It seems that social progress slowly debunks the supposed physical basis of established social constructs. But social constructs retained over an evolutionary scale, shape us physically (so women reach maturity before men, and, as a result, tend to be physically smaller). The social construct under siege during the 19th Century was race, and in the 20th Century it seemed to be gender (it’s not that difference was denied, it’s just that difference came to be considered insignificant).

More-or-less constant sexuality (display, and interest in display) seems to be the hallmark of our “species” (probably the social construct of interest for another century). If society continues to pay less attention to gender, will it have a physical effect (say, men and women reaching maturity at the same time, and having more roughly equivalent physiologies)?

While gender may be becoming less influential in post-industrial societies in terms of social structure, in order for there to be physiological changes there would need to be a shift in the influence of gender over reproduction, and I don't see any evidence of such a shift, even in Western nations.

The only thing I see that even hints at the potential for such a shift is artificial insemination, and I think eugenics is more likely to influence this kind of reproductive shift than new perspectives on gender.

David wrote: "It seems that social progress slowly debunks the supposed physical basis of established social constructs. But social constructs retained over an evolutionary scale, shape us physically (so women r..."

Biologically, I'm not sure that's true. It's not maturing faster that determines their physical size. Given proper nutrition they mature to their genetically determined maximum height. That genetic height can change over generations based on natural selection but that selection (of mates) is the way that society influences the change.

Biologically, it is not true, Chad. Given proper nutrition and lack of chronic disease, physical height at maturity, eg, can be quite accurately predicted from growth during the 1st 6 months of life, a time when social constructs have little meaning.

I think the maturity thing very debatable too. It is often said girls mature faster than boys, esp in these post-feminist days. But, how does one define physical maturity (much less mental and intellectual maturity)? In girls menarche is often used as coming of age, an easily defined event. There is no similar event that can be used for boys. So I would question this assumption.

I think we can say that sexual selection could, in theory, move humans towards an androgynous appearance. However, there are a couple of things going against this. One is the fact that cultural definitions of sexiness are not universal, nor are they long-lasting. For evolution by sexual selection to make a big impact, many generations would have to adopt similar attitudes.

Second, there is some pressure for sexual dimorphism. Even though 21st-century American men seem more appreciative of muscular women than in the past, most still choose women who make them feel masculine, while most women choose men who make them feel feminine by comparison. I'm not sure how much freedom the human genome has. There are probably strong limits to its ability to react to the pressure for sexual dimorphism. Nevertheless, even a small push in this direction would counteract some of the increased comfort with androgynous body types.

Since the premise is one of changing attitudes towards body type, it is worth asking, Has such a shift actually taken place?

This may not be PC but I have to say that Gender has a huge impact on personality far more than social constructs.

the social costructs can reinforce certain characteristics. and social constructs that state that there can be no variation in roles is wrong but there is a genentic basis. Women and men think differntly and it is not just social.

By removing the gender differences and having Gender manifest as a part of reproduction and dominance we would see a hugely different world. The LHOD probably does not realy more than scratch the surface of these differences.

Kernos wrote: "In girls menarche is often used as coming of age, an easily defined event. There is no similar event that can be used for boys."

I've often lamented the fact that there seem to be no male-centered rites of passage, at least in modern Western culture. The lack of even a token line to cross sort of extends the length a male's "accepted" immaturity, I think, and at least creates a sociological separation between the sexes, regardless of gender roles.

I don't think, however, that less attention paid to gender would ultimately change physiology in the long haul--unless we're talking purely cosmetic features like fashionable hair or fingernail length. Even then, media-publicized forays into universalizing this type of behavior have kept a division clear.

Remember: Men who got pedicures or waxes or other "typically female" treatments were called "metrosexuals." They had to be labeled as men doing something un-manly--or at least something that fell under a new category of manly. Society didn't just say, "Yes, people in general, regardless of sex or gender, now act the same in the beauty department." It was more, "Some men act more like women now, but they're still men. They're just doing woman-like things, so they get a label that explains their somewhat feminine proclivities but still keeps them squarely in the man camp."

But even as clear polish coats the nails of men and women alike, the fundamental aspects of reproduction won't change--even with artificial insemination, as Greyweather mentioned. There's still one sex providing the xy and one providing the xx. And if society can't examine gender-neutral beauty care without throwing out front-page headlines to dissect the phenomenon as something still uniquely gender based, it's not going to nudge future generations toward a receding division of gender, either.

