Rules of attraction by chrisisall

I figured it was just a poll of surgeons: whose male and whose female.

I read the statistic as "95% of surgeons are male and 5% are female."

Are we only sampling a portion of the population of surgeons?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 2:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The 5% statistic came from either the surgical residency figures in Britain or the qualified surgeons figures.

The US statistic came from surgical residency figures, showing that the pecent of US surgical residents who are female had gone up ~5% absolute (from ~6% to ~11%) over the last 15 or so years.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:11 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The female mean would have to be 2 SD off the male mean for that result.

Is that so unlikely? Going off some quick internet acquired figures for human height:

Mean male height: 69.3 in.
Standard deviation: 2.8

Mean female height: 64 in.
Standard deviation: 2.8

The female mean is only 1.9 SD off the male mean. See, and yet there's only about 8% difference I believe in the average heights between the sexes - so you see why I challenged the '95% difference' statement? Statistical analysis is everyone's friend.

If you or Bytemite or anyone want to play with Bell curves, I found this which I think is pretty sharp: http://www.shortsupport.org/Research/analyzer.html

Quote:
And, as I said above, you would ALSO have to show that only the top 5% of ALL applicants are acccepted. In other words - you'd have to show that males and females are subject to the same absolute cut-off line.

I don't need to show anything because I haven't made any statements or mathematical pronouncements (not seen any data yet) - I've just challenged yours. And we were agreed remember that there were other factors besides pure natural ability for why there are few female surgeons - I don't want to now be the bad guy arguing that 'male dominance of the surgeon's skillset' is the only explanation.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The 95% difference is area under the curve - talking about total numbers of individuals, and total DNA material, not about continuous measures. Hence, the difference !

Not trying to make you the 'bad guy'.

I was using 'you' in the general sense - perhaps I should have used the pronoun 'one' - as in - ''one' would have to ...'

I'm all for SOMEONE doing a statistical analysis on this. Not me though ! I'm having too much fun and too much stress remodeling a 100+ year old home. The thing to do would be to see how different the performance is on a hypothetical critical factor - like spacial performance - and see if the gap in the critical factor and the percentage of female surgeons correlate. And then one would probably have to show that the selection process actually selects based on this gap - because correlation is not causation.

I do take issue with Citizen's idea that females - as the little proto-wyf of man-the-hunter - are just not that biologically geared to being surgeons. There are WAAAAaaaaaay too many gaps in that train.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:33 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible.

Such a definitive conclusion - but why?

They may have a 'male' brain, but it's still a child's brain - if a female childhood is forced upon them from infancy there's not much they can do.

Interesting, but fairly inconclusive I'd say. I'd be interested to hear anecdotal evidence of whether these young boys were considered to have 'tomboy' tendencies growing up.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"if a female childhood is forced upon them from infancy there's not much they can do."

I truly wish you would read the things I link. It was really very short - just one page. (Unless of course you're just making an effort to be an ass.)

While they don't mention that these girls chose girlhood voluntarily, they do indicate that these girls IDENTIFY AS girls, UNTIL they fail to develop like the other girls. And so they begin a long transition from feeling like girls, to 'not girls', to feeling like maybe boys, then boys, and then adopting male roles. This process was explicit in the linked summary.

The entire context indicates to me that they feel like girls, and it was not 'forced' on them.

***************************************************************

"If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible."

How you can misunderstand this is beyond me. It should be fairly obvious. If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 3:59 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The 95% difference is area under the curve - talking about total numbers of individuals, and total DNA material, not about continuous measures. Hence, the difference !

Hmm.

Quote:
I do take issue with Citizen's idea that females - as the little proto-wyf of man-the-hunter - are just not that biologically geared to being surgeons. There are WAAAAaaaaaay too many gaps in that train.

I don't know that Citizen was working towards that line exactly, he's much more enlightened than me I think. I personally take two things from the 95% statistic - that there are skills involved in surgery which men are more suited to, but also that women face some discrimination/societal pressures, since 5% is so low. Also I've always heard it that women have more nimble fingers.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:09 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"if a female childhood is forced upon them from infancy there's not much they can do."

