Your Gender Identity and Sexual identity

[Reluctantly]

Someone mentioned something today about there being different kinds of gender roles and now I'm curious, as it explained all my identity issues with gender and sex. But maybe most people don't have these issues; I don't know.

What gender identity are you? Here's a link with a lot of different kinds.
http://genderqueerid.com/gq-terms

I'm pretty sure I fit Gender Fluid.


Also, what is your sexual identity? Here's a test. I don't think it considers asexuality, but if you are asexual, you probably don't need to take a test to get a better idea.
http://vistriai.com/kinseyscaletest/

I get 2, which makes sense for me as I know I'm not bi, but can't exactly consider myself straight either.

 

[snafupants]

I'm 100% woman and if you can't handle that realness, then scram.

 

[joal0503]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjF93E4LjlA

 

[Duxwing]

I'm 100% woman and if you can't handle that realness, then scram.

You're a woman?! *shrugs* I learn something new every day.

-Duxwing

 

[The Gopher]

I'm 100% woman and if you can't handle that realness, then scram.

Hold up are you actually female or was that sarcasm?
Edit: although I have been going back and forth on you now that I think about it. :P

 

[Grove]

My gender identity is female, as is my biological sex- so I'm cisgender. I haven't read up on Queer theories for a few years, but based on the descriptions provided I can associate most closely with "genderfuck"; although I don't actively identify as such. I like to play with the roles a bit, but I think a lot of gender-defined roles are bull shit anyway. I scoff at them almost naturally & it isn't until someone who is very rigid in their own gender role questions or "calls me out" that I notice what I'm doing - that I'm not playing by the rules.

I identify as straight - I'm sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted to men. On the Kinsey type quiz above I scored a 1. Depending on the questions asked I typically score either a 1 or 2 on like quizzes.

I don't know what percentage of the population has "issues" (as you called it) with their gender...but it is probably more than we think. Both gender and sexuality are fluid...for everyone...at any time. Look up the gender and sexuality spectrum(s). Some hold more tightly to one area on the spectrum, others move back and forth more easily.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm a male, and a heterosexual man. They say it's a sliding scale, but I've never been attracted to a man, so... yeah. It's that easy for me.

 

[joal0503]

are bisexuals just greedy fuckers?

 

[snafupants]

Hold up are you actually female or was that sarcasm?
Edit: although I have been going back and forth on you now that I think about it. :P

Snafu's vajayjay likes the sound of that...

I think a lot of gender-defined roles are bull shit anyway.

@Grove

Is that statement recycled feminist cliche or biological fact? Would you say that there's something inherent to female biology promoting "female" traits?

are bisexuals just greedy fuckers?

I'm an equal opportunity employ...her.

 

[SpaceYeti]

are bisexuals just greedy fuckers?

Only if they don't share.

 

[Grove]

I don't think it is as black & white to say that all or no traits are a result of biological sex. Are there some social traits that are more prevalent in males or females? Yes. To the point where we can easily convince ourselves that those traits are biologically determined? Yes. Are they actually biologically determined...probably not. Are they socially determined? More often than not.

Although, what gender role would you qualify as a biological fact? And way to wave your bias out there with your "recycled feminist cliche" shtick.

 

[snafupants]

@Grove

I don't think it is as black & white to say that all or no traits are a result of biological sex.

Haha, how about some?

Are there some social traits that are more prevalent in males or females? Yes. To the point where we can easily convince ourselves that those traits are biologically determined? Yes. Are they actually biologically determined...probably not. Are they socially determined? More often than not.

That's where I diverge...

Although, what gender role would you qualify as a biological fact? And way to wave your bias out there with your "recycled feminist cliche" shtick.

I didn't say gender role.

 

[Grove]

I'm not going to play games with you, snafu. What's your point?

 

[Grove]

Back to the original question. @Reluctantly, do some research, figure out what makes sense to you, and yes - others have identity issues with their gender and sexuality.

 

[snafupants]

I'm not going to play games with you, snafu. What's your point?

@Grove

I'm not playing a game. The term "gender role" is loaded with too much cultural garbage to parse, like the thing it seeks to describe. You seem to be saying that males raised like women will be basically behaviorally indistinguishable from most women. I'm saying that there's some underlying hormonal substrate informing "maleness" and "femaleness" that can't be molded via environment or reinforcement to the other gender modality. Hormone therapy can change people's personalities because it operates beyond the environment and affects the cause of "femaleness," which is genes and hormones. In most cultures you analyze, females act one way and males act another; likewise with lower primates. You dodged the "femaleness" argument in my previous post by invoking gender roles. Let me ask it again: what makes a female a female? Spell it out for me.

Are they socially determined? More often than not.

There's no feasible way to cogently argue that "femaleness" is socially determined; you can contend that gender roles aren't aligned to biological fiats of what "fe/maleness" should be, but you can't argue that the preponderance of "fe/maleness" isn't hormonal or biological in nature. It's much easier to change the expression (gender roles) than the person (hormone therapy).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://genderqueerid.com/gq-terms

I'm usually not self-conscious about (my) gender outside public restrooms, and being attracted to females; seems a mix of agender / gender-fluid. Although I consider myself straight and male, and don't hold myself or others to strict gender stereotypes/expectations.

http://vistriai.com/kinseyscaletest/

I took it a while ago and scored 0*; I could be a 1, but regardless of being possibly influenced by social gender roles, I just don't have an interest in other males like that.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZq6jnL9Czw

*
0 = Exclusively heterosexual.
1 = Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual.

