimist, some pointing out the good in women, some having misogynistic thoughts like Aristotle in some of his works, Euripides that was literally misogynist but again was mocked for it by Aristophanes in the play Thesmophoriazusae read that play if you had the time, meaning men weren't in favour of misogyny. and here and there we see it again between individuals like khaqani Persian poet and his literal misogyny though again we have female poets like Rabe'e bent Ka'ab in Persia who was praised by the greater poets like Attar, Attar has a complete chapter just...

[wölfin-fräulein]

…for her in Tazkerat al oliya considering her one of the ‘olya’ the ‘masters’ between the Soofis of the east. Means through history though existed but was never accepted or talked about heavily or all negatively as the two last centuries. And what happened in the last two centuries? In the last two centuries feminism happened. Feminism when happened inside the society, it was when the majority of the working class men were still illiterate. And they still pushed this idea that men as a whole discriminated women and accused some men who couldn’t even read what those middle class women ‘wrote’ to anything possible. These accusations, these pointless wars they had begun in the society between sexes in a society that was getting advanced by the moment and the spreading of knowledge and teaching and learning techniques and education system was getting advanced and soon providing both sexes of different classes with good education was inevitable in it, made a...

[wölfin-fräulein]

…large group of men take defensive positions against women as a whole. Simply this waves of modern misogyny we see in the society was made by extremist women. the women whom a minority of them directly and the rest indirectly were supporting separationism. These women corrupted everything inside the society more than anyone else. I do not expect that when a woman accuses a man to ahistorical crimes the man remains silent in front of her. Simply this misogyny is a counter attack to all the pressure on men. The error in it is that as feminists accused all men to everything, these men too pointed out all women while those women were a tiny minority between the population of women. and so in a process, a pointless sometimes direct and most of the time indirect and subconscious war, the society made these slightly to extremely misogynist ideas and in an action-reaction process these women who faced more slight ‘verbal’ misogyny at least, leaned more towards ideas like feminism...

[wölfin-fräulein]

... and yelling for equality. In the end I say, this is women’s work, not men’s. there was never a need for a ‘movement’ and riots for women, leaded by the most unfeminine women. And I consider this reaction very normal.

[wölfin-fräulein]

“Much of gender is socially based though” As I said above much of the basic gender roles were created simply through observing the ‘general’ behaviour and abilities (not the abilities of a minority of women and men with a higher mental power) of men and women. simply different abilities and differences exist whether they are systematically categorized and become involved even with laws as the society gets advanced or if it is in a primitive society. Simply many roles were behaviours that were organized and known in a systematic way as the general behavior of one sex as the society got bigger and more advanced. like many of the norms people follow that root in simple instinctive behaviors and desires, and now it became a socially accepted norm which not following it is considered a rather anti-social behavior, I told an example of it somewhere about shaving body hair for women. The most basic of them is the role of Father and mother, and...

[wölfin-fräulein]

…here we do not care about LGBT community a minority inside the society, we consider something a natural role based on the ruling reproducing majority in the society, not a minority whom their existence is bound to the heterosexual majority. We do not ‘abolish’ roles because some lesbian woman doesn’t see herself fit in it. And they were formed and existed in societies like Lakedemonia in which women had freedom and wealth in a more extreme way than in societies that women had less rights. Meaning these roles were made naturally in a relatively free society that men and especially women were extremely stronger than what they are now. And the actual socially constructed gender roles are based on and created around the role of father and mother and the structure of family. and according to different societies cultures, traditions, religion and morality they slightly differ from each other. Many of the logically more wrong aspects of some gender roles we see is based...

[wölfin-fräulein]

…on religious morality and values especially Judeo-Christian morality, which from many aspects wasn’t a healthy set of accepted behaviours and values especially that it was highly influenced by the slaves and their rather nihilistic mindset, that haven’t been even followed completely throughout Europe in every society. Apart from that and some different values that periodically changed throughout history in the societies the rest of what we see as gender roles are purely related to biological sex and are innate. I think that is enough for now.