I truly wish you would read the things I link. It was really very short - just one page. (Unless of course you're just making an effort to be an ass.)

While they don't mention that these girls chose girlhood voluntarily, they do indicate that these girls IDENTIFY AS girls, UNTIL they fail to develop like the other girls. And so they begin a long transition from feeling like girls, to 'not girls', to feeling like maybe boys, then boys, and then adopting male roles. This process was explicit in the linked summary.

The entire context indicates to me that they feel like girls, and it was not 'forced' on them.

***************************************************************

"If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible."

How you can misunderstand this is beyond me. It should be fairly obvious. If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

Yeah I scan read the thing, was hoping for anecdotes. The author seemed to back your position I'll give you that.

Quote:
The entire context indicates to me that they feel like girls, and it was not 'forced' on them.

I need a bit more than what someone remembers feeling from early childhood (7- 12 when they started to get confused right?). And I beg to differ, it was forced on them from the fact that that they were dressed in pink dresses and given girl toys from before they could even talk.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 26, 2009 5:50 PM

Girl roles such as pink dresses and toys are forced on girls who continue to develop into women too. <_<

I know that doesn't SOUND significant, but being a tomboy, and different like I am, I was kind of aware of it. Other girls tended not to question it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

Very good point, and strong case for the "fluidity" you mentioned earlier.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Girl roles such as pink dresses and toys are forced on girls who continue to develop into women too.

I was jealous that girls had Barbies AND Kens, and I just had a GI Joes.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:40 AM

Eh... Ken is kind of creepy, actually. So's Barbie, but... Yeah.

Those rictus smiles... ._.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 4:29 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
"If sex and gender are supposed to be determined at birth according to prenatal hormones, such a thing should never be possible."

How you can misunderstand this is beyond me. It should be fairly obvious. If their prenatal and childhood hormone status is female, then, according to Citizen, they should be hormonally-determined females for life, with all the female range of abilities, preferences, attributes etc set in stone. And this is not the case.

Even if they are genetically male? If Citizen has said that I'll leave that to him to defend. I honestly thought you were arguing something different.

To my mind, male or female is in the genetic code (XX/XY right?), and these children were never 'girls'. And there is meagre significance in the fact that they identified as girls (or just assumed they were?) below the age of 7 or whatever.

Quote:
Girl roles such as pink dresses and toys are forced on girls who continue to develop into women too. <_<

I know that doesn't SOUND significant, but being a tomboy, and different like I am, I was kind of aware of it. Other girls tended not to question it.

I don't deny this effect of cultural pressure. I would like the world to be enlightened and allow every individual his/her own personal freedom to choose their life without stigma or discrimination.

When Citizen and I talk about the 'female brain' it isn't to say that every female has it, as no two female brains are the same. I just think that it is possible to discern and separate masculine and feminine mental traits, and that male and female brains tend to cluster around these two poles (with significant amount of outlying and overlapping of course).

As for feminine beauty, that's something I'm still puzzling out - I think more than anything it's a state of mind. As a straight man I don't necessarily think women should be feminine all the time (being yourself is best) but nonetheless it is something I would always like them to have within reach - otherwise it's a shame.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I would like the world to be enlightened and allow every individual his/her own personal freedom to choose their life without stigma or discrimination.

You sound like a Star Trek fan now, K.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 5:07 AM

In some cultures, such as Native American tribes, a person's gender is what they feel they are, not what genes they have or physical form. They don't generally change their form, they just live for all respects and purposes as the gender they believe they are. As such, even someone we consider male might, under that culture, be considered a girl.

So, going by the culture Rue described, they lived as girls, up until they stopped being girls and started being boys. Whether or not someone actively pursued the change, in my opinion they were what they were and are what they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 5:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I was jealous that girls had Barbies AND Kens, and I just had a GI Joes.