 

[Grove]

I haven't argued that a man raised to behave like a woman is indistinguishable from a woman at all. You decided I was making purely constructionist argument and ran with it. What I'm saying is that societies set up false dichotomies between what is essential "male" behavior and what is essential "female" behavior". They are ascribed behaviors and what constitutes as our gender roles. Gender role really isn't a hard concept. I agree with you that there is something essential, biological, maybe hormonal (I'm not sure it is that easy to quantify) to maleness and femaleness. Otherwise how can we say things like "I feel that I am a woman"? What I think is bull shit is the way social forces attempt to shape men and women to conform to a dichotomy of behaviors.

In terms of what makes a female a female...I don't know. What makes you male? Is it your hormones? Statistically there are biological females that have more male hormones coursing through their veins than you do. Who is more "male"? Is it your penis? Some biological women have an enlarged clitoris , to the extent it performs much like a penis. Define dick.

Yes, it is much easier to change gender expression than the anatomy or the hormones in the person. But, what is essential in the person who is a transgender man or woman, or which part is essential. Is it the hormones or anatomy they where born with? Or it something else entirely? What makes you a man?

 

[snafupants]

I'm not interested in endless dialectics. I said my piece and that's that.

 

[Grove]

I think sanfu just promised to stop talking.

 

[SpaceYeti]

YAAAAYYY!!!

 

[snafupants]

I think sanfu just promised to stop talking.

YAAAAYYY!!!

I'm pretty sure you just gave Yeti his weekly erection.

Perhaps Yeti should attempt to understand my posts before indulging in cupcakes.

 

[Minuend]

Agender. I don't feel like a man or a woman, I feel like the sum of my thoughts. The whole having an identity based on gender is foreign to me.

And the test in second link

F The test failed to match you to a Kinsey Type profile. Either you answered some questions wrong, or you are a very unusual person.

That's just their nice way of calling me a wanker )=

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm pretty sure you just gave Yeti his weekly erection.

Perhaps Yeti should attempt to understand my posts before indulging in cupcakes.

Why you thinkin' 'bout my wiener, yo? It's k, I know you like.

Also, nothing gets understood before indulging in cuppycakes. They're freaking cuppycakes! Omnomnom!

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The test failed to match you to a Kinsey Type profile. Either you answered some questions wrong, or you are a very unusual person.

Stupid test...

 

[The Gopher]

HAHAHAHA, you would.... For the record I did get a three. Both times.

 

[BigApplePi]

Two part question. One part is easy; the other hard:

(1) Imagine you have the same physical body you've always had. How would you be?

(2) Now imagine your parents behaved the same toward you but their physical sexuality was reversed from your birth. That is, your mom behaved in every way as your dad and your dad behaved in every way as your mom ... except for clothes. Those would remain the same for identification purposes. How would you be? Feel free to refine or further define this experiment.

 

[Cognisant]

Stupid test...

Yeah that's not surprising at all

I haven't taken the tests yet so here's what I perceive about myself, physically I'm unquestionably male, I know from experience that I'm attracted to women and that guys don't inherently attract or repel me, that said sex itself is pretty gross, which with women isn't a problem because y'know pheromones, whereas male pheromones don't have that effect on me so I'd get grossed out pretty easily.

Psychologically I've been raised primarily by my mother and she has tried to raise me like a girl in some respects, which has largely met with failure, but I'm still not as outgoing and rough'n'tumble as I perceive other guys to be, then again maybe that's just an only child thing. My identity isn't really male or female, it's just not relevant to a lot of things, and when picking an avatar for use in games I'll play male just as often as female, although, and maybe this is just a bias of mine, but I tend to play a male character when I'm focusing on combat and beating the game, and female when I want to role-play, dress up, and generally mess about.

Likewise I'm often female in my dreams, but never in a dream where I'm in danger or in a fight, the female dreams are more contemplative, never violent, so if it starts to turn in to a nightmare I'll suddenly remember that I'm male (which doesn't seem odd at all) and from there on the nightmare usually escalates until I become lucid or wake up.

Lucidity of course involving a vengeful curb stomping.

 

[Jennywocky]

You're a woman?! *shrugs* I learn something new every day.

-Duxwing

Wait, you mean you hadn't figured it out before??

 

[Solitaire U.]

"In English…ultimately our language calls on us to describe only a living creature by either male or female gender…"

This isn't exactly accurate. In English, animals are typically assigned the singular object pronoun 'it'. It is only through familiarity with the sex of a specific animal that we grant them 'he' or 'she' status. But even when the sex is known, 'he' or 'she' status is often withheld until personal interaction has occurred with the animal in question. Animals with difficult to identify genders (fish, birds, etc.) are always referred to as 'it'.

Interestingly, this often includes human infants, which are for all intents and purposes androgynous unless the genitalia are visible.

Also, English has no gender-specific third person plural pronoun. 'They' is essentially androgynous, in that it can refer to objects, 2 or more men, women, boys, girls, or a mixture of genders.