Kevinalbee wrote: "This may not be PC but I have to say that Gender has a huge impact on personality far more than social constructs.

the social costructs can reinforce certain characteristics. and social construc..."

I agree. One of the first ways a child defines himself/herself is by gender. When I had my daughter in the early eighties, My education said, "Boys and girls are the same. If you let boys play with dolls and girls play with trucks, you eliminated gender differences." That was BS, pure and simple. My daughter started pre-school at 2-1/2 and the boys rarely played with the dolls and the girls rarely played with the trucks. I went back to college when my daughter was in elementary school and had to take a class in which the professor was one of the big believers in gender-neutral child rearing. I laughed because it seemed that she had never actually worked with children or raised children. The film that she showed to prove the point did have boys playing with dolls and girls playing with trucks, but I noticed that it was always with adults hovering. I don't think they would have chosen opposite-gender toys without the adults guiding them to it.

One of the things about LHOD, is that the single-gender population was the result of genetic engineering. The people of Winter are humans, but the people who colonized the planet tinkered with DNA to create the unique sexuality of the planet. This was to create a more peaceful, less competitive world. I find it interesting how often discussions of gender-neutrality seek to make men less masculine. All the evils of humanity are considered to be male traits.

Kevinalbee wrote: "This may not be PC but ... Women and men think differntly and it is not just social..."

The point is that men and women DON'T think differently—-the postulated cognitive difference more-or-less got Lawrence Summers laughed out of the presidency at Harvard. Men and women FEEL differently, but affect is the result of experience.

Spencer pointed out that anything contributing to human flourishing will eventually be seen as pleasurable—-hence the odd (to us) idealized form of the Neolithic Venus (a modified form seeming to appeal to Rubens). Female fertility is no longer essential to human flourishing. If this condition continues long enough, accentuated “displays” of fertility will no longer be particularly associated with pleasure, and might disappear.

The interesting thing about LFOD sexuality is that the vessel of gestation seems to be a matter of choice. I don’t suspect a lot of males would be willing to carry a child to term, but I think that many women would choose to do this, even if there were some other, viable option. But this is just the affective acceptance of gender role. Without a blurring of gender, the “women” on Winter would still carry the burden of child-bearing, and genetic tinkering would be pointless. The harshness of Winter, and the related necessity of gender blurring, perhaps, has an analog in the sub incision historically practiced by some Australian aborigines.

I agree with your observations, Sandi.

My wife and I had two children: a boy and a girl. Our extended families are widespread and we moved away when they were very young. Now that one is in college and the other is a junior in high school, my wife and I are amazed at how my daughter has picked up very identifiable demeanor, mannerisms, and attitudes found on the women on my side of the family, while my son picked up similar unique traits reminicent of my wife's brother. Most of these traits are not part of what constitutes either me or my wife, and my children rarely ever see these people. Net: something built within them has endowed them with such characteristics.

I don't think they would have chosen opposite-gender toys without the adults guiding them to it.
Well, I did choose differently

All the evils of humanity are considered to be male traits.
Aren't they, mostly? A proof, if such things can exist in a discussion about constructed(!) social norms, would be any kind of political event (violence by words mostly, but still that underlines the very same concept).

Apart from that, gender is a constructed concept. Therefore, whatever is constructed can be de- and/or reconstructed. (I don't say gender should be neglected, it should just evolve/be equalized.)

Consequently, this who-plays-with-what-question is just another realization of the prospect of the non-evolving nature of how the concept of gender is - unfortunately - still understood by most of the people. (Ultimately, this is reflected in the emergence of very peculiar strands of feminist-movements which might not need to be there in the first place if all people would listen to and try to understand the ideas and points of view of the respective other.)

My wife, a child development specialist to whom I was just reading some of these comments, pointed out that even when children play with toys typically considered to be aimed at the opposite gender, they play with them differently. In other words, girls made orderly, rule-oriented games with trucks as opposed to crashing them. Boys made weapons out of baby dolls (which is really funny to watch, she said). I've noticed that even when boys play with girls on stereotypical girls' terms, they'll only do so for a limited time before having an "oh no!" moment--the family car flies off a cliff or giant spiders attack.

There are obviously exceptions (as a boy, for instance, I never played any sports and wrote short stories about unicorns), and a lot of gender norms are surely societal constructs, but the genetic traits that eventually physiologically lead girls into motherhood (at least potentially) influence their play when younger and social interactions when older. I think that goes beyond societal expectations.