[ladsin]

That was quite a lot of a response to my short comment, and I'd be lying if I said I read it all. As I've read some of your writings before and I'd say you know a good bit more than me on some of these subjects so I will not attempt to argue. Some questions I would like to ask however. you stated something to the affect that you believe that some of these anti-feminine things we see arose only 150-200 years ago? To my understanding throughout most all societies women have been more or less repressed sexually, socially and politically in most all societies I can think of much further than a century or two ago. So would you mind explicating on that? I will contend with you on the social affectors because what we see at least psychologically is that sure some things are inherent (aggression in men, emotional intelligence in women), however, things like girls being enamored with dolls, dresses etc are almost all due to society. cont'd--

[ladsin]

I wasn't certain about what you meant in your block comment referring to the LGBT community... is it that they are a minority? If so surely I agree. About your statement about judeo-christian morality I must again disagree to a large extent much of the world (especially Europe , middle-east, North and South America) was greatly influenced by the morality expressed or inferred from the bible, quran, and the various similar works (hadiths the torah, and other supplementary works). For example one change we've seen that was largely in part a result of these morals is the "evil" of homosexuality. Rome, Greek, Sparta, Athens and other earlier societies were ok with homosexuality and not viewed as morally reprehensible until the christian faith took over which led to mass murder, abuse, and maltreatment. We still see these sorts of practices in place today although thankfully much less

[wölfin-fräulein]

@ladsin "girls being enamored with dolls, dresses etc are almost all due to society. cont'd--"

first about the behaviour of females for example, I always tell these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYy1GXaNNY
www.smithsonianmag.com/.../?no-ist
www.cell.com/.../S0960-9822%2810%2901449-1

simon baron cohen mentions good points in the studies on female and male children in the video.
also the short note is about the stick carrying of female Chimpanzees.

second if you want to respond read the whole response when you had the time first. about the Judeo-Christian morality you got me wrong. I meant exactly what you said, that the Judeo-Christian morality effected the roles negatively not with weakening them but with over-idealizing and emphasise on some traits as in Jewish community. before it roles existed but they were also much more balanced to the point that we see 'bisexuality' in Greek world, not in Roman world, was accepted and love for younger men was some kind of norm. We see Herodotus says this about the Persian society and that they have this exact mentality in them too.

but...

[wölfin-fräulein]

Christianity in west, and Islam in the east corrupted this balance. about homosexuality specifically there was multiple reasons that it wasn't accepted in many societies whether in east or west. that one of the simplest reasons was as we see now many sex related diseases percentage is high between homosexuals, it was the same or probably worse in the old societies. they seen homosexuals as generally harmful people in the society, and because of the importance of the existence of the dominant male for keeping a society alive, whether through life or for reproducing, they simply acted extreme towards gays. it is a simple behaviour towards an group that is not fit with the majority. Greek also had eugenic practices and both Greeks and Persians had euthanasia for the deformed children. means that these behaviours are not unexpected especially in the hard life of old societies that they needed a strong healthy society more than anything else. but about the anti-feminine things

[wölfin-fräulein]

... I didn't say that sexual repression or political repression didn't exist. that was only about the general negative mentality of the majority of men towards women, making more of them finding a misogynist mentality. Do not see it on this site, in the society especially between the classes that are under pressure it is very different. now about the repression specifically you said repression of 'women' more than 200 years ago. But you failed, as many people do, to mention than before 200 years ago there was political 'repression' not on women but on whole classes of nearly all the societies. And on both sexes. The only group that wasn’t politically repressed was the nobility everywhere. Also political issues needed education that naturally could not be the concern of the majority of the society and lower classes. By the time we reached 200 years ago, it was actually the education system that made some of the...

[wölfin-fräulein]

... revolutions happen in many societies. People with higher education sought more. And we see from then the societies became less and less repressed politically. So again it was not women who were ever repressed but it was the whole society. though again we had many noble women throughout the history or Queens everywhere that were engaged in political and military affairs, like Artemisia II of Caria, Irandokht the Queen of whole Persian empire for a period. It was never only women. Again, also we see in the time in 200 years ago that middle class feminists ‘had’ education as many noble and middle class women of the old society, there were a major group of men who didn’t have any education. Means that they were yet even less able to engage or understand any political affairs than many women. And again the ‘repression’as it would be wiped out by time from society it would be the same for women. Understanding would be more, there would be more women in every field...

