Born this way? Homosexuality/transgenderism

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Where and what is the proof that people are born homosexual or transgender? These are things that I've just accepted without actually looking at any evidence, so I'm curious as to what the science is. What makes me confused specifically about transgenderism is being born within a social construct as people here believe gender is. How can your brain be made to think you're a man while you're in the womb when "being a man"(besides being born with a penis) is something that society implants into you after you have already been born? How does your brain say you're a woman before it can know what being a woman actually means?

Am I looking at this all wrong? Need some help.

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't think any one is 100% any sexuality or gender. It's could very well be biological but normally I think people grow into it.
Not technically born that way but it's still was not a choice they made and we should defend them 100%.

(I'm Pansexual btw)

[Zoop]

Being 'born this way' typically refers to not having any choice over the way we turned out. When I was as young as 8, I was strongly attracted to the same sex. I had no choice over that.
So, this suggests that it was biologically determined. What else can it be? Environmentally induced sexuality is an absurd notion.

[Sinister Intents]

If you asked me when I was 10 what gender was: I'd assert the gender binary and insist anything else was really a psychological condition or that person was an abomination to the Lord and must be executed.

Certainly there's a basis with our own brain chemistry and the conditions that shape us throughout our lives, both nature and nurture certainly have influence. All genders and sexuality are based in the reality we live in, and are defined by ourselves personally as we grow. Being born straight and cisgender is just common, and no one fits these categories 100% as Jacob stated.

When I was younger I thought I was a boy and I had it insisted upon me that gender and sexuality must be a strict binary and that you could only be straight. I realize that my Catholic upbringing, and my parents isolation of me was very detrimental to my growth. Had I known when I was younger that gender and sexuality was a spectrum, I would've known I was female over a decade ago and wouldn't be trapped in a closet. I think people just know, as per how, I'm not sure. I think these are just things innate within people and ruling ideas dictate to us there's a binary when this is completely false.

Just my quick two-cents

[Tim Cornelis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c

Extract: gay men tend to perform similarly to straight women in certain tests that measure certain skills. These skills are linked to cerebral asymmetry, which is determined during pregnancy, suggesting that sexuality is determined in the womb. I think it's fair to assume that the same goes for transgenderism.

Brain scans also confirm this.

[Diirez]

I wrote this and then I hit backspace and it backed out. Fuck let me retype this again.
There's two strong pieces of evidence. The first being homosexuality is very prominent in the animal kingdom: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
The second being that there's this thing in psychology where if you show a static image to one eye and a dynamic image to another, you'll effectively blank the static image out of your consciousness and only see the moving dynamic image. So Yi Jiang et al did a study where they showed a moving picture to one eye and to the other was a porn image.
When the study was done on heterosexual men they were asked which side was the woman on and they got it right every time. When done using a naked male, they either didn't get it right or got it right half the time (which is what you would expect by guessing at random).
When done on heterosexual women, they could get which side the naked man was on every time but not when they were shown an image of a naked woman.
Now when you performed this experiment on homosexuals, the results are flipped:
homosexual men got it right all the time when presented a naked man not a naked woman.
Homosexual women got it right all the time when presented a naked woman not a naked man.
This is attributed to the unconscious mind (not the Freudian unconscious) and shows that if sexuality was default heterosexual and we choose to be homosexual then we wouldn't see this kind of results.[1]

Also did you choose to be heterosexual? I'm assuming not. Have you ever thought about being with someone of the same sex? You just aren't attracted to them.
For instance, I'm a male and I'm heterosexual, I can't see any attraction to men or penises. It's not something I can control, I was just born being attracted to women. Just because I'm heterosexual though doesn't mean I go around saying everyone must be heterosexual just because I'm that way.

[1] Yi Jiang et al., "A Gender-and Sexual Orientation-Dependent Spatial Attentional Effect of Invisible Images," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America 103, no. 45 (November 7, 2006): 17048-52

[BIXX]

I mean why does it matter whether or not you chose to be gat or trans

That doesn't change the fact that there is no reason to oppose it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There are identical twins who share the same DNA but have different sexual preferences.

That to me would suggest that it's not entirely biological or "innate".

On the other hand biological factors can play a large role in influencing one's life vis-à-vis neuroscience. For example, if one identical twin has paranoid schizophrenia, there's about a 50% chance that the other twin will develop the same affliction. That's far from a certainty but it's a lot more than the 1% chance an individual in the general population has of becoming schizophrenic.