Contrast this with Spanish, which has the masculine form 'ellos', and the feminine form 'ellas'. Spanish has masculine and feminine forms for 'living nouns', but always defaults to the masculine form for generalizations, unknown genders, and mixed groups of known genders;

un gato = a male cat or simply a cat in general or of unknown/unimportant gender.
una gata = a female cat (but clearly NOT a male cat).

This is also applied to children, but not adults;

niño = boy or child
niña = girl (but clearly NOT a boy)

niños = boys or children
niñas = girls, but only girls. If there is a group of 20 girls and only 1 boy it still defaults to niños.

'Chicos' are supposed to be boys, but I've heard 'chicos' used to reference mixed groups of kids too. In Mexican Spanish, 'Chicas' has sexual connotations and is thus a dicey way to refer to pre-teen girls, but it appears to be pretty commonly used in reference to teenage girls, especially by teenage boys.

I explain English pronouns to my beginner students like this:

"If it talks, and it's singular, use HE or SHE."
"If it moves but doesn't talk, use IT unless you're sure of it's gender."
"If it's plural and you're not included, just use THEY."

Gender identity 101.

 

[kora]

I don't really feel like my gender defines what I am, I just feel like me if you see what I mean. Other's would probably say girlfag description fits me well.

Bisexual people are lucky, we get more choice

 

[Jennywocky]

We're already had the gender discussion a few times, here, I think.

There are social aspects of gender.
There are also biological aspects of gender based on chemistry and body structures, behaviors that are harder to nail down per se.
These biological aspects would be behaviors designed to make a creature better at its reproductive role (male or female) for that species.

We already have years of documented experiments on animals where changing hormonal levels and/or tweaking brain structures during certain windows of development result in unfixable changes in sexual orientation -- i.e., a female rat will end up forever after trying to mount other females like a male, rather than presenting her hindquarters like a normal female. (It's disappointing we cannot hear the inner thought process of a self-conscious rat being articulated, or we might get some insight on the rat's intrinsic sense of identity, which could shed some light on human variation as well.)

Typically people seem to very intrinsic sense of gender. Men and women seem to be very quick, beyond social programming, to think, "I am male" or "I am female." The intensity can vary from culture to culture. Even homosexuals have a gender sense; a male who is attracted to men still has a sense of himself as a male, he's simply attracted to men. And therapy has trouble altering this orientation sexually. And hormones typically only intensify the sex drive; give a gay man loads of testosterone does not make him straight, it simply makes his craving for sex with other men intensify. The window of opportunity to change the brain structures passed while he was still in utero.

The same resistant/internalization seems to happen with gender sense as well. You typically cannot alter a hetero's or homo's gender sense of themselve via therapy. (Send a self-understood woman to therapy to prove to her that she's a man, and while you might screw with her brain and confuse her if you use extensive brainwashing techniques on her, she will likely never walk out as a healthy person who believes she is a man.) And cross-gender hormones when applied to people with a clear sense of their gender usually results in negative results -- they get depressed, they don't feel good about themselves, they hate what the hormones are doing to their bodies, etc. It doesn't "feel right." It can lead to suicide. However, for those who already have an intrinsic sense of themselves as the other gender, hormones leave them feeling happy and alive and pleased with the changes in their body. Everything is "right."

This last bit is anecdotal experience but seems pretty universal and what is typically reported. So alongside social gendered expectations, which seem to be different/additional to gender identity sense, there is also some kind of core perception that gets anchored very early in life that can't really be explained.. it just is.

 

[Puffy]

are bisexuals just greedy fuckers?

Sounds more like a negative stereotype to me. Bisexual in itself doesn't imply that you'd necessarily be in more than one relationship.

Came up as a 2, which I guess doesn't surprise me.

 

[Nezaros]

I am most definitely male, and a 1 or 0 on the Kinsey scale. But for whatever reason gender isn't something I've ever really given a significant amount of thought to. I've never felt any ambiguity concerning my gender or sexuality, despite possibly being slightly less "masculine" than most guys I know.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Scored a 0; exclusively hetrosexual...

Though that is actually a long way off from the truth (answered completely honestly).

 

[Reluctantly]

Two part question. One part is easy; the other hard:

(1) Imagine you have the same physical body you've always had. How would you be?

Honestly? I think I'd prefer a female body...but I'd be a lesbian. Does that make sense? I've heard the term male-lesbian once before, but it doesn't really fit, since I never felt I didn't fit being a man, but that I relate to a woman's role on an instinctive level and don't like not being able to do that at times.

I once wore some of my ex-girlfriend's clothes just to see what she thought. She liked it when I wore her lipstick during sex, but putting on her underpants freaked her out and she didn't want any intimacy for the rest of that day and she wondered if I was into men. And if I ever did it again, she said she wouldn't want to see me anymore. That was a pretty surprising response to me. I guess I thought it would be hot to be more feminine for her. It was probably the most humiliating reaction I could have gotten, but reading around on the internet, it seems that's a normal reaction from heterosexual woman. That does bother me a bit...that I could be that weird.