Watching my wife grow through two pregnancies--and seeing the resulting physical and emotional changes wrought by fluctuating hormones--has been a great object lesson. Her nesting instinct was not based on any societal expectations, but it measurably kicked in. (She thinks that's an understatement.)

Sandi wrote: "I find it interesting how often discussions of gender-neutrality seek to make men less masculine.

That does seem to be the case. My wife worked in an early-childhood development center that emphasized gender neutrality and met a boy being raised "gender neutral" by two mothers. He had long, never-cut hair and was dressed in pastel purples and pinks. To my admittedly biased eye, such choices don't reveal neutrality. Maybe a shaved head and clothes that come in shades of oranges and browns?

He was thrilled one day, by the way, when he figured out he was a boy with help from another boy in the program. He announced to everyone, "I'm a boy! I'm a boy!" His moms weren't too pleased.

The observations you describe in your first paragraph are only appropriations and therefore do not fit the single individual (which you also pointed out -- interesting here might be to inquire why that is the case in some individuals, though). I don't see why there should be such a thing as a 'oh-no!' moment in the first place(if there were one, it is triggered by society I would say).
As far as the homonal changes (both fluctuational as well as long-term) you mentioned are concerned, such might have had an influence on people a long time ago, but since humankind developed higher brain functions these should to degrees 'override' these hormone-triggered behavioural patterns.

I don't really think one might go so far as to say these things influence younger children in the ways they play (considering the roles of adults here and how they interfere - in whatever way - in the children's play).

I believe, however, that society needs to be drained of this underlying tension of violence (commenting on the gender-neutrality-question here, this is nothing more than a logical step since this 'masculinity' has a supressive character which, in turn leads to even more violence against that. Ultimately, there would be no harmony possible in the end.

Hagen wrote: "As far as the homonal changes (both fluctuational as well as long-term) you mentioned are concerned, such might have had an influence on people a long time ago, but since humankind developed higher brain functions these should to degrees 'override' these hormone-triggered behavioural patterns..."

I think you are overly optimistic here.

Postulating that brain power alone has the ability to override any behavior pattern ignores a significant amount of psychiatric research. Hormones, and other biological factors, are known to have a huge impact on behavior ... higher brain function or not.

I really don't consider this a feminist book. It is neither pro female or anti male (not that feminism has to be anti male).

I would not call the societies we meet overtly female or lacking in maleness. There is aggression, jealousy, ambition and dominance. We witness kindness, love, generosity, and sacrifice.

These people are not bound by gender, since gender only plays a very small part of their lives, that of reproduction.

I believe the point is not gender, gender roles, or how we are affected by our own gender. I think it is more on how gender affects the observer.

Near the beginning of the book, Genly is bothered by Estraven, by the fact that he instinctively wants to think of Estraven as one gender or another, but neither one feels right.

By the end of the book, when the ship comes to the planet, Genly is now bothered by the obviousness of the gender of his crew mates. Throughout the course of the story he has gone from trying to figure out how to see these people to just seeing them as human.

Its not that people's personality traits are governed by their gender (I believe we are all biologically influenced by our own genders) or gender traits are dictated by society (and to a point, they are). Instead it is the possibility that once gender no longer becomes important to the observer, we are all then only human to each others eyes.

Sandi wrote: "I find it interesting how often discussions of gender-neutrality seek to make men less masculine. All the evils of humanity are considered to be male traits."

This is a pet peeve of mine. It drives me crazy when negative traits are automatically considered "male" where more positive traits are automatically considered "female". I've had a number of very positive, supportive, and loving men in my life. I've known some very cruel, aggressive, and domineering women.

Just because those men were decent people, did not make them any less masculine. One of them was my father, and though he is gone and it has been a long time since I was a child, he will always be my daddy and I will always be his little girl.

Another is my husband, and trust me, I very much enjoy his masculine qualities. :D

Kristjan wrote:Postulating that brain power alone has the ability to override any behavior pattern ignores a significant amount of psychiatric research. Hormones, and other biological factors, are known to have a huge impact on behavior ... higher brain function or not.

I think, I was considering this with a little too much pathos ;-)
what I meant was not that higher brain functions alone can override any behavioural patterns, I just meant with those functions we might be able to be more aware of them and consequently, try to reshape/modify/contain their impact on us.