[wölfin-fräulein]

... as we would have more and more educated women. Even National socialists that are called misogynist had Leni Riefenstahl on their side and praised her talent. So we simply see as the understanding would grow the extreme ideas would be simply vanished between all groups, whether extremist or more moderate. it was inevitable. That is all. And about the sexual repression, there is more to discuss, many of the reasons was for avoiding promiscuity and keeping the family together that was crucial for every society. Though again there wasn’t sexual ‘repression’ as real repression as giving away all the choices from them on women whether in west or east that much to discuss before Semitic morality takeover as much as there is in Christian and Islamic era. also men were never absolutely 'free' sexually. read Dinkard the Zoroastrian laws or The defence of Euphiletos and see there were always laws for men as there was for women. they were just obviously 'more' free.

[wölfin-fräulein]

as taking away all the choices from them*

[Mesonfielde]

Interesting setup, really. I would not argue with it, mostly because it doesn't seem wrong at any point. In fact, I'll just elaborate on what I've meant the whole time.

""Simply this misogyny is a counter attack to all the pressure on men.""

This is actually insightful and true. If you ask me and when I say "gender is all wrong", it means that I think the cause of misogynistic behavior are the following:

1.) the gender *expectations* that claim males should always make the first move while the females are just sitting around waiting, thus people feel pressured and hurt when "despite the expectations, they were rejected"
2.) the gender *stereotypes* that claim all women are emotional and 150% different in every possible way from Men (with books supporting these sexist claims like www.amazon.com/.../0767907639 and www.amazon.com/.../006123205X ) in the face of www.amazon.com/.../0393340244
3.) The social pressure of dating culture, that people have to "date" in order to be valuable from a social standpoint, and then you have 1.) and 2.) and it leads to chaos.

[wölfin-fräulein]

@Asker I haven't read those books, but I do not think all books that study biological reasons for male and female behaviour claim women are all too emotional and 150% different than males. biological effects on behaviour can make certain dominant males and submissive females quite different but even the most submissive female isn't 150% different. also femininity is not equal with weakness 'women are weak' is a myth and it degrades the place of all strong women who kept the society alive shoulder to shoulder to men throughout history with actually being feminine, and it is devaluing all they have done. feminine behaviours is a 'dominant', not absolute, set of behaviour in women that doesn't make them weak but makes them 'relatively' act different than men, and that is for being able to do certain deeds better. But a woman can be very strong while being feminine enough, and a male can be strong while not following over-masculinized image of men wrongly created.

[MishaMikado]

What.. gender expression (femininity, masculinity) has nothing to do with gender identity, there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men out there. Being transgender has nothing to do with how you dress or act. It has to do with identifying as a different gender than you were assigned. Feminine boys or butch women are cis - not trans. So the problem I see here is you assume what people have in their pants defines them entirely as a person, which is wrong. Anyway, women who are trans generally HATE their "junk" so I can guarantee you won't see any "rubbing together" outside of p*rn which is likely where you got all your info from. Women who are trans sometimes choose to get gender confirmation surgery, basically a vaginoplasty. It ends up looking, feeling, lubricating, smelling and tasting exactly as it should. Men who are trans may choose to get GCS as well, in the form of surgeries that can create a penis and even redirect the urethra into it, and can get erect. Usually though, trans men just use strapons for sex or packers out in public.

Pls learn before you speak about something you're clueless about.

[MishaMikado]

Very very few trans people adhere to stereotypes, and I'd hope you've already researched the effects of hormones for both trans women and trans men. But then again you're only interested in discriminating against people who try to live their lives normally and be happy as themselves, so you won't make any effort to learn better.

[Mesonfielde]

""It ends up looking, feeling, lubricating, smelling and tasting exactly as it should."" We don't have the technology for that, unless you reverse the effects of the AMH that does its effects during pregnancy. Which, we cannot. So it's highly unlikely that it'd lubricate or feel the same way as a real one. What people have in their pants defines what they should identify as. A "woman" is an adult female. A "man" is an adult male. Just because you don't like your genitals it doesn't mean that's not what you have.

