gender

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (448 of them)

thx con I'll take a look at those

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

What we need is testimony from a female to male trans person who's taken or is taking supplemental testosterone therapy.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

Obv, we all have tesosterone and estrogens but it was my understanding that young men have the highest concentrations of testosterone, on average, of any population.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

Also I mean there's the questionable probativeness of a study of males that were injected a single time with testosterone right before they did something. Hormones are complex things that interact with our physiology in complex ways.

happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

(xposts) I found a lot of stuff like this in that paper you linked to:

This study indicates that young men who are from a culture where honor is important do respond to an insult—a challenge to honor—with an increase in testosterone levels, and also with more aggressive, domineering, behavior. Whether the testosterone surge plays any causal role cannot be inferred from the study.

&

The other side to the challenge hypothesis—and indeed its whole point in adaptive terms—is that the testosterone surge should increase aggressiveness in competitive situations. The evidence for this is hard to find in studies of humans, which have tended to examine the association between levels of testosterone and aggressiveness among samples of adults (see Section 9), or have involved the impact of competition on testosterone levels.

This seems to be in line with other studies I perused which suggest that there is little evidence that testosterone generates aggressive behavior or that there is any proof that differences in testosterone levels between genders has anything to do with differences in aggression.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

fwiw, i'm not trying prove that i'm right. i think laurel was absolutely right that an endless, research-driven back-and-forth about the "correct" interpretation of the available science would accomplish nothing. afaict, there's a LOT of research out there, more than enough to provide adequate support for any position one might choose to take. rather than get hung up on it, i'd rather agree that it's okay have diverging opinions and more forward.

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

afaict, there's a LOT of research out there, more than enough to provide adequate support for any position one might choose to take. rather than get hung up on it, i'd rather agree that it's okay have diverging opinions and more forward.

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:51 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not to snipe but dogg this attitude is why we can't have nice things. or say confront global warming or w/e

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah, i'm pretty over "can't we all just be friends??/agree to disagree??" when it comes to certain issues

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

oh maybe that should go on 'things you're fascist about' thread...

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

okay, point taken. but there are also these sorts of things in that study:

Testosterone levels showed a low but positive correlation
with measures of aggression and higher correlations with
dominance, variously measured by leadership, toughness,
personal power, and aggressive dominance. A study of 13-
year-old boys found the highest associations with testosterone
for being a tough leader, and little sign of an association
with measures of fighting. There was also evidence that men
with higher testosterone levels were more prone to react in
situations that were perceived as challenges, such as an
angry face or a more psychologically-induced challenge to
their self worth. These studies broadly support the
prediction that there would be an association between
aggression-based dominance and testosterone levels. They
also go beyond this, in indicating that challenges and status
matters more to high testosterone people, and influences
their behavior.

and this:

High testosterone men tend to be stable
extraverts, and to show a range of characteristics
indicating that they tend to prioritize shorter-term goals.
For example, high testosterone men show more antisocial
behavior, take more risks, and have less stable sexual
relationships. There was evidence that high and low
testosterone males tend to set out on different life courses
from a relatively early age, although it is clear that any
initial dispositions interacts with social circumstances.

i mean, there seems to be little doubt that testosterone affects human behavior in all sorts of ways, many of them measurable on a statistical/demographic scale.

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah, i'm pretty over "can't we all just be friends??/agree to disagree??" when it comes to certain issues

― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

oh, i know. was hoping this wasn't one of them. and i sort of wish people on ILX were more inclined to accept certain kinds of dissent, but i suppose that if they were, it wouldn't be such a brilliant and hospitable place...

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

Wait, so high-testosterone males are stable extraverts who engage in antisocial and risk-taking behavior?

happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:04 (2 years ago) Permalink

but seriously, oh what a world it would be if we could all voice our opinions and then use rigorous scientific method-like analysis to call bullshit on the ones that don't serve the whole
xps
hm

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

obv i'm not talking about quantitative science itself there BUT choosing to fund certain projects could be determined in such a way. i'm being a socialist now tho with this line.

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

Science is the only known corrective for the limits of human cognition. No matter how discomforting the truth of what it reveals, we must abide by its findings until better findings come along.

Banaka™ (banaka), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:10 (2 years ago) Permalink

lol

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

Wait, so high-testosterone males are stable extraverts who engage in antisocial and risk-taking behavior?

