I believe that a person's gender and sexuality can be influenced by external factors and are not fully determined at birth. The fact that "conversion therapy" exists and doesn't work makes this a controversial take. But conversion therapy is literally just abuse, it's like saying, "A bunch of idiots tried hitting gay people with sticks to make them be straight and it didn't work, this is proof that sexuality is purely innate." That's not proof, that's just a way to get the idiots to stop hitting us with sticks, and while there are idiots with sticks around, it's very reasonable to be touchy about this.
But gender is a social construct, so how is it possible that a newborn infant who has had no exposure to society already has a particular social construct that they identify and one or more social constructs that they will inevitably be attracted to once they grow up? Also, we can clearly observe standards of beauty changing over time and across different cultures. Of course the standards of the culture that you're raised in will influence what traits you find attractive, and it feels arbitrary to draw a line at gender. But these are general trends and the ways in which an individual relates to the dominant culture they're raised in are complex and varied. Maybe someday, once all the idiots with sticks have been gulag'd, people (ideally queer people) can study this sort of thing from a descriptivist, sociological perspective, with the rights and validity of queer people viewed completely as a given.
Until then, the discourse is dragged down to chud level and the priority is saying whatever it takes to get them to put down the fucking stick.
Genetic determinism in general is sus. Predisposition is a thing, sure, but the world is a chaos vortex and we're sapient participants in it. Any number of environmental/social/personal forces can potentially tip the scales.
The realization of any particular trait is at all times & moments a dialectic relationship between the inherited genetic structure of a given organism, and the environment into which it has been placed. Generally, any real discussion of the relationship these things share & how to best account for them is both impossible to have because of, and is also inextricably tied to, specific goals of political economy & of the matter of class rule.
(Incidentally it occurs to me that I should be specific; I mean that it's often impossible to have a serious discussion about questions regarding gene-environment interactions & to discuss, more than simple inheritance, how specific traits actually come to be realized. And I think it's impossible to really get down to the bottom of that question, because the capitalist class & their courtiers in the popular discourse of science are at all times more concerned with justifying their social positions more than answering questions about the actual functioning of biological mechanisms.)
also the "queer stuff is ok because it's natural and we don't have a choice" is fallacious thinking. some serial killers probably don't have a choice in theirnature but that doesn't make murder acceptable.
But gender is a social construct, so how is it possible that a newborn infant who has had no exposure to society already has a particular social construct that they identify
the social constructs of gender might be a labelling system for a mental component of what we categorize as biological sex; that would exist in humans who were raised by wolves or aliens or whatever and didn't receive the signs and signifiers. Some nonbinary genders are very old in some cultures but some of the ideas for specific subsets of nonbinary are of recent coinage and there are surely long-dead humans who would've identified with xenogenders or any yet-to-be-delineated terminology if only they had the words to describe themselves at the time. like how there were always ace people even though societies didn't necessarily recognize them on the same footing as the allo orientations.
TBH, this is an odd way to think of it, to me. I don't know that I understand it. I also don't really vibe with the idea that gender is something that you can have personal agency over; any more than you can have direct personal agency over your social identity, or "place in society" broadly speaking. It's always going to be a negotiation between what you're materially capable of doing, and what terms other people are prepared to accept in interacting with you; and at least in my experience the latter usually takes precedence.
I believe that a person's gender and sexuality can be influenced by external factors and are not fully determined at birth. The fact that "conversion therapy" exists and doesn't work makes this a controversial take. But conversion therapy is literally just abuse, it's like saying, "A bunch of idiots tried hitting gay people with sticks to make them be straight and it didn't work, this is proof that sexuality is purely innate." That's not proof, that's just a way to get the idiots to stop hitting us with sticks, and while there are idiots with sticks around, it's very reasonable to be touchy about this.
But gender is a social construct, so how is it possible that a newborn infant who has had no exposure to society already has a particular social construct that they identify and one or more social constructs that they will inevitably be attracted to once they grow up? Also, we can clearly observe standards of beauty changing over time and across different cultures. Of course the standards of the culture that you're raised in will influence what traits you find attractive, and it feels arbitrary to draw a line at gender. But these are general trends and the ways in which an individual relates to the dominant culture they're raised in are complex and varied. Maybe someday, once all the idiots with sticks have been gulag'd, people (ideally queer people) can study this sort of thing from a descriptivist, sociological perspective, with the rights and validity of queer people viewed completely as a given.
Until then, the discourse is dragged down to chud level and the priority is saying whatever it takes to get them to put down the fucking stick.
Maybe my brain levels are off but the thought of experienceing gender feels wild and slightly terrifying to me.
Genetic determinism in general is sus. Predisposition is a thing, sure, but the world is a chaos vortex and we're sapient participants in it. Any number of environmental/social/personal forces can potentially tip the scales.
The realization of any particular trait is at all times & moments a dialectic relationship between the inherited genetic structure of a given organism, and the environment into which it has been placed. Generally, any real discussion of the relationship these things share & how to best account for them is both impossible to have because of, and is also inextricably tied to, specific goals of political economy & of the matter of class rule.
(Incidentally it occurs to me that I should be specific; I mean that it's often impossible to have a serious discussion about questions regarding gene-environment interactions & to discuss, more than simple inheritance, how specific traits actually come to be realized. And I think it's impossible to really get down to the bottom of that question, because the capitalist class & their courtiers in the popular discourse of science are at all times more concerned with justifying their social positions more than answering questions about the actual functioning of biological mechanisms.)
also the "queer stuff is ok because it's natural and we don't have a choice" is fallacious thinking. some serial killers probably don't have a choice in theirnature but that doesn't make murder acceptable.
the social constructs of gender might be a labelling system for a mental component of what we categorize as biological sex; that would exist in humans who were raised by wolves or aliens or whatever and didn't receive the signs and signifiers. Some nonbinary genders are very old in some cultures but some of the ideas for specific subsets of nonbinary are of recent coinage and there are surely long-dead humans who would've identified with xenogenders or any yet-to-be-delineated terminology if only they had the words to describe themselves at the time. like how there were always ace people even though societies didn't necessarily recognize them on the same footing as the allo orientations.
My gender feels more like a choice than anything set in stone.
TBH, this is an odd way to think of it, to me. I don't know that I understand it. I also don't really vibe with the idea that gender is something that you can have personal agency over; any more than you can have direct personal agency over your social identity, or "place in society" broadly speaking. It's always going to be a negotiation between what you're materially capable of doing, and what terms other people are prepared to accept in interacting with you; and at least in my experience the latter usually takes precedence.