The weird thing is I don't generally like playing the penetrative role during sex because usually that means I'm supposed to act like I want to ravage the other person when I'd rather focus on giving pleasure than dominating. Male domination seems to be a psychological turn-on for the majority of women. I don't really get it though.

(2) Now imagine your parents behaved the same toward you but their physical sexuality was reversed from your birth. That is, your mom behaved in every way as your dad and your dad behaved in every way as your mom ... except for clothes. Those would remain the same for identification purposes. How would you be? Feel free to refine or further define this experiment.

I'm not sure what you mean. If my mom was the man and my dad was the woman...oh, I see what you're doing. Well, I should say I associate feminine qualities as soft, warm, intimate, nurturing, and soothing. Men are hard, cold, sexually charged, competitive, and challenging. At least, people that don't know me well might believe I'm gay if I act with these female qualities. It can be embarrassing because I usually don't know what I'm doing until someone accuses me of coming onto them or something. Sometimes I get an urge to kiss people that I like or massage their body to show my contentment with them, but had to learn not to do this. I almost kissed my step-dad once; that was awkward for us both. I guess the way I talk and play with animals is feminine too because someone once asked me if I was gay after playing with their dog.

I guess it doesn't help that my emotions relate more to tomboyish women than it does to men as well. I actually think men in general, at least the stereotype, are pretty stupid when it comes to interpersonal intelligence, and despite relating to NT in MBTI, I think I...care...more about validating and respecting people's emotions than objectifying them to cold rationalizing. It's inherently condescending...

I mean, how smart can men be when they blame a female's mood swings on their hormones? As if they stop being a person when having a period, anyway.

Stupid test...

Agender. I don't feel like a man or a woman, I feel like the sum of my thoughts. The whole having an identity based on gender is foreign to me.

And the test in second link


That's just their nice way of calling me a wanker )=

I haven't taken the tests yet so here's what I perceive about myself, physically I'm unquestionably male, I know from experience that I'm attracted to women and that guys don't inherently attract or repel me, that said sex itself is pretty gross, which with women isn't a problem because y'know pheromones, whereas male pheromones don't have that effect on me so I'd get grossed out pretty easily.

By the way, if you guys answer as if you were asexual, you won't get a score. I think it's the only way not to get scored; I tried it when I realized that wasn't an option on the results.

Back to the original question. @Reluctantly, do some research, figure out what makes sense to you, and yes - others have identity issues with their gender and sexuality.

Yeah, I guess. It seems rather complicated though; and it certainly doesn't help that I have sometimes fantasized about men either...

We're already had the gender discussion a few times, here, I think.

There are social aspects of gender.
There are also biological aspects of gender based on chemistry and body structures, behaviors that are harder to nail down per se.
These biological aspects would be behaviors designed to make a creature better at its reproductive role (male or female) for that species.

We already have years of documented experiments on animals where changing hormonal levels and/or tweaking brain structures during certain windows of development result in unfixable changes in sexual orientation -- i.e., a female rat will end up forever after trying to mount other females like a male, rather than presenting her hindquarters like a normal female. (It's disappointing we cannot hear the inner thought process of a self-conscious rat being articulated, or we might get some insight on the rat's intrinsic sense of identity, which could shed some light on human variation as well.)

Typically people seem to very intrinsic sense of gender. Men and women seem to be very quick, beyond social programming, to think, "I am male" or "I am female." The intensity can vary from culture to culture. Even homosexuals have a gender sense; a male who is attracted to men still has a sense of himself as a male, he's simply attracted to men. And therapy has trouble altering this orientation sexually. And hormones typically only intensify the sex drive; give a gay man loads of testosterone does not make him straight, it simply makes his craving for sex with other men intensify. The window of opportunity to change the brain structures passed while he was still in utero.

The same resistant/internalization seems to happen with gender sense as well. You typically cannot alter a hetero's or homo's gender sense of themselve via therapy. (Send a self-understood woman to therapy to prove to her that she's a man, and while you might screw with her brain and confuse her if you use extensive brainwashing techniques on her, she will likely never walk out as a healthy person who believes she is a man.) And cross-gender hormones when applied to people with a clear sense of their gender usually results in negative results -- they get depressed, they don't feel good about themselves, they hate what the hormones are doing to their bodies, etc. It doesn't "feel right." It can lead to suicide. However, for those who already have an intrinsic sense of themselves as the other gender, hormones leave them feeling happy and alive and pleased with the changes in their body. Everything is "right."

This last bit is anecdotal experience but seems pretty universal and what is typically reported. So alongside social gendered expectations, which seem to be different/additional to gender identity sense, there is also some kind of core perception that gets anchored very early in life that can't really be explained.. it just is.

Okay, so let's say a guy is straight, but feels like they relate more to women than men. You're saying their gender identity is thought to be as ingrained as their sexual identity? I could see that being the case for me.

 

[Nezaros]

The weird thing is I don't generally like playing the penetrative role during sex because usually that means I'm supposed to act like I want to ravage the other person when I'd rather focus on giving pleasure than dominating. Male domination seems to be a psychological turn-on for the majority of women. I don't really get it though.

...

I guess it doesn't help that my emotions relate more to tomboyish women than it does to men as well. I actually think men in general, at least the stereotype, are pretty stupid when it comes to interpersonal intelligence, and despite relating to NT in MBTI, I think I...care...more about validating and respecting people's emotions than objectifying them to cold rationalizing. It's inherently condescending...