But overall I think you're right: I am too optimistic ;-)

I believe I should read the book first, though....

Aggression & ego, two male traits are often considered 'bad' now. Kids play games & don't keep score to minimize this. Ridiculous!

Coupled with our intelligence & creativity, they put us at the top of the food chain. Yes, they also cause problems - horrible ones - but without them & the dynamics they've brought, we'd still be climbing trees to get away from predators.

Look at the nuclear & space races between the US & the USSR. We were poised on the brink of destruction for decades, but that race got us to the moon, drove miniaturization of electronics & ultimately is why we have home PCs & the Internet.

I do not agree, however, that aggression and egotistic thinking are necessary to propel development. This can also be done in harmony (if all the factors involved permit that; if not, the factors are wrong but it is never due to lack of aggression).

Great discussion.

Sandi,
Just to be fair, I'll propose an alternative explanation for the hypothetical happiness of the androgynous kingdom. Maybe the real gain for society is not the extirpation of male vices but the absence of the host of wicked jezebels who drive good men to drink. At least, that was the implication of a study funded by the Blues Music and Utopian Society Foundation.

The Platonic myth of the bifurcated hermaphrodite—4 arms, 4 legs, both sets of genitalia—seems a little like the fragmented Atman. We aren’t individually seeking an Alter Idem, but the collective reunification of masculine and feminine. Shunted into separate gender roles, we are simply broken.

I think Le Guin loves her male characters, maybe in the way that Austen loves her ninnies (male and female). Love isn’t blinding. The fearful dependence on gender performance is blinding.

Hagen wrote: "I do not agree, however, that aggression and egotistic thinking are necessary to propel development. This can also be done in harmony (if all the factors involved permit that; if not, the factors a..."

Fear is another great motivator. I'm not sure that a species will advance if in harmony. Look at the dodo. Look at how many people retire & then die quickly since they have nothing to strive for. Or how many lottery winners goof up their lives. We need reasons to strive for more than picking fruit out of trees.

Jim wrote: "Fear is another great motivator..."

Fear is a limbic motivator, along with anger, and, maybe, the desire for sex-without-an-aftermath. They're negative emotions, and seldom take us any place new (developmentally).

Harmony doesn't imply equality, just equity.

David wrote: "Fear is a limbic motivator, along with anger, and, maybe, the desire for sex-without-an-aftermath. They're negative emotions, and seldom take us a..."

I don't buy that. Look at where fear of dying has taken us. The quest for immortality or a piece of it has led to religions, philosophy & great art. It's led to weapons, medical & scientific development. The so-called negative emotions are great generators of innovation.

Happy people don't have the need to struggle for anything - no impetuous. It took effort to found a new religion, unlock the mysteries of the physical world & create great works. A content person has no reason to strive, to put out a great effort that it takes to make breakthroughs.

Indeed, without contrast, I don't believe we can experience great emotion or be spurred to great things - good or bad.

Jim wrote: "A content person has no reason to strive, to put out a great effort that it takes to make breakthroughs."

The reason here would be advancement of humankind in general, I think (this at least should be tried to be reached)

David wrote:"Harmony does not imply equality, just equity"

If you intend that in the sense of fairness, that's a good starting point, don't you think?

Jim wrote: "I don't buy that..."

Happiness is an awfully obscure goal. I think we would all like to be happy, other things being equal, but we would also like to deserve being happy.

I guess, technically, anger or fear (fight or flight) would be the negative, aversion response to some contingency we wish to avoid. The animal response to fear is to either run away, or shut down and take it (learned helplessness, in the extreme). Fear might keep us safe, or it might not, but it doesn’t get us religion or philosophy.

Animals are probably limited to visceral and safety needs (maybe esteem needs, in the case of our dogs), and so stimulus-response works pretty well. But as rational beings, we have at least the potential to transcend our animal needs.

For example, when someone wanted to be warm in a smoke-free house, they refined a flue and chimney, rather than rely on the old owl’s hole. This wasn’t from the visceral need to be warm (a fire and an owl’s hole worked well enough), but was the very human desire to be self-actualized (eudaimonia—probably closer to what we consider, when we think that we want to be happy). We don’t want the happiness of our dogs, lazing by the fireplace—we want the quietude of earned control. Harmony doesn't imply the bland acceptance of some lowest-common-denominator. From a practical (for humans) perspective, harmony requires that we function at the level of higher, prepotent needs (Maslow)

David, I think you're obscuring the point behind animal extremes. Fear of dying or the wish for immortality can be anything from 'flight or fight' to a mild longing in humans since it is tempered by our intelligence & creativity. Humans, arguably, are the only species we know of without instincts. Other animal limitations are not ours. We go outside the knowable to fantastic flights of fancy that become religions & philosophies based on unprovable faiths.