Lemmie guess, this was your best friend, growing up, right ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 7:34 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But b/c you haven't met the reasonable disagreements that have come your way.

As soon as someone reasonably disagrees to my argument, and not what they claim my argument is, which no one, least of all you have managed to do yet, I'll back up my argument. But until you show that you're prepared to actually confront my argument, rather than cutting out huge swathes of it, I don't see the point. Not to mention you've already said that any data you don't agree with will be ignored, so it's hard to see how I could ever prove anything, considering you've already implied you'll ignore it. You claim there's lots of gaps in my argument, but from what I see, many of those gaps are where you've just ignored what I've said, back to the A-1- -B thing.

The fact is Rue, you still haven't got a clue what my argument is. You're still yammering on about what "Citizen" will say about this, what "Citizen" will say about that, now I don't know who this "Citizen" is, because it sure as hell ain't me, I can only assume it's some voice in your head. Until either you or Mal can reply to my actual argument, which I've reiterated so many times you'd have to be living under a rock not to have gotten one of the repetitions by now, I see no profit in engaging with you.

Now if you ask me really nicely, I'll repeat myself again, then you can ask me for links to the studies (which I have now, and would have posted if M4P hadn't cried and moaned like an impatient four year old). But if you get my argument wrong again, I might just say Thhbt to you until you get it right or go away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:49 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In some cultures, such as Native American tribes, a person's gender is what they feel they are, not what genes they have or physical form. They don't generally change their form, they just live for all respects and purposes as the gender they believe they are. As such, even someone we consider male might, under that culture, be considered a girl.

So, going by the culture Rue described, they lived as girls, up until they stopped being girls and started being boys. Whether or not someone actively pursued the change, in my opinion they were what they were and are what they are.

Hmm ok, I guess you see gender as a kind of 'style' which an individual in an ideal society would be free to choose for his/her self.
I personally think human history has been very tough and cruel, and evolution wouldn't have indulged such free-spiritedness. Given that in those times such a high percentage of women would've died in childbirth, any tribe which sent lots of their potential child-bearers out on dangerous hunting and war missions wouldn't have had the breeding power to survive.

Evolutionary arguments are wonderfully logical and go a long way towards explaining all the characteristics of modern human life and society - if you'll let them.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 2:11 PM

Or they create Social Darwinism style theories that people use to pat themselves on the back with.

But I don't... necessarily disagree with what you just said about using evolutionary explanations. Heck, I did it myself a ways back, to try to figure out explanations for gender roles and sexual orientation.

I think I just kind of disagree with your evolutionary history. Not everyone has to breed to be an asset to a tribe. The population dynamic argument make I'm willing to concede to an extent, but surely the few women who did venture out with the men wouldn't make a dent on the women who stayed behind.

I'm just saying those roles shouldn't be predetermined. And in these modern ages, women are doing a lot more questioning of that predetermination, and right now we have comfortable lifestyles, technology, and enough people to let them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 27, 2009 11:59 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Have not read the entire thread, yet.
But I find that some here may be disregarding or ignoring, to varying degrees, the factor of chemicals.
The brain is functioning with electrical signals flowing through chemicals. Without the foundation of chemicals and their conductivity for electrons, our mental activity would not exist.
Hormones are chemicals. To persist in a belief that hormones have no effect whatsoever on mental activity, development, acceleration, seems preposterous.
Males and females have different hormonal balances.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:14 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Have not read the entire thread, yet.
But I find that some here may be disregarding or ignoring, to varying degrees, the factor of chemicals.
The brain is functioning with electrical signals flowing through chemicals. Without the foundation of chemicals and their conductivity for electrons, our mental activity would not exist.
Hormones are chemicals. To persist in a belief that hormones have no effect whatsoever on mental activity, development, acceleration, seems preposterous.
Males and females have different hormonal balances.

The thing is, though, that no one is saying the have no influence. Not that I have seen.

All I see is a lot of people overstating their "opponent's" position. In both directions.