[MishaMikado]

We actually do have the technology for that, lol. The tissue down there is actually very similar between a male body and a female body, so when you introduce estrogen, the body goes "k" and does its thing, which even pre-op women report happening. I don't know about you dude, but most people don't think with their penis or vagina, and it's proven that gender is innate, so if you wanna deny the truth so you can believe your misguided world view and continue hating and disrespecting people for being who they are, then I guess I can't change your mind.

[MishaMikado]

Also been proven that trans people generally have brains with a more similar physical makeup as their identified gender. So trans men have brains more similar to cis men, vice versa for trans women.

[Mesonfielde]

FTM people won't have testicles, and MTF people won't have ovaries. They will never function perfectly in congruence with their gender identity as such. If it makes sense to you that way more, then yes, people don't think with their penis nor their vagina. But it is still what defines you *in bed*.

[MishaMikado]

Some men don't have testicles and some women don't have ovaries. Also does my sister having to get one ovary removed due to surgery make her any less of a woman? No. Trust me, being sterile is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. I don't need to be defined to hundreds of people each day by what I do I in bed, so nobody else should either. And I told you already, a neo-vagina is so close to any other vagina that it even fools gynecologists, and nurses at hospitals will ask you if you're pregnant, when your last period was etc. But yes, a few people have told me that not being able to have their own kids hurts a lot, they don't need people like you shoving that in their faces when they're trying to live normally just like you. I wouldn't shove facts or opinions about your penis in your face and judge you by it, so why do it to others? Are you catching on at all here or am I wasting my time?

[psychedelic_paprika]

"Sorry lady, you're hot and all, but I ain't having sex with you." "What, why not?" "You ain't got no OVARIES."

[Bysshe]

"It ends up looking, feeling, lubricating, smelling and tasting exactly as it should." Really? I would have imagined that the glands or whatever necessary for lubrication wouldn't be present. @MishaMikado

[kheserthorpe]

I don't think we have lubricate-on-arousal technology as of today. They just add lube. Which as most people have noticed, doesn't seem to stop straight men from wanting to have anal sex with women.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Great question. I don't know! I actually think a lot about a person is shown in their dress sense, the way they present themselves etc. That's their public persona, the individual traits of their personality. Of course, I also think this says a lot in the opposite sense. The girls who wear clothes because they are fashionable, they wear the same dress as a celebrity or they almost have a uniform from the high street shops - that tells me a LOT about their attitudes toward conformity and social acceptance. But that's getting off topic. I am attracted to men, I'm quite traditional in my attractions and although I believe people should wear and do whatever makes them happy I am not attracted to metro-sexual men, cross dressers or men who aren't traditionally manly. But that's my perogative. I don't think any less of men who don't fit that description but I want a "manly man".

I don't think all gender traits are sexist but I am feeling a bit annoyed as this morning I was asked to make tea at work for a visitor. I was only asked because I have a vagina. That pissed me right off.

[Mesonfielde]

What constitutes as "manly"? And of course, a female is obviously better at making tea because their brain structures are different. They were designed to be superior in that given task by many years of evolution since when the hunter cavemen got home to their caves from the vicious hunts that females were obviously inferior at, the cavewomen had to boil Their Men a cup of tea to ease the stress of everyday life. :p Of course, obviously, it sounds perfectly and unrefutably scientifically sound, amirite?

[Opinion Owner]

Manly means he can fix stuff, chop wood, takes charge at home, strong minded, strong physically, gentleman like - opens the door for me, tries to protect me, gives me his coat when I'm cold, all the stuff guys say feminists can't have because they want to be independant I want and have and still manage to have a loving and happy relationship where I am respected as a person and not as "a woman". You may find this confusing if you know who I am. I can do most of the things I want my man to be able to do, I am a capable and independant woman who can definitely look after self and doesn't need anyone to protect me, but I like knowing he would. I like that he wants to. I like that traditional gender role within a relationship. It's something which appeals to me.

[Opinion Owner]

And of course, it's in our genetic code to make tea for men. It's the only reason the cavemen kept us around, that and our ability to see loin cloths from leopards :P

[Opinion Owner]

*sew

[Anonymous]

The brain does, in fact, appear to have a gender. However, it seems to be more of a continuum rather than all male or all female. It's possible, I'd say, for dfferent points on the continuum to be more attracted to each other. I think our sexual turn ons aren't fullt understood, though. But I don't think its only societal bias that most people are attracted to SOME members of their preferred sex and not all.