― happiness is the new productivity (Hurting 2), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:04 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

"stable" in that they're consistently extroverted, yeah

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:17 (2 years ago) Permalink

banaka otm, posthuman future now plz

high five delivery device (Abbbottt), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

I don't quite know how to posit this without sounding suuuper airheaded, but I'll try...

I know that menstrual synchrony is kinda dismissed as hogwash hearsay, but I've always wondered if hormonally certain groups/types of people (and types could even mean on a chemical level, I'm not sure)...if there's ever some kind of...'hivemind' way that gender can manifest. Whether it's in male violence for example.

And I'm not discounting behavioural choice here. I don't quite know what I'm suggesting. But I'm just wondering about all the ways that 'typically' male/female behaviour come out, and if we all have the same kind of stew, as gbx, described it, if there's ever circumstances where certain behaviours might seem to manifest innately?

I'm kind of lost in my own question now so I'll pull the chute and apologize in advance for being so hilariously nebulous

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

i think it's been proven that humans are social creatures and that yes 'hivemind' exists to a certain extent! it's the only way to explain the popularity of reality tv anyway

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

and other things that groups of people like

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

^ science

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

science rules

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

it's like magic

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

science, how does it work

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

bunsen burners are involved iirc

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

we're gonna need some of those big glass beakers. Where's Walter White when you need him.

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:39 (2 years ago) Permalink

hey, things have chilled back down over here. nice. anyway, i dunno about the idea of gender groups becoming one. i do notice that if i'm watching sports with a bunch of guys who like sports, i find that i can easily sink in and enjoy the game. i get caught up in the action, work to figure out the details, even commit emotionally to my team. if i'm on my own, however, sports are the most boring shit in the universe. don't think i do this anywhere near as much with groups of girls.

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

in other words, my self is socially dependent, is redefined constantly by my social environment. this extends to stuff like gender and even my body. who and what i am are not by any means constant.

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 01:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

which i guess = VGrrl OTM

Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 February 2012 01:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

Just FYI, I'm caught up with both the feminist and gender threads. I think I should win an award for that.

Jeff, Thursday, 16 February 2012 13:23 (2 years ago) Permalink

don't be so competitive, man

"renegade" gnome (remy bean), Thursday, 16 February 2012 14:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

don't think i do this anywhere near as much with groups of girls.

You don't know the same girls I do. I've watched the last two World Cups and the last two Euros w/a group of women

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

i get caught up in the action, work to figure out the details, even commit emotionally to my team.

Why do you think I'm into soccer?

one little aioli (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

lol nearly xp w MW

one little aioli (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

girls.

obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:34 (2 years ago) Permalink

Well, to be fair, it was in opposition to "guys".

getting good with gulags (beachville), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:35 (2 years ago) Permalink

Not saying it's not a blunder, but...

getting good with gulags (beachville), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

Note how I both echoed contenderizer but shifted to ladies women.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

Why do you think I'm into soccer?

b/c you're an Anglophile?

jaymc, Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

You have to admit to the eye-candy aspect, Laurel

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

The only eye candy aspect that interests me is cuet skinheads also watching the game tbh. The players? Tscheh.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

Except for Agger obv.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

LOL

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

The only part of the last WC that my gf cared two cents about was the daily post in Jezebel of the best abs or thighs or something.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:24 (2 years ago) Permalink

That thing is so fuckin annoying.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

This is undoubtedly sexist as hell of me but I also like watching w/my ladyfriends 'cause I get all the dirt on the WAGs.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm a little ashamed to say that her present fb crush is none other than the Special One. De gustibus, etc...

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

No, I meant my experience is exactly like contend's: I like other people liking the game. I like the tacit permission to let go and feel something that other people are sharing. That's it. My complete intro to soccer as a thing was with a bunch of Americans who were absolute maniacs for it, no public scene was too large, crying after the game was de rigueur win or lose. I still feel this.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

i do notice that if i'm watching sports with a bunch of guys who like sports, i find that i can easily sink in and enjoy the game. i get caught up in the action, work to figure out the details, even commit emotionally to my team. if i'm on my own, however, sports are the most boring shit in the universe.
...
in other words, my self is socially dependent, is redefined constantly by my social environment.

this is so alien to me. i think of my sense of self as way too hard-won to be so malleable. ha, the last conversation i had along these lines was with kelly clarkson (she agreed with me)

first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:33 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.