I would find a polite and open-minded discussion about the influence of genetics/hormones vs. training&socialisation - and how they influence each other - very interesting, but it's all become so aggressive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... it was forced on them from the fact that that they were dressed in pink dresses and given girl toys from before they could even talk."

It was forced on them b/c they looked like girls when they were born. They had the hormone status of girls. They behaved enough like other girls so that they FELT no different from other girls.

But let's say your argument is true. Doesn't that mean that gender IS socially determined ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:36 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
It was forced on them b/c they looked like girls when they were born. They had the hormone status of girls. They behaved enough like other girls so that they FELT no different from other girls.

I'm not convinced by the whole 'identity' argument, because I wouldn't expect children that young to have a well developed sense of identity - certainly not one that they have cultivated in their own mind. It would have to be an in-depth psychological study (which it's not) into the gender identity of one of the 'boys', while still pre-pubescent (not retrospective questioning) - and even then I wouldn't pay it give it too much significance (as you would be analysing the sense of identity of a 7 year old).

Quote:
But let's say your argument is true. Doesn't that mean that gender IS socially determined ?

Hmm, no. I think we've established that gender is to a large extent hormonally determined. Now the question is, are hormones genetically or socially determined?

This study seems to suggest genetically - therefore perhaps of more interest to Rouka than to me?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 4:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I'm not convinced by the whole 'identity' argument, because I wouldn't expect children that young to have a well developed sense of identity ..."
Basic identity is formed before age 5.

"... as you would be analysing the sense of identity of a 7 year old."
Or a 9 year old or 12 year old. Way to go to overstate the article in order to try and 'prove' your point ! "... began to realize they were different from the other girls in the village between 7 and 12 years of age ..."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:04 PM

I've heard that homosexuals know they're homosexuals even before puberty. I think some aspects of identity can set in pretty early. And it must be terribly confusing and stressful when identity changes without having any control over it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 5:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Bytemite

I'm not about to tell you how MANY decades ago I was in college ---- but we actually covered that specific population and that specific issue in class. That's how I knew to go looking for that item. Anyway, apparently the people there have a fair bit of common lore about that event. And the cultural attitude seems to be - well, not all girls grow up to be women. Some become men. Not a big deal is made of it --- MUCH much less than being GLBT here.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 1, 2009 7:39 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've heard that homosexuals know they're homosexuals even before puberty. I think some aspects of identity can set in pretty early. And it must be terribly confusing and stressful when identity changes without having any control over it.

As I said in my long ramble many many posts up the page, I was bi before I hit puberty. I had 'attractions' before it was about sex, and I started having them in kindergarten. So yes, it can set in and be known pretty early.

Anyone here heard about this 16-year-old German transexual? Started identifying as female before the age of four, started taking hormone therapy at around puberty, and had totally completed her sex change byt the time she was fifteen. She has a girl's voice, the early hormone treatment made sure it didn't drop, and she is embarking on a singing career. Oh, and she likes boys, at least it sounded that way.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:04 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
rue wrote:
Friday, May 01, 2009 16:22
"I'm not convinced by the whole 'identity' argument, because I wouldn't expect children that young to have a well developed sense of identity ..."
Basic identity is formed before age 5.

"... as you would be analysing the sense of identity of a 7 year old."
Or a 9 year old or 12 year old. Way to go to overstate the article in order to try and 'prove' your point ! "... began to realize they were different from the other girls in the village between 7 and 12 years of age ..."

If I remember right I was proposing a more in-depth study into these kids’ gender identity. Between 7 and 12 is when they start to get confused by other factors so you shouldn’t test kids within that age range – I probably should have said ‘6 year old’. And it still wouldn’t be a good scientific study into; ‘whether these boys naturally identify as girls’, because one other big influencing factor (that you feminists are particularly fond of) - they have been dressed in pink dresses and told that they are girls - which is bound to have an effect on a young, impressionable male mind.

Basically Your linked 2-paged article didn’t have a massive amount of weight – no compelling, well-evidenced, scientific argument… just a brief report and the author’s own interpretation of data we don’t have access to.