[kheserthorpe]

No, I don't. I think all of it matters.

I don't think you can just argue it comes down to the mechanics of sex. I find the idea of being masturbated or fellated or having anal sex with a woman very appealing. I do not find them appealing with a man. Clearly my 'preference' goes beyond just preferred mechanics of intercourse.

Femininity is not very important to me, but self-identified gender probably is. I say probably because I've never been in the situation where it came up. I could happily have an ongoing sex life and relationship with a cute tomboy. I think I would be uncomfortable having a relationship with someone who thought of themselves as male, even if they had been born with female genitalia, even if they were quite effeminate (they may think of themselves as an effeminate gay man, or even an effeminate gay cross-dressing man). Would I be happy having vaginal sex with them? I think I'd feel I was violating them. Would I be happy having them stimulate me? Probably in the moment, but I suspect I'd be ignoring their identity, and then feel crappy about it.

How about a trans woman? Pre op, pretty sure it would bother me. I think? I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable being physically intimate with their genitals. If they had surgery? Of all the combinations I've talked about, it's the one I think I'd be most likely to be happy with. They see themselves as a woman. They physically present as a woman, naked, and in a sexual context. Their past would probably bother me to think about and dwell on. I don't know if that's being non-accepting. And maybe I'd be bothered and not get over it, but I don't -think- so.

So based on my own outlook, I think both sex AND gender matter a lot. I think most heterosexuals without specifying it are attracted to the opposite sex AND gender. But I think a lot of what you assign to one gender or another doesn't matter. But there is a core part at which people feel that they are 'male' or 'female' that does.

[Xonen]

It's not sexist, it's primitive. The traits that are commonly associated with femininity and masculinity are the ones that can be directly attributed to estrogen/testosterone levelas. therefore If someone claims to find someone of the opposite sex attractive for their feminine/masculine behaviors, they are simply proclaiming the most primitive form of attraction. Personality, individual qualities are all nuanced forms of attraction that would not have existed without the development of language and society.

[Xonen]

Oops, forgot to mention that physical attraction is also a spawn of society. The assets we find attractive are determined by societal behaviors. PS: you post some really awesome questions on here that really make me think :) keep up the good work

[ladsin]

Sex and gender are two different words and not synonymous. In addition, not all gay people rub their penises together (id guess).
Gender is society based whereas sex is biological. For example I personally find myself attracted to a lot of tomboyish girls. I do not think that makes me gay because they dont adhere to society's view of girls as being weak, dainty, emotional, and obsessed with trivial things like clothes or makeup etc.
Hope this helps... I was a little confused by what you were looking for in these answers.

[Mesonfielde]

People tend to say that "sex doesn't matter, if you feel like a woman then you should be one and people shouldn't judge you and should accept you" but that's silly due to lack of biological compatibility, if you are not female then you won't be a woman, no matter how you dress or how you talk. I agree on the tomboys, they're better, in my opinion primarily because femininity is a flawed concept with many negative elements to it.

[ladsin]

I see, you appear to be referring to "gender dysphoria" according to the APA it is no longer classified as an abnormal psychological disorder. Their are biological causes for it, primarily that all originally female brain in utero, and when testosterone is sent to the brain and is converted to estradiol... it affects all of the brain but largely the corpus callosum, and if an abnormality occurs here it can result in a male being born with a female brain despite having male reproductive systems. In my opinion just because there is a biological cause does not necessarily mean it isn't abnormal. Psychopathy is biological but we still think it's abnormal... However onto whether or not they should be allowed to dress and act the way they choose is a resounding yes from me. What a person decides to do with their own body and their own sexuality is of no concern of mine. This is in partial due to my libertarian views of personal freedom.

[Your_boss960]

I don't think gender is sexist

[evenlift]

Sexism is irrational sexual discrimination.

As you say, sex doesn't necessitate any particular set of behaviours. Therefore it can't be classified as sexual discrimination to prefer one set of behaviours to another.