[Blake's Baby]

Where and what is the proof that people are born homosexual or transgender? These are things that I've just accepted without actually looking at any evidence, so I'm curious as to what the science is. What makes me confused specifically about transgenderism is being born within a social construct as people here believe gender is. How can your brain be made to think you're a man while you're in the womb when "being a man"(besides being born with a penis) is something that society implants into you after you have already been born? How does your brain say you're a woman before it can know what being a woman actually means?

Am I looking at this all wrong? Need some help.

Where and what is the proof that people are born straight or binary-gendered? These are things that people just accepted without actually looking at any evidence, so I'm curious as to what the science is...

[Hermes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c

Extract: gay men tend to perform similarly to straight women in certain tests that measure certain skills. These skills are linked to cerebral asymmetry, which is determined during pregnancy, suggesting that sexuality is determined in the womb. I think it's fair to assume that the same goes for transgenderism.

Brain scans also confirm this.

I'm a little confused by this. Who do bisexual men and women perform similarly to?

[BIXX]

I'm a little confused by this. Who do bisexual men and women perform similarly to?

They're too queer for tests

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think it helps to separate gender identity from gender roles. I think there are good arguments to be made for the former being hardwired. A lot of trans people know from a very young age that their gender identity assigned at birth isn't their actual gender identity.

Transgender people have been known to exist for thousands of years in many different cultures, both ones with a strict gender binary and those with more than two genders.

Now as far as transsexuality goes, I think that's a construct resulting from being transgender in a society with a strict gender binary. If a society accepts a third gender, or that a man can have a vagina or a woman a penis, then transsexuality probably won't exist.

[BIXX]

Now as far as transsexuality goes, I think that's a construct resulting from being transgender in a society with a strict gender binary. If a society accepts a third gender, or that a man can have a vagina or a woman a penis, then transsexuality probably won't exist.

While I disagree with the thing about gender identity being hardwired (however I'm not so interested in a detailed discussion about that right now) I think this is on fucking point.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

There are identical twins who share the same DNA but have different sexual preferences.

That to me would suggest that it's not entirely biological or "innate".

On the other hand biological factors can play a large role in influencing one's life vis-à-vis neuroscience. For example, if one identical twin has paranoid schizophrenia, there's about a 50% chance that the other twin will develop the same affliction. That's far from a certainty but it's a lot more than the 1% chance an individual in the general population has of becoming schizophrenic.
That's one of the things that's making me wonder, a friend of mine has a twin but she's transgender while her brother isn't. If they're born with the same exact DNA shouldn't the other twin be trans?

I don't think it's something you choose though, people don't wake up and decide today I'm going to be gay, tomorrow I'll be straight. And whether someone is born a certain way or not doesn't mean I'm saying we should not support those people, I just feel like that's the main counter argument to homophobia and it might not even be true.

[Rafiq]

Extract: gay men tend to perform similarly to straight women in certain tests that measure certain skills. These skills are linked to cerebral asymmetry, which is determined during pregnancy, suggesting that sexuality is determined in the womb. I think it's fair to assume that the same goes for transgenderism.

Brain scans also confirm this.

Has this been confirmed for lesbians?

Anyway, the problem is the very basic fact that homosexuality as such did not pre-date the modern era. Same-sex sexual activity has existed as long as the human species has, but this was not "homosexuality" as such before it became the excess of capitalist sexual relations. What is especially problematic is that in several historic epochs, there were no feminine connotations to homosexuality - in fact quite the opposite was true in some feudal societies like Albania, where it signified misogyny or the Russian Empire where it was commonplace among the aristocracy. It also enjoyed popularity among some of the upper echelons of Fascism in Europe - again, because it had misogynistic, masculine connotations. In ancient Rome at least (and I am sure this is true for most of antiquity) there were feminine connotations only for sexual passivity in homosexual relationships between males. In fact, pedastry was such a normal thing for sexually "normal" older males, and was seen as beneficial in the development of male adolescents.

The fact of the matter is that the innate basis of "homosexuality" has yet to be demonstrated. That is not to say it is a choice, but there is nothing to demonstrate that it is genetic.



On the other hand biological factors can play a large role in influencing one's life vis-à-vis neuroscience. For example, if one identical twin has paranoid schizophrenia, there's about a 50% chance that the other twin will develop the same affliction. That's far from a certainty but it's a lot more than the 1% chance an individual in the general population has of becoming schizophrenic.