Happiness is an awfully obscure goal. I think we would all like to be happy, other things being equal, but we would also like to deserve being happy.


I agree, although eudaimonia goes beyond what I was trying to say. They don't need to be prosperous, just 'getting by well enough'. Perhaps "content" is a better word? A person who has what they need is often content - unless they are envious of what their neighbor has. Then this 'negative' emotion spurs them into striving for more. My original point being that negative emotions are often the basis for our growth. They keep us from being content or happy with what we have, even if it's all we need. We want more.

Was there any great person that was satisfied to be 'content'? Weren't they driven people? Often they were driven by their positive emotions as well as negative ones. Florence Nightingale was driven by anger, outrage & loathing as much as her mercy & compassion. Soldiers & peers alike said she was driven to walking the aisles at all hours, rarely resting. Contrasting, surging emotions brought out her greatness, not contentment that she was making a difference.

Jim wrote: "David, I think you're obscuring the point behind animal extremes..."

Probably.

I guess it was Hobbes who said that the desires of wealth are endless—so wealth as a telos is a dead end. (I think we can define wealth broadly here, after Rawls, to include things like intelligence, health, position, and even luck—the point is that we’re naturally jealous of the stuff we have, because we try to own the outcome of our efforts). If we are naturally lazy, and our destiny (final cause) is to create stuff or to perfect our capacity—then we might want to be driven by the differential of desire. But if we want the telos of quietude (or if the perfection of our nature is something other than material efficiency), then we need to get off the never-ending track of desire. But renouncing desire (the outcome) isn’t the same as withholding our effort (responding from duty—doing the things we think we should do, simply because we think we should do them). I think the model here would be the Bodhisattva.

Jim wrote: "Humans, arguably, are the only species we know of without instincts. ..."

Do you really mean to say that humankind has no instinct? If so, I am seriously wondering wherefrom my babygirl gets the notion to a lot (most) of the things she do--because she sure hasn't learned it from me or my wife:-P And where did she get the urge to seek out the breast after being born, and to pretty impressively start sucking shortly after?

I could go on, but I think you get the idea;-)

Personally I think the human race is just another animal race among the rest. And we're not the only ones who can think--but we certainly do seem to be much more efficient at it (for good and bad) and to have more (self) awareness and a lot of other things. So we're still unique, even if perhaps not as much as we'd like to;-)

David wrote: "I think the model here would be the Bodhisattva...."

Maybe eventually, but we have a LOT of history & evolution to overcome. Toffler pointed out in "Future Shock" that if man has been around for about 800 sixty year lifetimes, if they were laid end to end. Most people have only been out of the caves for a few dozen of those lifetimes. Something like 95% of the scientists have lived in the last one.

It's pretty amazing how fast the material trappings of our society have changed. Psychologically & socially, we have a LOT of catching up to do. I find LeGuin's ideas on it interesting, but not particularly inspiring because I think our greatest achievement is the ability to be so driven by our inner conflicts, like Florence Nightingale. It is our strength & what will keep us at the top of the food chain - or destroy us completely.

I don't think we, as a species, are really meant to become gentle, non-aggressive critters. If we do, I don't think we'll be humans any more. Better, maybe - other than, certainly.

LeGuin's story inspires me to think about gender differences in a way that most stories do not. She posits individuals who are capable of knowing the desires of both sexes from an intensely inward and personal view. The people of Winter are really, really alive, knowing personal desire in intense ways -- i think this is what mystifies and sometimes nauseates the humans who interact with them.

And I like the comment above that pointed out that Genly, who once had been bothered by the biological obviousness of his/her crewmates, had progressed to seeing them as just human. I don't think this realization in any way negates the inner conflicts of either race, or of any individual. And I think that LeGuin's story is very inspiring towards the possibility of recognition of a universality wihtin every individual.

I always thought the greatest motivator for advancement was laziness.

I have to do something. what is the most effective way I can do it with the least effort.