So, it's non-sexual discrimination. But, is it at least irrational? No, I don't think it is that either. Gendered behaviours are, I think, rational conclusions based on the understanding of the biological differences between the two sexes. To take an easy example, why do men sit with their legs apart? Is it because of social convention? No. Social convention doesn't force you to do anything. Is it biologically determined/necessitated? No. I can choose to sit with my legs together if I want. But, if I do, it feels very uncomfortable. And there we have our answer. Men sit with their legs apart because it feels uncomfortable to the penis and scrotum to do otherwise. It's a rational choice based on the facts of reality.

[Mesonfielde]

Women sit with their legs apart mostly because they are told that sitting with your legs apart is "not ladylike". Guys put their legs apart because their legs would be crushing their scrotums, but there is nothing similar for a female.

[Mesonfielde]

... women don't sit*

[evenlift]

Being told something isn't mind-control. Would a man commonly sit with his legs together if he didn't have a scrotum and a penis? We don't really know. But, I can think of rational motivations that would apply to anyone who doesn't have such an appendage: aiding bodily warmth, taking up less space, and indeed modesty/propriety (which doesn't apply only to women). Personally, for those reasons, I would sit with my legs together if it didn't feel uncomfortable.

[Mesonfielde]

Being told by enough people is called "peer pressure", however.

[evenlift]

Sure, but it's not force. We all get told lots of things. I disregard quite a lot of it, and I didn't even grow up in a particularly free-thinking environment. I taught myself to be that way.

[Mesonfielde]

Well if people bitch at you enough and threaten you, you'll eventually obey if you cannot get rid of the source of abuse.

[evenlift]

Threats of violence are illegal. Harassment is illegal. Stalking is illegal. But, originally we were talking about merely having opinions about gendered behaviour.

[Mesonfielde]

Harassment occurs despite it being illegal, especially at younger ages when people are more receptive... as I said, it's called peer pressure.

[evenlift]

If it crosses the line into bullying, then report it to the school. But, this doesn't change the fact that one doesn't have to exhibit gendered behaviour, or the fact that it has a rational basis.

[Bysshe]

I think I agree with you to an extent. I'm more concerned with someone's sex than their gender in terms of whether I fancy them. I'm attracted to people who have female bodies (that is people who's sex is female), I don't particularly mind what their gender is, it's just important to me that they're attracted to male bodies and have a female body.

I've got no problem with transgender people, but I don't think I would ever be attracted to one. It's not someone's gender that attracts me, it's their body and personality, not their gender (identity). I'm attracted to people with female bodies, I don't care whether their mind is female provided I like their personality and so on.

[Bysshe]

I don't really like that we expect people to act or behave differently based on their gender, obviously there may be difference between men and women on average in certain respects, but I don't think someone's sex ought to relate to an expectation of what they do/how they act.

[Skadouchebag]

I've explained both the difference between sex and gender and my own opinion here: www.paranatural.net/index.php

[ThatGuy98]

I like girls for biological and emotional reasons, so both their appearance and personality matters. I have to admit that I don't really see your problem here..

[Mesonfielde]

I think expecting every girls to like shoes and claiming they all suck at math and that they are all "emotional" and not "logical" are all sexist, and they all stem from gender. Although technically this question was more directed at how people here say it doesn't matter if someone is trans, even though technically they're ""women"" with penises which is just nonsense.

[ThatGuy98]

Ok I get you, and yeah of course the biggest factor to us men being drawn to women is because they biologically are women. I just feel like for example, fashion and them being emotional just adds to the attraction. But yeah all this trans gender shit is ridiculous!

[Mesonfielde]

glad we're on the same page :p

[ThatGuy98]

Yup ^^

[Ironman127]

Well i think gender is something that is created based on observations and generalisations of how people of different sexes behave. Its not like its just completely stereotypical; men and women are different both physically and mentally (at least to a considerable amount if not a huge one). So its natural for a female to act "feminine" and a male to behave "manly". They do not behave so just because society expects them to. Of course everyone is different and there are people who do fit into their "gender". And that is OK. And yes I agree with you that people should consider what and how a person is instead of just looking at his appearance and how well he behaves according to his gender expectations, but if someone is attracted to someone because of their typical "gender" behaviour then that's not sexist at all. In a way its just biological and phsychological...

[Ironman127]

do not*

[logantheguy]

I thin that its should be that her personality is it

[Mesonfielde]

I think I jammed too many different things into this question, and you didn't really get the end result. The question is how much of personality is defined by societal constructs, and also if adherence to those constructs truly is more important than biological sex (which it isn't, if you ask me).