I mean, how smart can men be when they blame a female's mood swings on their hormones? As if they stop being a person when having a period, anyway.

I think these may be (almost?) entirely due to social conditioning. Males in the media (Hell, males at my college) are overwhelmingly represented as strong, aggressive, don't-give-a-shit-about-women-except-to-fuck. In a word, assholes. Women are effectively trained to find these traits attractive, and men to adopt these traits in order to be attractive. Besides myself I know one guy at my school who is generally polite to both males and females (may not be accurate considering how few people I interact with, but it's something). This may be because we are both extremely introverted, but at least one introvert I know acts the same as the rest (Though admittedly he's still better about it. I think).

On the other hand, a small but significant amount of personal experience (as well as allegations from others) reveal that most of these alpha-males are in fact fairly kindhearted on the inside. Whether they behave this way because they're internally aggressive but learned to be kind to potential long-term partners, or because they're internally timid but learned aggression to find mates, I couldn't say, but that's largely irrelevant. This behavior certainly has roots in the primal reproductive instinct of females searching for males who possess traits that will help ensure offspring survive, but why it has persisted this long... Well, easily attributable to sons learning from fathers et cetera, as well as the media loving to perpetuate stereotypes. How often does one see the non-aggressive male at the head of a group, leading a successful love life? Excluding ironic portrayals.

Though I'm happy to say that this behavior has definitely and obviously declined over the years. Let's just hope it's a continuing trend. Long live pussification of men!

Okay, so let's say a guy is straight, but feels like they relate more to women than men. You're saying their gender identity is thought to be as ingrained as their sexual identity? I could see that being the case for me.

Perhaps I can only say this because of my sureness of my sexual and gender identity (entirely heterosexual male) but I truly feel as if the entire concept of gender identity needs to be abolished. A male is a male. Doesn't matter if he possesses a few female personality traits, likes men or women or no one at all. He is biologically a man and that is what he is. Might he feel more comfortable in a female body for whatever reason? Possibly. Post operation, he is a she. Not transgender. Never a "woman in a man's body". I'm not saying that the concepts of gender and sex should be united, but that sex is unambiguously determinable (excepting the case of hermaphrodites, the discussion of which I will refrain from due to a lack of knowledge on the topic) while gender is an obsolete social construction we have come to rely far too heavily on, and should be done away with. (Sexual orientation having no connection to gender identity in this)

Additionally, because I feel it is somehow relevant to the topic at hand, but I'm not completely certain where or how, I would like to mention that, despite being heterosexual, I often wonder what it might be like to have been born a female, or artificially become one. In this hypothetical situation, assuming I retain my present viewpoints and all that, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't be bisexual. Right now I find the idea of having sex with a man... Not repugnant, but I would simply never do it. (It could be that I am open to the idea, but for some hard-wired reason would never give it a chance. It could also be that I do find it repugnant, but have never come close enough to it in life or even my mind to decide. Only time will tell.)

I have determined that it isn't quite mammary glands or birth canals that causes me to be attracted to women; it's femininity, coupled with all that. Physical and mental femininity. I can't say I'd be attracted to a man who was mentally feminine (Here, possessing traditionally female traits, e.g., kind and nurturing, emotional, possibly submissive... Hm, maybe I'm not as free from the social programming I was going on about as I thought. Damn.) but I do see it as likely that I'd be willing to have sex with a... as the Japanese internet says, futa. Given my age and lack of experience though, that's all likely to be unsure imaginings that will be confirmed / denied as I mature, but I felt like it had to be gotten out.

Pardon if any of that was redundant, or nonsensical, or just plain sounded weird. It's late.

 

[BigApplePi]

We're already had the gender discussion a few times, here, I think.

Has anything been omitted or not detailed?

There are social aspects of gender.
There are also biological aspects of gender based on chemistry and body structures, behaviors that are harder to nail down per se.
These biological aspects would be behaviors designed to make a creature better at its reproductive role (male or female) for that species.

Same for eating. There are social aspects to eating broccoli versus ice cream. Both are eaten for calories and nutrition. Perhaps chemical distinction prevents one dipping broccoli in ice cream for consumption. Social convention dictates eating broccoli with the main meal and ice cream afterward. Most prefer most under clean conditions. Timing and social relations matter to many.

We already have years of documented experiments on animals where changing hormonal levels and/or tweaking brain structures during certain windows of development result in unfixable changes in sexual orientation -- i.e., a female rat will end up forever after trying to mount other females like a male, rather than presenting her hindquarters like a normal female. (It's disappointing we cannot hear the inner thought process of a self-conscious rat being articulated, or we might get some insight on the rat's intrinsic sense of identity, which could shed some light on human variation as well.)

Can we tweak the way we eat food to shed light on this? We can train people to eat one meal per day or five?

Typically people seem to very intrinsic sense of gender. Men and women seem to be very quick, beyond social programming, to think, "I am male" or "I am female." The intensity can vary from culture to culture. Even homosexuals have a gender sense; a male who is attracted to men still has a sense of himself as a male, he's simply attracted to men. And therapy has trouble altering this orientation sexually. And hormones typically only intensify the sex drive; give a gay man loads of testosterone does not make him straight, it simply makes his craving for sex with other men intensify. The window of opportunity to change the brain structures passed while he was still in utero.