The problem I have with twin studies in general as a means to measure what is biologically innate, besides various flaws pointed out by several geneticists themselves, is that it does not so much indicate genetic innateness as it does shared proximity to one's surroundings. That is to say, there are various factors which play into the development of the child, and how a child receives this is contingent upon very specific mechanisms of growth, learning, and so on. When you basically have factors which can only be deemed random - that is to say, if the possibility of a certain outcome can be either way (i.e. with things like class controlled for), then of course people with exactly the same genetic constitution are going to be more predisposed to be similar - even something as small as appearance, similar physiological development, and so on, can greatly affect the outcome of proximity. Of course, separately reared twin studies, legitimate ones that it is - are very scarce in terms of assessing these sorts of things. On top of that, what constitutes an "environment" is beyond vague. Have there been twin studies conducted across, for example, radically different social contexts - a twin raised in Paris, and its counterpart raised in Cairo? More or less, people of the same class are all going to share the same environment - I mean, share the same social, ideological space of collective reasoning, learning and so on. The basis of difference, when we Marxists speak of "environment" is not on the level of household to household, but social difference in environment having entirely different ramifications for consciousness. Hence, you never hear about miraculous twin studies being conducted wherein one is raised in the ghetto, with another raised in Silicon Valley.

The blunderous outcome of this kind of nonsense are ridiculous claims about political views having a genetic basis because of these twin studies. One should be skeptical of anything being attributed to genes unless the genes, DNA, etc. aren't actually isolated or found for. The point is that of course people have physical differences, and given that a plethora of factors go into the development of personality, of course if this is at random, then common physiology is going to make one more likely to develop in a certain way. That does not mean such development is inevitable, it means that - simply in the face of a non-random factor placed at random - it is more likely. What is hilariously erroneous about biological determinists is that they will make pretenses to something being, for example, 80% heritable. how does one quantify that? How could you ACTUALLY measure the proportions of ambiguous traits like that? What constitutes something as having a 20% environmental basis (what does that even MEAN?). If something has an inevitably biological basis, then it likewise follows that the same outcome should persist 100% of the time. When this is not the case, they will attribute differences to randomly different expressions of the same genes - completely incapable of actually tracing X behavior genetically itself, on an empirical level. I mean, these people are literally, overtly claiming today that "income differences" are owed to genetics, and that all social stratification is owed to IQ differences. It's so easy to see the real nature of this 'science', the basis of its vitality, and so on.

The same methodology which prattles of the "inheritance" of IQ, for example, also gives us drivel about how political views, religiosity, overall well being and happiness.... Have a genetic basis, again, all of which are because of these stupid twin studies. Something is seriously, seriously wrong here. To add, various studies have also found statistically significant data that would place the month you're born in to correlate with some personality traits - one study found that people born in February were more likely to develop schizophrenia. It goes without saying that - again, this doesn't confirm astrology, but shared proximity.

[Tim Cornelis]

While I disagree with the thing about gender identity being hardwired (however I'm not so interested in a detailed discussion about that right now) I think this is on fucking point.

What discussion can there be? All research points to it being hardwired. Discussing this is as useless as discussing whether evolution really is real. You can discuss all you want, but if you don't have different evidence to bring to the table, it's pointless.

[BIXX]

What discussion can there be? All research points to it being hardwired. Discussing this is as useless as discussing whether evolution really is real. You can discuss all you want, but if you don't have different evidence to bring to the table, it's pointless.

It has nothing to do with competing sets of data but the epistomelogical/philosophical assumptions that form the legitimizing basis of the studies.

[Tim Cornelis]

I highly suspect that that means ideology trumping science. I've had this experience before, some people so afraid that acknowledging that sexuality and gender are hardwired will refute their ideas about a biological blanked-slate that they are willing to disregard scientific findings to safeguard these ideological notions.

[BIXX]

I highly suspect that that means ideology trumping science. I've had this experience before, some people so afraid that acknowledging that sexuality and gender are hardwired will refute their ideas about a biological blanked-slate that they are willing to disregard scientific findings to safeguard these ideological notions.

No, its that I think the existence of gender roles (which, if they did not exist, there would be no gender) predisposes the study to assumptions where gender is seen as a forever thing that is ingrained in us rather than something that has been historically constructed time and time again, which due to socialized circumstances forms these or that connection, leading to gender. I'm not saying that hormone levels in the womb might not have an effect, but I'm saying they are only important so long as gender roles exist. Without gender roles you can't be predisposed to a gender because that is exactly what gender is: performing a role.