[Anonymous]

I'm just wondering:

Where in the actual fuck are all these questions coming from on here lately with people suddenly wondering why it's natural or not to be attracted to the opposite sex. There were 2 yesterday, one saying that people are a small bit shallow for being attracted only to the other sex. And the other... I have no idea what he was trying to say.

So yeah, is there something going on in the news or on TV that is making people ask all these questions?

[Mesonfielde]

No idea. I personally was just bored.

[Opinion Owner]

Well to entertain you, I'll try and answer your question. Although, it might be broad and a bit off-topic. But you can always ignore it if you want :) I think society, at least American society, has slowly (but growing exponentially) moved into a mindset where we begin questioning things as a result of previously questioned things. Things like women's rights, civil rights, gender roles, foreign relations, politics, and so on. This has opened the door to people essentially saying "Hmm, what else can we question and debate on?". And THAT has then resulted people questioning things deep down in our reptilian brain, trying to essentially rewire nature. "Wait, why do I have to be attracted to a girl or guy, this or that behavior, etc?"... when we've developed over hundreds of thousands up to millions of years. We might be changing ever so slightly, but we developed just like every other animal, and not by accident or coincidence.

[Opinion Owner]

So in conclusion: I understand people questioning societal constructs. But when you start getting into natural, primal thoughts and behaviors? You're on a very abstract slope that I don't think very many people at all really understand what they're questioning, WHY they are, or what they even hope to accomplish. Basically, we've seen the light in regards to exercising our higher level intelligence... but we're too intelligent to know when to stop or to know when it's useful. I used to be all metacognitive like this... until I stopped and realized "It's ok to be an animal. It's ok to have desires AND to act on them. It's ok to behave a certain way or have a certain personality without having to question or justify it. IT'S OK" So I stopped wasting my time fighting Mother Nature, and I learned that the world won't listen to me anyway. So I'm living for me, in ways that make me happy without questioning things that don't need questioning :)

[Mesonfielde]

Actually, that's exactly it. "Mother Nature" for me seems to be fairly different from others. I think elements of attraction that you first evaluate in words (this guy has a lot of money, that girl looks like Kim Kardashian) are deceitful and are against our innate capability for attraction to others, which is primarily physical and also behavioral - but not conceptual.

[Opinion Owner]

Not sure I'm understanding you entirely. So you're saying that basically our "knee jerk attraction" is obviously natural and perfectly fine, but us trying to understand and vocalize it with words and descriptions is not?

[Mesonfielde]

Actually, yes. The conceptual rationalization is just a big Pygmalion effect.

[Opinion Owner]

In the context of your original question, I can understand and see the truth in this. However, when it comes to figuring out societal gender roles vs. natural gender roles or identities, I think that is doing exactly what you say people should not be doing. You are saying above that people look too much into whether or not a person fits society's mold for them, rather than determining it for themselves as they meet a person. And while a lot of how we behave is more socially constructed than natural constructs, trying to determine which is what kind of goes back to what I was saying about not trying to question or understand Mother Nature so much. It is different what you're suggesting (from the people not able to judge a person without society's standards involved)... but not by a whole lot, I think.

[Anonymous]

No, that's absurd. Human attraction is never sexist. We are attracted to what we are attracted to. It's not a choice.

What is it with your obsession with gender?

[Mesonfielde]

I think gender is the core root of all sexism.

[Opinion Owner]

I totally disagree.

[Mesonfielde]

Why? it's true. The reason why people are sexist is because they make assumptions about other people, assuming that they behave or act or work a certain way based on their genitalia. What is what determines what counts as a socially agreed upon set of behaviors that are attributed to a specific sex? GENDER. GENDER is the reason why people are sexist. If there was no gender, we would see each other for who they are, rather than as "women" and "men".

[Opinion Owner]

You appear to have an unhealthy fixation on all things related to gender. Your perspective is a huge oversimplification of the facts. While it would be nice it it were that simple, it's not and never will be.

[kheserthorpe]

Lol, I find this soooo inaccurate. Why? Because I, and most males I know, would have said something close to what Mesonfielde said when we were his age, and now, by his standards are all sexist. We didn't learn culturally to see women differently, we were taught to see them the same. It was actually interacting with adult women for decades that shaped our views.