People will always be hungry. Yet they have different tastes and different sensitivities. There are chemicals that can prevent one from tasting sweet. Some people cannot eat peanuts or are allergic to wheat.

The same resistant/internalization seems to happen with gender sense as well. You typically cannot alter a hetero's or homo's gender sense of themselve via therapy. (Send a self-understood woman to therapy to prove to her that she's a man, and while you might screw with her brain and confuse her if you use extensive brainwashing techniques on her, she will likely never walk out as a healthy person who believes she is a man.) And cross-gender hormones when applied to people with a clear sense of their gender usually results in negative results -- they get depressed, they don't feel good about themselves, they hate what the hormones are doing to their bodies, etc. It doesn't "feel right." It can lead to suicide. However, for those who already have an intrinsic sense of themselves as the other gender, hormones leave them feeling happy and alive and pleased with the changes in their body. Everything is "right."

Can you convince someone who likes chicken to prefer rice and beans? Or ants and mealy bugs? Yummy.
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...=185&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:111
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...224&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:144
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...13&start=65&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:98,s:0,i:411

This last bit is anecdotal experience but seems pretty universal and what is typically reported. So alongside social gendered expectations, which seem to be different/additional to gender identity sense, there is also some kind of core perception that gets anchored very early in life that can't really be explained.. it just is.

 

[Jennywocky]

Has anything been omitted or not detailed?
Same for eating. There are social aspects to eating broccoli versus ice cream. Both are eaten for calories and nutrition. Perhaps chemical distinction prevents one dipping broccoli in ice cream for consumption. Social convention dictates eating broccoli with the main meal and ice cream afterward. Most prefer most under clean conditions. Timing and social relations matter to many.
Can we tweak the way we eat food to shed light on this? We can train people to eat one meal per day or five?

People will always be hungry. Yet they have different tastes and different sensitivities. There are chemicals that can prevent one from tasting sweet. Some people cannot eat peanuts or are allergic to wheat.

Can you convince someone who likes chicken to prefer rice and beans? Or ants and mealy bugs? Yummy.
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...=185&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:111
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...224&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:144
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...13&start=65&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:98,s:0,i:411

Do you have an executive summary for your post? I'm not really sure whether you're just riffing, rebutting, or concurring....

 

[BigApplePi]

Do you have an executive summary for your post? I'm not really sure whether you're just riffing, rebutting, or concurring....

Good question Jenny because I tossed it out there as ideas without giving it any deeper thought. The ideas are there to ask the question, if sexuality is one part inherent and another part early upbringing and another part accumulated culture, then why can't our food inclinations be along comparable lines as both are sensual? What I'm hoping for is our food inclinations may stand out more in origin, or if not, then less in bias thereby assigning more certainly to our sexuality origins.

If you hadn't asked, I'm sure I wouldn't have thought to write that. If you like, I can reflect on comparisons, though my intention was to have others do that. My intuition says that although people seem to believe sexuality is a very complex and varied experience, I believe looking to simplify it and explain it in simpler terms is possible.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think these may be (almost?) entirely due to social conditioning. Males in the media (Hell, males at my college) are overwhelmingly represented as strong, aggressive, don't-give-a-shit-about-women-except-to-fuck. In a word, assholes. Women are effectively trained to find these traits attractive, and men to adopt these traits in order to be attractive. Besides myself I know one guy at my school who is generally polite to both males and females (may not be accurate considering how few people I interact with, but it's something). This may be because we are both extremely introverted, but at least one introvert I know acts the same as the rest (Though admittedly he's still better about it. I think).

...

Perhaps I can only say this because of my sureness of my sexual and gender identity (entirely heterosexual male) but I truly feel as if the entire concept of gender identity needs to be abolished. A male is a male. Doesn't matter if he possesses a few female personality traits, likes men or women or no one at all. He is biologically a man and that is what he is. Might he feel more comfortable in a female body for whatever reason? Possibly. Post operation, he is a she. Not transgender. Never a "woman in a man's body". I'm not saying that the concepts of gender and sex should be united, but that sex is unambiguously determinable (excepting the case of hermaphrodites, the discussion of which I will refrain from due to a lack of knowledge on the topic) while gender is an obsolete social construction we have come to rely far too heavily on, and should be done away with. (Sexual orientation having no connection to gender identity in this)

I don't really know if it is conditioning though. The truth is, I was a weird kid. I liked women so much that one of my childhood friends latter assumed I went through puberty at an abnormal age. And I didn't really know how to explain it to him and I didn't understand it myself. I did some weird shit, like hugging women, kissing them, and getting sent to the principles office for it. I liked being around women and playing with them; it was very soothing and still is. There's something very fun about women, about their emotions that makes sense to me and is playful. It's not a sexual thing. I guess I just want to be intimate with people or something; but that's a feminine thing to do or want.