Sorry idk if that even explained my position but like I said I really don't want to get into it right now.

[PhoenixAsh]

Without labels that doesn't mean that the behavioral patterns don't exist anymore. It just means we haven't designed a specific label for them or attribute a moral value to the behavior.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

People tend to confuse gender identity, which is likely hardwired, with gender roles, which are pure constructs.

Class hasn't existed in every society. Nor has the concept of race. But gender seems to exist in every society, with some having recognizing more than two. Gender roles, however, are highly variable.

[Zoop]

People tend to confuse gender identity, which is likely hardwired, with gender roles, which are pure constructs.

But gender as a concept, and the meaning of 'masculinity', 'femininity', and everything in between, is culturally determined, and is always subject to change. In fact, it is in a state of flux, and is moulded by society. What one culture considers 'masculine', another may not consider 'masculine'. So at this point, we have to ask whether or not gender really has any substantive meaning at all, or whether it is an inherently vacuous concept with no substantive meaning.

I know Crimethinc aren't particularly popular, but I think this passage from one of their books is spot on:

"Gender is another false division of life into arbitrary categories, none of which can adequately describe or contain any of us, in order to define us against each other in the interests of power. There is no male; there is no female. Get free. Get off the map."

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To my knowledge, there has never been a society without gender. Yet there have been societies without class, without concepts of race, etc. Instead of abolishing gender, we should instead let a thousand genders bloom.

[BIXX]

Without labels that doesn't mean that the behavioral patterns don't exist anymore. It just means we haven't designed a specific label for them or attribute a moral value to the behavior.

I said without the roles themselves. With gender as a performance, when there are no roles to perform, behaviors won't be genderized (which is another issue with gender)

[BIXX]

To my knowledge, there has never been a society without gender. Yet there have been societies without class, without concepts of race, etc. Instead of abolishing gender, we should instead let a thousand genders bloom.

OK. Let's open a thousand prisons, add 1000 new workplace rights, etc...

That is the inevitable conclusion of postmodern thinking on gender.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

OK. Let's open a thousand prisons, add 1000 new workplace rights, etc...
Because gender identity is the same as a prison? Come on, you're not an idiot, so don't use idiot logic.

[Zoop]

To my knowledge, there has never been a society without gender. Yet there have been societies without class, without concepts of race, etc. Instead of abolishing gender, we should instead let a thousand genders bloom.

Appealing to the existence of gender in all previous societies (assuming it is true) does not demonstrate that a future society can not operate without any notion of gender; nor does it demonstrate that human beings are hard-wired to categorize people according to some notion of gender.

If you don't genderize certain behaviours, roles, interests etc. letting a "thousand genders bloom" doesn't really mean anything.

Instead, we should abolish gender, and let individuality flourish, without categorising and placing people into vapid concepts and boxes. I really don't see the point of it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Fuck it. The Left is as hostile to the lived experience of trans people as the Right is.

[Armchair Partisan]

Fuck it. The Left is as hostile to the lived experience of trans people as the Right is.

...Because some people here espouse alternative theories on gender? Yeah, I see how that might compare to religious moralist bigotry and persecution.

[Zoop]

Fuck it. The Left is as hostile to the lived experience of trans people as the Right is.

How in the flying fuck did you come to that conclusion based on the things I've posted?!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

...Because some people here espouse alternative theories on gender?
"Alternative theories on gender" that tend to negate or erase the actual lived experiences of a marginalized group.

[Armchair Partisan]

"Alternative theories on gender" that tend to negate or erase the actual lived experiences of a marginalized group.

I get where you're coming from, some of the comments might verge on cisplaining - but calling it hostility of any sort is stretching it WAAAAY too far. I personally don't get how the "no gender theory" negates your experiences either, it just means that you have the same experiences but a different theory behind them - but I don't really know enough about the topic either way to be able to discuss it in depth.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I get where you're coming from, some of the comments might verge on cisplaining - but calling it hostility of any sort is stretching it WAAAAY too far.
Thanks, but I'm perfectly capable of determining whether or not it feels hostile.

[Armchair Partisan]

Thanks, but I'm perfectly capable of determining whether or not it feels hostile.