[Opinion Owner]

@kheserthorpe - exactly. We learn from our expereinces. That's what shapes our views. Sexist? Pure nonsense. Mesonfielde has what are in my opinion some very oddly biased views on gender (and other things). I say that not based only on this question but on many other things he's written here at GAG.

[kheserthorpe]

His views strike me as theoretical. But there's not actually any evidence behind them. All real world evidence is presumed to be caused by culture, but there's no cross-cultural evidence to support that theory. I mean you can easily say it's true for many things, and assess what's left, by considering various cultures. It's fairly obvious for example, that wearing a dress in western culture is viewed as 'not manly' simply because in the west women wear dresses and men don't (with the exception of kilts in certain contexts). But there are many cultures where men wear wrapped garments (and times in european history when that was true) and they were viewed as perfectly manly. On the other hand, it's difficult to find cultures where physical courage is not encouraged more in boys than girls.

[Xonen]

@mesonfielde's logic is sound though. Without the predefined set of characteristics attributed to both genders, there wouldn't be room for sexism, which is a prejudice against these predefined characteristics. I'm not claiming that I want to abolish gender, I'm simply agreeing with logic.

[Anonymous]

The whole concept of gender is bs. There is only biological sex that makes us different.

[Mesonfielde]

Or at least, the factors that make us different are detached from both biological sex and the imaginary concept of gender alike..

[Opinion Owner]

I think we should look into biological sex and learn the subtle difference between the sexes stemming from biological sex and sexuality instead of adhering to the false concepts of femininity and masculinity. A lot of people are attracted to gender. The funny thing is that gender allows for repressed homosexuality. If you are attracted to the female gender you can have sex even with men claiming to be heterosexual.

[Opinion Owner]

@wölfin-fräulein "the creation of many norms is based on biological sex's effects on behaviour, made by the different chemical reactions of the bodies of the males and females. Masculinity that causes masculine behaviour in a male is a biological reality of the mind and brain. the same with femininity. and the 'gender' constructed rolls was constructed through generations based on what you can do and how you behave according to your biological nature" - It is funny how people pass down this propaganda from generation to generation without thought. There is no scietific proof to it because it is not true.

[wölfin-fräulein]

"There is no scietific proof to it because it is not true." This reasoning is funny enough. enough said. and do not waste my time with this. it is funny a minority products of 40 years of pressuring opposed standards call the biological behaviour of not humans but all creatures funny. very funny.

[wölfin-fräulein]

the biological nature that was followed from the down of time. yes absolutely funny.

[Opinion Owner]

"the biological behaviour" - There is nothing biological in gender roles and the behaviors they are ascribed to. There is no research proving it. Just rumors being spread, nothing more.

[wölfin-fräulein]

even the cherishing behaviour of women towards their children is effected by hormones, idiot. every masculine behaviour is effected by his level and balance of different hormones. The male and female brain is empirically seen to seek different things. Even new born male and female children shows different behaviours towards different patterns and objects. and hormones are a part of one's biological system. idiot. when idiots get to know how to read and write they shit on every concept found by founders of alphabets.

[Opinion Owner]

"the biological nature that was followed from the down of time"..."the biological behaviour of not humans but all creatures" - these are mere claims, no proof. Yet people take them for granted.

[Mesonfielde]

@wölfin-fräulein the error people make is that they assume that feminine qualities are restricted only to females, and masculine qualities are restricted only to males. But considering it is not so, these concepts are honestly a waste of time to even think about as words. Males have more testosterone, but females also have testosterone; for example. Behavior isn't properly described by such blanket terms, therefore there is no point to using them..

[Opinion Owner]

@wölfin-fräulein What you are saying is the difference in biological sex. Women have maternal instincts, women have wombs, women give birth to children, women feed children. This is why men cannot be good parents and should not be allowed to raise children. That does not justufy famininity as a societal concept. You don't have to fit into female gender role to be a mother/care for the child.

[Opinion Owner]

@wölfin-fräulein Anyway, you ascribe to much to the hormones. I never said men and women were identical. I said they are different in biological sex. Genger roles are way too off-target.