See, the thing is I'm attracted to women both sexually and romantically. I'm only attracted to guys sexually. I'm sexually submissive (I don't think it's conditioning, it's a preference), which women don't seem to like, but means I've gotten to the point where I fantasize about being dominated (willing rape? mentally conditioned?) by a guy because women won't satisfy this. But I don't have a problem with having a male form, but feel that I am naturally feminine and if I could change into a female form easily and naturally, yes, I'm pretty sure I would do it. But I would be a lesbian if I did, because I have no romantic attraction to men.

Weird, right? The embarrassing thing is, I'm not even sure what that makes me.

 

[Jennywocky]

Good question Jenny because I tossed it out there as ideas without giving it any deeper thought. The ideas are there to ask the question, if sexuality is one part inherent and another part early upbringing and another part accumulated culture, then why can't our food inclinations be along comparable lines as both are sensual? What I'm hoping for is our food inclinations may stand out more in origin, or if not, then less in bias thereby assigning more certainly to our sexuality origins.

Food's an interesting comparison that I haven't considered before, so thank you for that. I'd be inclined to think food was at least partly biological, I'm just not sure how "preferential" it is and anchored from an early age.

Tastes actually are known to vary widely while growing up, partly from experience and partly just due to aging. Also, biochemcial changes (such as pregnancy) can change one's desires for certain foods. Your body sometimes seems to be looking for certain minerals and you'll get cravings for certain things.

The problem with a direct correlation to sexual orientation is that taste is far less important and pervasive than the desire to mate and build a union with someone. It also, for many, doesn't seem to adjust in focus over repeated exposure like food tastes can; maybe nowadays, with cultural freedom, not as many gay people have been through rehabilitative therapy and/or medical treatment to "cure them," but it's pretty clear from our culture's past that extensive, painful, extreme "reconditioning" to make someone predominately straight just does not work. It doesn't work. Even the most positive studies basically say that orientation will likely not really change, it's just that you can find ways to distract oneself and/or accept something else in its place, if you really feel you need to because of religious conviction or something similar.

 

[Nezaros]

Weird, right? The embarrassing thing is, I'm not even sure what that makes me.

This is one of the points I think I was trying to make. Doesn't matter what it makes you, it is what it is. Let your sexual partner(s) at the time judge you, but not anybody else, and probably not even yourself, because there's just no point.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Agender. I don't feel like a man or a woman, I feel like the sum of my thoughts. The whole having an identity based on gender is foreign to me.

^This. From those listed (lots of... new words there) agender fits best, though in the past I most likely would have identified as "guydyke".

Sexuality? Some sort of hybrid fluctuating between pansexual and asexual. On the test I scored X.

 

[Synthetix]

Identifying yourself by gender, race, religion or nationality seems simple minded to me.

 

[Jennywocky]

Identifying yourself by gender, race, religion or nationality seems simple minded to me.

Damn those reality TV shows!

 

[PhoenixRising]

Identifying yourself by gender, race, religion or nationality seems simple minded to me.

^ this.

Although, I would add 'species' to that list as well. We are all conscious, living creatures.

 

[BigApplePi]

Sex Stages and Identity

Let me run through some quasi-independent factors. I will number them. (Note Da Blob in case of interest.)

Food's an interesting comparison that I haven't considered before, so thank you for that. I'd be inclined to think food was at least partly biological, I'm just not sure how "preferential" it is and anchored from an early age.

Yer welcome. (1) Both food and sex are painful when one has zero of it (for the average person). (2) Being fed and having an orgasm bring temporary relief.

Tastes actually are known to vary widely while growing up, partly from experience and partly just due to aging. Also, biochemcial changes (such as pregnancy) can change one's desires for certain foods. Your body sometimes seems to be looking for certain minerals and you'll get cravings for certain things.

After coming of age, the experience (3) of hunger and gaining satisfaction are or can be enjoyed or suffered in varied ways.

The problem with a direct correlation to sexual orientation is that taste is far less important and pervasive than the desire to mate and build a union with someone.

(4) Mating is an advancement to mere hunger and satisfaction. (5) Building a union is longer-term and therefore an advancement to mating. One may stop at any of (1) through (5) and practice variations or find one thing satisfying. Does the eating comparison hold up? A little. At first it's hunger and satisfaction, then family dinners, then dinner with a partner and at a favorite restaurant.

It also, for many, doesn't seem to adjust in focus over repeated exposure like food tastes can; maybe nowadays, with cultural freedom, not as many gay people have been through rehabilitative therapy and/or medical treatment to "cure them," but it's pretty clear from our culture's past that extensive, painful, extreme "reconditioning" to make someone predominately straight just does not work. It doesn't work. Even the most positive studies basically say that orientation will likely not really change, it's just that you can find ways to distract oneself and/or accept something else in its place, if you really feel you need to because of religious conviction or something similar.

I recently saw the film, "Alive", about plane crashed unrescued people. They went through a lot of steps before deciding to eat each other. Some refused and died. How is that different from sexuality (I'm leaving out gender)? Suppose a person of either sex looked to a romantic coupling. Suppose the parent of the socially acceptable partner gave no hope of love or inspired fear while the other parent was either loving or enchanting. Which sex would they favor as a partner? What would prevent a would be heterosexual baby from going gay on maturity if the opposite sex were experienced as repulsive in behavior and the same sex as loving? In another post Jenny you mentioned hormones to female rats I think making them hump. This is stage (2) I presume. I wonder if they tested them for satisfaction? After all if male and female orgasms are experienced the same way as relief, that doesn't mean they are brought about in the same way any more than beer versus ice cream as satisfying as brought about in the same way. Different taste buds.