You know I want to argue that these kids would be subtly different to the ‘other girls’ because they are genetically male - and this would make their brains develop differently in some respects at least, even without male hormones... but the truth is I’m no expert in this field and I could be underestimating the role of hormones. All foetuses start out as females, up until male hormones kick in, right? If female is kind of a default setting then I have less reason to think that these genetic males wouldn’t identify as girls until some male hormones finally kick in and masculinise their brains.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"‘whether these boys naturally identify as girls’, because one other big influencing factor (that you feminists are particularly fond of) - they have been dressed in pink dresses and told that they are girls - which is bound to have an effect on a young, impressionable male mind."

And then there was the drunk French doctor - who while performing a circumcision using an electric cautery went a little too far - OOPS ! So, they took the rest off, started the boy on hormones, called him a girl and carried on. But he never FELT like a girl. He always FELT different. (In the end he had a sex-reassignment surgery and hormones to make him back to what he was.) There are a number of cases where people have tried to raise boys as girls - even gone to extreme measures - and it is generally unsuccessful.

And then there are the inter-sex children who they used to try and correct early with surgery and hormones given the preponderance of characteristics. Problem is, they often didn't get it right. So now the current thinking is to let them grow up and find out what they feel like before trying to make them one sex or the other.

You really don't know much about the topic, do you ? Instead of learning, which is what you need to be doing, you're just arguing b/c you want to prove I'm 'wrong'. It's all about your feelings about me, and not about the topic - isn't it ?

Troll.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:50 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
you're just arguing b/c you want to prove I'm 'wrong'. It's all about your feelings about me, and not about the topic - isn't it ?

No, what would I have against you? It's nothing personal.

You quoted of mine:

"‘whether these boys naturally identify as girls’

The key word is 'naturally'. I'm not saying that these boys definitely wouldn't identify as girls without the cultural influence, your article suggest they would - I'm just saying as a scientist it isn't conclusive because of this extra factor... unfair test and all that.

Right now I'm really more interested in the role of hormones. Your first example is easily solved with the explanation of prenatal male hormones in the french baby (unlike the boys in your article) - due to these the brain had already developed into a distinctly 'male brain', and cultural influences are not strong enough to change it.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And then there was the drunk French doctor - who while performing a circumcision using an electric cautery went a little too far - OOPS ! So, they took the rest off, started the boy on hormones, called him a girl and carried on.

If I was that kid I would SO end that quack.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To this day - no one knows why anyone identifies as one sex or the other - or both, or neither for that matter.

It's not as simple as 'genetics' or 'hormones '. Some genetic/ biological males or females do identify at an early age as the opposite sex, and no amount of social conditioning changes that. Intersex children don't always identify with their predominant characteristics, or with their genetics. And then we have the DR example where girls identify as girls, who later become men and identify as men. (BTW, they don't 'dress their girls in pink'.)

There is no infallible biological test for sexual identity, and no infallible biological predictor. For the most part, genetic/ biological males and females identify, and quite early, as their apparent sex. But not always.

Also, if you want to know how someone identifies, find who they compare themselves to. In the case of the DR people, at first they compare themselves to other girls, then they compare themselves (and their equipment) to other men. Their sexual identity has fundamentally changed.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

ChrisIsAll

I wish I could remember what happened to the doctor. It was an infamous case, but I learned about it decades ago, in the same (biological psychology) class where I learned about males born as females. At this point I don't remember.

Perhaps a google search would bring it up ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
To this day - no one knows why anyone identifies as one sex or the other - or both, or neither for that matter.

Well. I know.
I was raised on the original Star Trek, so my identification with Kirk is where my sexuality & female-fascination all began. From six I realized my role in this 'Verse as an overly dramatic skirt-chaser.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Don't let ... it bother ... you. As for ... the overly ... dramatic part - I'll believe it when ... you start ... making odd pauses.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:54 AM

I see that you are aquainted with the Shat.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:16 PM