On Gender
While wandering around the Internet, I came across an obscure mention of how a whole discussion panel wanted to label Caitlin (sp?) Jenner "courageous" for having done full gender-reassignment surgery to become visibly female. Seeing that, I wondered: then why not Christine Jorgensen, who became famous for surgically transitioning to female way back in the 1950s? Certainly getting gender-reassignment surgery, publicly, would have been a lot more "courageous" back then. Why doesn't the LGBTQ... oh, what the hell, Queer -- community celebrate and remember Jorgensen as a great pioneer? ...Possibly it's because, as years passed, Jorgensen went bald -- in the male pattern. Ooops. It seems that genetics aren't irrelevant after all.
Frankly, I'm very tired of Wokey-dokes trying to make Gender entirely a matter of opinion. They wouldn't do that with Race. In fact, they seem to adore societies that won't even allow that freedom to Religion -- a certain religion, anyway.
Look, the genes have it. All humans -- and other animals, and plants -- have two chromosomes, and if they're both X, then the animal or plant is female, and if one is a Y, then the animal or plant is male. This is true of every form of multicellular life, (We're not too sure about one-celled creatures, either. Though they usually breed by simple division, every dozen or hundred generations or so they have to get together and mix their nuclei, and their genes -- a process called "syzygy" -- or else they lose the ability to keep on dividing, so even microbes have sex.)
That said, we must also agree that there are plenty of animals and plants which have genetic anomalies that put them somewhere in between. There are individuals that have triploid genes: XXY or XYY -- but these are rare and usually miserable individuals. They don't breed very well, either. There's also a very broad category of what used to be called "hermaphroditism". This runs the gamut from having the primary sexual characteristics of both sexes, through the secondary characteristics, through biochemical characteristics, all the way out to behaviors. These can vary wildly, since there are a lot of genes -- rungs on the ladder of the immense spiral staircase of DNA -- per chromosome.
Among plants, it's very common to find true physical hemaphroditism: both pistils and stamens in the same flower, or male and female flowers on the same plant. (There isn't much behavioral similarity in plants, since plants don't have many behaviors at all.) Such breeds/varieties/"races" -- and even species -- of plants are fairly common, and are called "self-pollinating". They have no problem breeding, and are understandably popular among farmers. But even such self-pollinating plants often need to cross-breed -- accept pollen from plants of different breeds -- in order to produce the maximum yield of fruit, as any orchard-keeper can tell you. As with the microbes, they have to cross with genetically-different individuals every so-many generations to maintain vigor.
Among animals, on the other paw, true physical hermaphroditism is very rare. Bee larvae can develop male or female genitals etc. according to how they're fed. There are a few species of fish which have the genitals, chemistry, behavior et al of both sexes, but usually the one gender is dominant -- unless there's a shortage of the other dominant gender in the local population; then a number of the fewer gender will change sex-dominance and become the other. The seahorse is unique in that the female deposits eggs in the male's pouch, where they're fertilized, and when the eggs hatch the male bears the live young.
This isn't the case with other vertebrates. Hyenas are one species where the genetic females have secondary sexual characteristics of males; they're larger than the males, have enlarged clitorises (which they use to guide urine-streams) and scrotum-mimicking skin flaps; they're also biochemically more "masculine" and behave more aggressively than the males. Among most other mammals, though, there's simply a lack of sexual dimorphism to begin with; lions have manes and lionesses don't, but among other species of cats -- large and small -- it's hard to tell one gender from another at a distance. There's also very little difference in behavior between the sexes. Another thing to remember is that most mammals are functional bisexuals; when horny enough, they can -- and will -- have sex with anything that will stand still for it. This is not a gender question.
When it comes to humans, physical sexual dimorphism is about on the level with lions; males grow thick hair (manes?) on their faces and females don't, while females have permanently distended breasts (whether they're nursing or not) and males don't. Even that dimorphism is variable; there are breeds/varieties/"races" of humans where the males grow hardly any facial hair, if at all, and others wherein females have very small breasts until first pregnancy and nursing. Biochemically, sexual dimorphism is variable too; certainly males produce more testosterone and females more estrogen, but the amounts vary according to environment, particularly diet and temperature.
It's in behavior that human sexual dimorphism varies really wildly, and this is primarily because of culture -- the way whole societies think. As an extremely social and communicative species, humans create cultures of immense power and endurance. Although there are now and always have been matriarchal and even ambiarchal cultures, for most of written history and most of the world cultures have been patriarchal. Patriarchal cultures strongly amplify sexual dimorphism, and we're far from finished discovering to what extent. Even modern -- deliberately -- ambiarchal societies aren't immune to the subtle and pervasive effects of earlier, or neighboring, patriarchal culture. We won't be able to tell just what mental, and even physical, characteristics are inherent in male and female genetics until we've observed all the ambiarchal societies in the world for several generations.
The one natural human dimorphism we can be certain about is that only women -- natural females -- can become pregnant, bear and nurse children. All the gender-reassignment surgery in the world won't turn a man into a fertile woman. Because humans are also self-aware and time-aware, there's no society in the world where women don't know this. This means that any woman who intends to breed, ever, must consider that she'll have to spend the time, effort, and risk of being pregnant and raising children. That knowledge does create a particular attitude which inevitably affects women far more than men, and that can't be changed by all the wishing, believing, or politics in the world.
So, what do you do if your six-year-old boy comes toddling up to you and insists that he's "really a girl" and wants to be treated like one? (And vice-versa for a girl.) Well, the first words out of your mouth should be: "Let's get a complete gene-test." If the gene-test shows genetic anomalies, then you have to deal with them. If not, then the next question should be: "Just what do you think a 'girl' is really like?" (And vice-versa, etc.) If he says things like "Girls can get away with a lot", or "Girls don't have to work as hard", or "Girls can be dainty and pretty", or even "I want to cuddle and diddle with boys", or similar words (etc.), you'll know what sort of cultural/psychological problem you have to deal with; take the kid to a psychiatrist, and patiently make it clear to the kid that no, girls/boys aren't really like that -- but do not coddle the kid in his/her delusion.
Society does not benefit by coddling childish adults in their delusions, either. It's seriously damaged by making political hay out of childish delusions.
--Leslie <;)))><