There are other kinds of sexualities. Incest with a sibling, for example. If one's temperament is to play around, they might go for that. If one has romantic fantasies for a partner who adds to them what they lack, incest would be out as a sibling is already in the family. Polarizing is another factor. Once a seed is planted as "no", the sex drive could be so powerful as to exclude a field or type to bias toward the "yes." (I'm sure food can be made to correspond here.)

Sorry for such a long post. If I were really really sorry, would I have made it?

 

[Agent Intellect]

1 - Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual.

 

[Da Blob]

Re: Sex Stages and Identity

Let me run through some quasi-independent factors. I will number them. (Note Da Blob in case of interest.) Yer welcome.
(1) Both food and sex are painful when one has zero of it (for the average person).
(2) Being fed and having an orgasm bring temporary relief.

(3) After coming of age, the experience of hunger and gaining satisfaction are or can be enjoyed or suffered in varied ways.

(4) Mating is an advancement to mere hunger and satisfaction.
(5) Building a union is longer-term and therefore an advancement to mating.

One may stop at any of (1) through (5) and practice variations or find one thing satisfying. Does the eating comparison hold up? A little. At first it's hunger and satisfaction, then family dinners, then dinner with a partner and at a favorite restaurant.

I recently saw the film, "Alive", about plane crashed unrescued people. They went through a lot of steps before deciding to eat each other. Some refused and died. How is that different from sexuality (I'm leaving out gender)?

Suppose a person of either sex looked to a romantic coupling. Suppose the parent of the socially acceptable partner gave no hope of love or inspired fear while the other parent was either loving or enchanting. Which sex would they favor as a partner? What would prevent a would be heterosexual baby from going gay on maturity if the opposite sex were experienced as repulsive in behavior and the same sex as loving?

In another post Jenny you mentioned hormones to female rats I think making them hump. This is stage (2) I presume. I wonder if they tested them for satisfaction? After all if male and female orgasms are experienced the same way as relief, that doesn't mean they are brought about in the same way any more than beer versus ice cream as satisfying as brought about in the same way. Different taste buds.

There are other kinds of sexualities. Incest with a sibling, for example. If one's temperament is to play around, they might go for that. If one has romantic fantasies for a partner who adds to them what they lack, incest would be out as a sibling is already in the family. Polarizing is another factor. Once a seed is planted as "no", the sex drive could be so powerful as to exclude a field or type to bias toward the "yes." (I'm sure food can be made to correspond here.)

Sorry for such a long post. If I were really really sorry, would I have made it?

There are physiological needs which are expressed as psychological 'hungers'.
There have been any numbers of studies that have shown that psychological hungers can be manipulated. In fact, there are those who advocate a Hegelian dialectic of society that postulate that all societies function by manipulating psychological hunger, turning in it away from a natural self-serving gratification to an 'un-natural' gratification of the group.

As far sex, all sex can be seen as masturbation, of one form or another. Humans' levels of pleasure are often heighten by the inclusion of Sex Objects/toys in the act. To claim that there are genetic dispositions for particular Sex Objects/Toys is really quite a dubious claim, IMO. Instead it is a matter of the exercise of free will, which form of sex object/toy provides the greatest pleasure for the slightest risk/investment?

The human relationship facet of sexual activity could be a lot broader than most realize, particularly if Freud's work has any validity in the matter. If a person's ambitions extend beyond the immediate gratification provided by an orgasm, Then the Sex Object could be used to fulfill other psychological hungers and physiological needs.

I believe that one of these hungers is for a family and the companionship and shelter such can offer. Some would stipulate that progeny are necessary, for a couple to evolve into a family, but I do not see that as a prerequisite. By the same token, sex is not a prerequisite for the formation of family either, just a common coincidence.

As fore mentioned the survival of the group may depend on the frustration of natural tendencies which are then channeled into socially beneficial expression. The desire for sex seems to be one that every society has found a way to frustrate. In fact one wonders if a society can survive without common sexual mores as a source for generating frustrated energy.

Personally, I doubt it.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I am 3-4 on the kinsey scale. I seem to be most attracted to bisexual people who challenge their expected gender roles with their personality or appearance. Gender normative people often strike me as boring. I am superficially feminine in appearance and manner, because I find it useful to be able to blend in and, unfortunately, I am not immune to social conditioning. Those who know me for any significant amount of time, universally comment on my apparently masculine personality (intp female, it's expected). I am frequently told my personality and appearance are at complete odds; in rl and from internet sources that are exposed to my appearance after becoming familiar with my personality. My gender and sex is certainly far more important to other people than it is to me, which can be discouraging.

I imagine if I were male, I'd be a chronic crossdresser. Indeed, I wish I knew more males that cross-dressed convincingly. Perhaps the next time I hear male discussing how he feels like a lesbian in a man's body, I shall challenge their bluff by inviting them out on a strictly lesbian date with me. I typically find 'dressup' mind-numbing, but I think this would be an endlessly entertaining challenge.

We could even protest anti-gay rallies.