No problem. Whether something feels hostile or is actually hostile can be two different things, and your post before certainly wasn't talking about the first.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think you missed my sarcasm there.

[Armchair Partisan]

I think you missed my sarcasm there.

Funny, now I'm thinking the same about you.

[BIXX]

"Alternative theories on gender" that tend to negate or erase the actual lived experiences of a marginalized group.

Lol saying that to folks who aren't cis makes a lot of sense. It has nothing to do with erasure.


Because gender identity is the same as a prison? Come on, you're not an idiot, so don't use idiot logic.

I am sorry, earlier, I wasn't claiming each gender was a prison (the whole concept of gender is) but that the logic of 'letting a thousand genders bloom' (which is postmodern gender theory, more or less) amounts to the creation of a thousand prisons, a thousand new sets of workplace rights, etc... For those new genders.

To offer an idea from baedan: we should celebrate in our undefinability- the right wishes to destroy that quality in us through destruction of our bodies, the left wishes to define us. Both amount to attacking us as the undefinable, incomprehensible attack on society.


No problem. Whether something feels hostile or is actually hostile can be two different things, and your post before certainly wasn't talking about the first.

To be fair I am hostile, towards everything that I see that constitutes Empire. That includes gender. And while I really like DND, they and I have very different views on gender that cannot be reconciled. They see gender abolitionism as transphobic, I see anything less than gender abolitionism as limiting/a defense of society. This will always be a rift between us and with a conversation as touchey as this one I don't blame them for being upset, because I get it and feel the same way in reverse. But I am with DND on this one- I am hostile, but they are wrong as to where my hostilities lie. They aren't directed at trans people (im not even cis) but with the logic of gender itself.

To DND, I would really like to be able to have a conversation regarding this with you but I think that we approach the issue of gender from such vastly different standpoints that no conversation is possible, so we come off as more hateful to one another than we really are. If we remedy this situation I'd be pleased cause I think your posts in these areas are far more insightful than many peoples on this subject, even if I disagree with you. I want you to know I feel no hostility towards you but to the structures I see your ideas supporting.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Lol saying that to folks who aren't cis makes a lot of sense. It has nothing to do with erasure.
I've met a few trans women who actively support trans-exclusive radical feminism. So even trans people can advocate their own erasure. "I'm not cis" isn't a defense.

TERFs also support gender abolition, but it comes down to them saying there's no gender but you're still a man if you have a penis, which is just rejecting gender in favor of biological determinism.


the logic of 'letting a thousand genders bloom' (which is postmodern gender theory, more or less)
It was a pun on a phrase by Mao. That said, I think that saying there are a thousand genders is more realistic than saying there are no genders.


And while I really like DND, they and I have very different views on gender that cannot be reconciled.
Certain views of gender erase the lived experience of trans people. The Right wants to erase us with violence, the Left with theory. I'm not sure which is worse.


They see gender abolitionism as transphobic
My preferred pronouns are she/her, thanks.


To DND, I would really like to be able to have a conversation regarding this with you but I think that we approach the issue of gender from such vastly different standpoints that no conversation is possible
And there's the rub. We might as well be speaking in two different languages as far as gender is concerned.


cause I think your posts in these areas are far more insightful than many peoples on this subject, even if I disagree with you.
Thank you.

[BIXX]

I've met a few trans women who actively support trans-exclusive radical feminism. So even trans people can advocate their own erasure. "I'm not cis" isn't a defense.

TERFs also support gender abolition, but it comes down to them saying there's no gender but you're still a man if you have a penis, which is just rejecting gender in favor of biological determinism.
Is that seriously what they say? "There is no gender except if you have a penis. Lol"


It was a pun on a phrase by Mao. That said, I think that saying there are a thousand genders is more realistic than saying there are no genders.
I think this right here identifies the crux of the issue- where I see gender as being purely social you see it as a thing innate to people. The debate surrounding this would probably run in circles, because these beliefs force us, as you say later, to speak entirely different languages.


Certain views of gender erase the lived experience of trans people.
True- but my attempt is to eliminate the active conditions that leads to attacks on trans people, which is gender.


The Right wants to erase us with violence, the Left with theory. I'm not sure which is worse.
Well, the left and the right want to de-queer us. My project is to make us ultra-queer, unidentifiable.


My preferred pronouns are she/her, thanks.
Sorry, I honestly couldn't remember. I generally use they/them cause it offends the smallest amount of people.


And there's the rub. We might as well be speaking in two different languages as far as gender is concerned.
+++
Idk how to remedy that unfortunately.

[Os Cangaceiros]

We are all beautiful and unique snowflakes!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Unless we're talking about economic class, of course. Then sweeping generalizations involving millions of people are appropriate and necessary. ;)

[Rafiq]

To my knowledge, there has never been a society without gender. Yet there have been societies without class, without concepts of race, etc. Instead of abolishing gender, we should instead let a thousand genders bloom.

That doesn't mean a society without gender is impossible. gender has only existed insofar as it has been necessary to regulate reproductive capacities. Being that hunter-gatherer societies lacked social self-consciousness (which is why class society was able to arise in the first place), it means nothing to say that there were gender relations as a means to extrapolate a prediction about gender in a post-capitalist society.

There might have never been a society without hunger. There might have never been a society where everyone has access to medical care, and the list goes on. It is fallacious to claim that because something has never existed, that it can not. We know why gender HAD to exist in primitive societies. It doesn't have to in a post-capitalist world. Let me ask: Why would gender continue to exist? The ethical dimension of it aside (i.e. what we "should" and "shouldn't" do) - what would reproduce gender identities? Even in the Soviet Union, the necessity of industrializing the country, and conforming to the world totality is what prompted the affirmation and reproduction of new gender roles.

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure we can say there's never been a society without gender, as we have little idea what gender might have looked like until the very recent past. Modern humans have been around about 250,000 years, and 'human-like behaviour' (ie the use of stone tools) around 3.3 million at last count. As our knowledge of 'gender roles' only goes back a few thousand, it's pretty ridiculous to claim there has 'always' been gender. You may as well claim there has 'always' been class or 'always' been trade.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Not sure we can say there's never been a society without gender, as we have little idea what gender might have looked like until the very recent past.
Fair enough. In all of the cultures that are known about and have been studied, I don't believe any has been without a concept of gender. Is that better?

[Blake's Baby]

It's more accurate. It does rather blunt your point though. 'For 240,000 years, we've got no evidence, but we're pretty sure there have been genders for the last 10,000'.

Approximately.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is that seriously what they say? "There is no gender except if you have a penis. Lol"
The ones I've read, yes. "We won't have any gender, but if you have a penis, you're a man, and if you have a vagina, you're a woman" is the general argument. TERF ideology is self-contradictory.


I think this right here identifies the crux of the issue- where I see gender as being purely social you see it as a thing innate to people.No, I see some element of gender identity as innate, but how it can express itself is social.


True- but my attempt is to eliminate the active conditions that leads to attacks on trans people, which is gender.Transphobia leads to attacks on trans people. Transphobia is most often motivated by a concept of gender roles, based on biological determinism, which isn't what I mean by gender identity.


Well, the left and the right want to de-queer us. My project is to make us ultra-queer, unidentifiable.Humans have the most advanced use of language. Labels and identifying things go along with language. Making any aspect of humanity "unidentifiable" strikes me as utopianism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's more accurate. It does rather blunt your point though. 'For 240,000 years, we've got no evidence, but we're pretty sure there have been genders for the last 10,000'.

Approximately.
If I had a time machine, it would come in handy for debates such as this.

[Blake's Baby]

Sure. There's a lot of things that we don't have direct evidence for that we can hypothesise. Language. The first concrete evidence we have (that we understand) for language comes from about 5,000 years ago. I'm quite happy that people have had language in some form going back 3.3 million years. That 3.3 million year distinction is itself arbitrary - what about the wooden tools we don't have evidence for? We can find stone now so we think it's significant. We can't find wood, we have no idea of its significance. Homosexuality (I mean, behaviour that is today considered 'homosexual', I'm not projecting attitudes back into the past) I'm sure existed in the very distant past, but there's no evidence for it.

But; as this is related to my professional field of study, I get a bit twitchy about statements like 'every society had gender'. We really don't know, and shouldn't assume.

(If you did have a time machine, I'd probably be out of a job.)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But; as this is related to my professional field of study, I get a bit twitchy about statements like 'every society had gender'. We really don't know, and shouldn't assume.
Fair enough. I did overstate the case there. As a genealogist, I should know better than to make assumptions.


(If you did have a time machine, I'd probably be out of a job.)
I'd give you free rides. I'm sure you'd be in great demand in whatever field you're in if you had access to a time machine. :grin: