Interesting article, but you have to admit that someone who disliked being a woman enough to have MAJOR surgery to change that is going to be just a tad biased in gender-related issues. The bit about Ben's work being better than his sister's was telling, though.
The point that I always come back to is: "Is it essential to women's progress that women be indistinguishable from men?" he asked. "It confuses the issue of fairness with sameness. Let's say the data shows sex differences. Does it become okay to discriminate against women? The moral issue of treating individuals fairly should be kept separate from the empirical issues." That one's critical. There IS such a thing as aptitude; I'm never going to be a world-class athlete, and I can't claim unfair treatment if I try out for the Yankees and fail to make the cut. The problem is that with job performance and/or aptitude the delineations are a lot more subjective, and that opens the door for lots of personal bias and/or discrimination and/or PERCEIVED discrimination. I don't think a perfect way to separate out those problems will ever exist, though. The problems may diminish over time, but that's a broad sociological issue rather than a granular individual-basis issue.
Interesting article, but you have to admit that someone who disliked being a woman enough to have MAJOR surgery to change that is going to be just a tad biased in gender-related issues.
Actually, I would believe that person to have more insight with regards to gender issues.
See, that's where we differ. I think someone who went to THAT much effort to stop being one thing in favor of being another (and this applies to sex, job, anything) is going to be a little biased against what they once were. Once you spend that kind of effort, money, and pain to change, you want to believe that you did the right thing, and this is part of it.
I really didn't like my past jobs, and have spent a lot of time and money changing careers, and now when I talk to people who still work there and they complain about the job it's everything I can do not to say "DUH". Intellectually I know that there are better and worse jobs within the company, and that some people like that work more than others, but I've become completely biased against it. Part of that was because of how I felt when I was there, but the other part is me just hoping that I did the right thing by bailing. I think the same kind of psychology would apply to someone who switches gender. I'm not saying that everything they say is false, just that they come with their own bias and odds are it'll be a strong one.
Once you spend that kind of effort, money, and pain to change, you want to believe that you did the right thing, and this is part of it.
So what do you say to those people (and yes, there are some) who have sex-reassignment surgery to one sex, then switch back? What would be their biases? What would be the belief that they had to hold onto?
At that point it becomes so convoluted that I'm not going to even try figuring it out. Sometimes it's really hard finding out that what you wanted isn't as much better than what you had as you thought it'd be. Motivations, biases, and beliefs held at that point would have to be pretty shaken up.
I tend to agree with you, however I think there's a risk of conflating the personal & anecdotal with the broader implications of justifying what may be sexist aims under the guise of empiricism.
You personally may not be a world class athlete and may never have had the ability to become one, but that's hardly a function of Gender. My problem with saying that perhaps empirically such differences between men and women exist is that it serves to prop up an inherently biased set of cultural expectations of women (and men, too).
You personally may not be a world class athlete and may never have had the ability to become one, but that's hardly a function of Gender.
I'm not sure if I was clear, and this statement tends to imply that I wasn't. What I meant was that in all manner of venues there are those who are naturally good at a thing, those who can work to BECOME good at it, and those who just aren't cut out for it. In terms of physical prowess, I'm not cut out to be an athlete, and that's just how it is. It's how I was born. It's genetics. Those same genetics say that I'm smarter than average, so it works out in the end. There are studies that say women are better at activities X, Y, and Z than men, but worse at activities A, B, and C. It's not discrimination to recognize those differences, but a lot of articles and rhetoric would like to act like it is. Men and women are NOT the same, and shouldn't act like they are. They should be TREATED the same, which is another way of saying that they should be compared to one another on a level playing field when trying out for a job or the like, and if one is better qualified than the other gender shouldn't play a role. But that cuts both ways. It shouldn't play a role either for OR against. If that biases some jobs in favor of women and others in favor of men, then so be it. But those biases should be based on the biases of nature and genetics, not sex organs.
The problem with all these "Men/Women are better at X" studies is that there is more overlap between each group and greater variation within each group than there exists between the groups. Put statistically, the averages might be statistically different, but the overlap in standard deviations is such that it renders the difference meaningless.
Think of it this way: On average, if you pick any random male and any random female, it is slightly likely that one will be better than the other at task X. However, the likelihood of this is so close to random chance as to be meaningless. Also, in some cases, the variation in one group is so much greater than in the other that the less-variant group (B) actually ends up having a better-than-even chance of being better than the more-variant group (A), simply because the sheer number of group A who fall below group B's mean skews the probabilities...
I'll admit I haven't studied this in any great depth. Do you have proof of this, or is it a conjecture?
As a side note, "better than" can also be taken as "more prone to". Just because both genders are equally capable of doing the same thing doesn't mean that they're both interested to the same degree. I'm not talking about qualifications here, but rather the desire to do activity X. Again, "fairness" is different than "sameness", and saying something like "Why aren't there at least as many women Nascar drivers as men?" doesn't make much sense because men tend to be more interested in that (all-too-boring) sport. You can give women a "fair" shot at each position, but since more men are interested odds are that more qualified men will apply, so forcing the numbers to be the same requires being unfair to the men. Interest level may be a sociological construct, but that doesn't mean that it's not there.
No proof, per se, other than the word of a couple of people working in that field who are in a position to at least provide constructive critiques. The second portion of my reply really just talks about some obscure mathematics that gets overlooked when discussing certain kinds of statistics.
I do agree that interest is a sociological construct -- but let me add some data points that may or may not be of interest:
(1) There are differences in how people treat me before and after they realize I have a hearing impairment. (2) In gay bars, I'm often treated as a "blond boy". It's rather frustrating to be erased out of existence simply because of others' stereotypes. This 'erasure' is something only easily understood if you've ever experienced it yourself. I've also encountered it in older straight males who perceive me to be a "clueless youngling". I've observed the same thing happen to my female friends: they get ignored by a group of males, who then act surprised by her presence when she makes an intelligent contribution to the conversation. (3) I have a name that is gender-neutral to most English speakers. Way back when I was doing temp work and applying for jobs, the number of "any response at all" increased significantly after adding my middle initial to my name. No other changes were made to my resume; just the addition of "G." between my first and last names. (OTOH, this is useful when attempting to sell my knitwork - people usually aren't certain I'm male until they see/talk to me...)
All of these involve people unconsciously exhibiting biases -- Biases they might deny, even after having it pointed out to them that they just did item X that demonstrates the bias. I think the same thing is happening in the male-dominated fields, where the bias exists but is not recognized or acknowledged as being real; the bias is so deep-rooted that many men believe that the bias isn't there.
(4) I was unaware of how severely male-dominated management culture is until I started my current jobhunt. The majority of people in my old workplace were (are) women, and when I walk into many corporate settings, my first response is, "where are the women?" Very strange...
That's enough anecdotal stuff. None of it is evidence, but it leads me to believe that both the sociological constructs favoring men/women in various areas and the biases (gender, sex, ability) are real and truly do exist.
I think the point of the article was the fact that Ben was privy to conversations he would not have been otherwise, simply due to his gender. It's more of a peek through a window of, what do people say when one group is not around? That is what is telling.
The glass ceiling is quite intact, it would seem. The glass ceiling of societal perception.
The problems may diminish over time, but that's a broad sociological issue rather than a granular individual-basis issue.
That is the issue. The fact that it is a sociological issue means that it is pervasive and almost certainly unacknowledged. It's gender hegemony.
I have studied this...but my life was what first started that passion.
When I was in kindergarten we had these huge blocks...you could build houses and forts out of them. The girls were not allowed to play with them.
I know too many boys who were not allowed to play with dolls, that was usually more at home.
Girls and boys were encouraged to play separately. Girls had to wear dresses...and then get all the old rules about keeping their legs together, not climbing, etc...it is not activity conducive.
We encourage boys to be active, we discourage it in girls..still. Boys sports rule, boys are trained early on to work as a team...they even uriniate together..women have separate cubbies.
Men/boys get the pool, the field, the equipment...girls get the leftovers.
Has anyone considered what type of message this sends girls? Throughout their growing up time, they are told in action that they are not as important as boys/men. The boys/men are getting the same message.
No one even has to say anything...all they need do is watch.
I was on the swim team in high school...we got the pool after the boys, to have our pics taken for the yearbook we used the boys warm up suits...we didn't have our own, etc.
That was over 30 years ago....this year I was talking to a gal swimmer...same experience, ball team, same experience...the gals are still getting leftovers.
I finally got in the habit of interupting as it was the only way to converse with men.
Both genders have been trained to see women one way and men another...on so many subliminal levels that most of them they are unaware of consciously.
Just because someone has changed gender doesn't mean they can't see what is going on. In this case there is a female to male. If this had been a male to female case would you listen better?
Many male to female trans get a big surprise as to the difference in how they get treated. Same brain...all of a sudden, no respect.
It was likely the same for this trans...male. Surprise as to how much more attention he got, respect, opportunity and to be able to be privy to information that before would have been "behind the scenes".
I know a male nurse that feels the same about female doctors and nurses. He has always had an attitude toward women as inferior. So it was interesting for me to read that attitude from someone else.
pgdudda brings up the points I find most valuable esp when he said this "The problem with all these "Men/Women are better at X" studies is that there is more overlap between each group and greater variation within each group than there exists between the groups."
There are a lot of rules for the genders that as long as you follow your prescribed gender role, you may never notice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
novapsyche) wrote2006-07-13 10:59 am
no subject
no subject
no subject
The point that I always come back to is: "Is it essential to women's progress that women be indistinguishable from men?" he asked. "It confuses the issue of fairness with sameness. Let's say the data shows sex differences. Does it become okay to discriminate against women? The moral issue of treating individuals fairly should be kept separate from the empirical issues." That one's critical. There IS such a thing as aptitude; I'm never going to be a world-class athlete, and I can't claim unfair treatment if I try out for the Yankees and fail to make the cut. The problem is that with job performance and/or aptitude the delineations are a lot more subjective, and that opens the door for lots of personal bias and/or discrimination and/or PERCEIVED discrimination. I don't think a perfect way to separate out those problems will ever exist, though. The problems may diminish over time, but that's a broad sociological issue rather than a granular individual-basis issue.
no subject
Actually, I would believe that person to have more insight with regards to gender issues.
no subject
I really didn't like my past jobs, and have spent a lot of time and money changing careers, and now when I talk to people who still work there and they complain about the job it's everything I can do not to say "DUH". Intellectually I know that there are better and worse jobs within the company, and that some people like that work more than others, but I've become completely biased against it. Part of that was because of how I felt when I was there, but the other part is me just hoping that I did the right thing by bailing. I think the same kind of psychology would apply to someone who switches gender. I'm not saying that everything they say is false, just that they come with their own bias and odds are it'll be a strong one.
no subject
So what do you say to those people (and yes, there are some) who have sex-reassignment surgery to one sex, then switch back? What would be their biases? What would be the belief that they had to hold onto?
no subject
At that point it becomes so convoluted that I'm not going to even try figuring it out. Sometimes it's really hard finding out that what you wanted isn't as much better than what you had as you thought it'd be. Motivations, biases, and beliefs held at that point would have to be pretty shaken up.
Pardon me for stepping in, but...
You personally may not be a world class athlete and may never have had the ability to become one, but that's hardly a function of Gender. My problem with saying that perhaps empirically such differences between men and women exist is that it serves to prop up an inherently biased set of cultural expectations of women (and men, too).
Re: Pardon me for stepping in, but...
I'm not sure if I was clear, and this statement tends to imply that I wasn't. What I meant was that in all manner of venues there are those who are naturally good at a thing, those who can work to BECOME good at it, and those who just aren't cut out for it. In terms of physical prowess, I'm not cut out to be an athlete, and that's just how it is. It's how I was born. It's genetics. Those same genetics say that I'm smarter than average, so it works out in the end. There are studies that say women are better at activities X, Y, and Z than men, but worse at activities A, B, and C. It's not discrimination to recognize those differences, but a lot of articles and rhetoric would like to act like it is. Men and women are NOT the same, and shouldn't act like they are. They should be TREATED the same, which is another way of saying that they should be compared to one another on a level playing field when trying out for a job or the like, and if one is better qualified than the other gender shouldn't play a role. But that cuts both ways. It shouldn't play a role either for OR against. If that biases some jobs in favor of women and others in favor of men, then so be it. But those biases should be based on the biases of nature and genetics, not sex organs.
Re: Pardon me for stepping in, but...
Think of it this way: On average, if you pick any random male and any random female, it is slightly likely that one will be better than the other at task X. However, the likelihood of this is so close to random chance as to be meaningless. Also, in some cases, the variation in one group is so much greater than in the other that the less-variant group (B) actually ends up having a better-than-even chance of being better than the more-variant group (A), simply because the sheer number of group A who fall below group B's mean skews the probabilities...
Re: Pardon me for stepping in, but...
As a side note, "better than" can also be taken as "more prone to". Just because both genders are equally capable of doing the same thing doesn't mean that they're both interested to the same degree. I'm not talking about qualifications here, but rather the desire to do activity X. Again, "fairness" is different than "sameness", and saying something like "Why aren't there at least as many women Nascar drivers as men?" doesn't make much sense because men tend to be more interested in that (all-too-boring) sport. You can give women a "fair" shot at each position, but since more men are interested odds are that more qualified men will apply, so forcing the numbers to be the same requires being unfair to the men. Interest level may be a sociological construct, but that doesn't mean that it's not there.
Re: Pardon me for stepping in, but...
No proof, per se, other than the word of a couple of people working in that field who are in a position to at least provide constructive critiques. The second portion of my reply really just talks about some obscure mathematics that gets overlooked when discussing certain kinds of statistics.
I do agree that interest is a sociological construct -- but let me add some data points that may or may not be of interest:
(1) There are differences in how people treat me before and after they realize I have a hearing impairment.
(2) In gay bars, I'm often treated as a "blond boy". It's rather frustrating to be erased out of existence simply because of others' stereotypes. This 'erasure' is something only easily understood if you've ever experienced it yourself. I've also encountered it in older straight males who perceive me to be a "clueless youngling". I've observed the same thing happen to my female friends: they get ignored by a group of males, who then act surprised by her presence when she makes an intelligent contribution to the conversation.
(3) I have a name that is gender-neutral to most English speakers. Way back when I was doing temp work and applying for jobs, the number of "any response at all" increased significantly after adding my middle initial to my name. No other changes were made to my resume; just the addition of "G." between my first and last names. (OTOH, this is useful when attempting to sell my knitwork - people usually aren't certain I'm male until they see/talk to me...)
All of these involve people unconsciously exhibiting biases -- Biases they might deny, even after having it pointed out to them that they just did item X that demonstrates the bias. I think the same thing is happening in the male-dominated fields, where the bias exists but is not recognized or acknowledged as being real; the bias is so deep-rooted that many men believe that the bias isn't there.
(4) I was unaware of how severely male-dominated management culture is until I started my current jobhunt. The majority of people in my old workplace were (are) women, and when I walk into many corporate settings, my first response is, "where are the women?" Very strange...
That's enough anecdotal stuff. None of it is evidence, but it leads me to believe that both the sociological constructs favoring men/women in various areas and the biases (gender, sex, ability) are real and truly do exist.
*shrug* FWIW.
no subject
The glass ceiling is quite intact, it would seem. The glass ceiling of societal perception.
The problems may diminish over time, but that's a broad sociological issue rather than a granular individual-basis issue.
That is the issue. The fact that it is a sociological issue means that it is pervasive and almost certainly unacknowledged. It's gender hegemony.
gender
When I was in kindergarten we had these huge blocks...you could build houses and forts out of them. The girls were not allowed to play with them.
I know too many boys who were not allowed to play with dolls, that was usually more at home.
Girls and boys were encouraged to play separately. Girls had to wear dresses...and then get all the old rules about keeping their legs together, not climbing, etc...it is not activity conducive.
We encourage boys to be active, we discourage it in girls..still. Boys sports rule, boys are trained early on to work as a team...they even uriniate together..women have separate cubbies.
Men/boys get the pool, the field, the equipment...girls get the leftovers.
Has anyone considered what type of message this sends girls? Throughout their growing up time, they are told in action that they are not as important as boys/men. The boys/men are getting the same message.
No one even has to say anything...all they need do is watch.
I was on the swim team in high school...we got the pool after the boys, to have our pics taken for the yearbook we used the boys warm up suits...we didn't have our own, etc.
That was over 30 years ago....this year I was talking to a gal swimmer...same experience, ball team, same experience...the gals are still getting leftovers.
I finally got in the habit of interupting as it was the only way to converse with men.
Both genders have been trained to see women one way and men another...on so many subliminal levels that most of them they are unaware of consciously.
Just because someone has changed gender doesn't mean they can't see what is going on. In this case there is a female to male. If this had been a male to female case would you listen better?
Many male to female trans get a big surprise as to the difference in how they get treated. Same brain...all of a sudden, no respect.
It was likely the same for this trans...male. Surprise as to how much more attention he got, respect, opportunity and to be able to be privy to information that before would have been "behind the scenes".
I know a male nurse that feels the same about female doctors and nurses. He has always had an attitude toward women as inferior.
So it was interesting for me to read that attitude from someone else.
pgdudda brings up the points I find most valuable esp when he said this "The problem with all these "Men/Women are better at X" studies is that there is more overlap between each group and greater variation within each group than there exists between the groups."
There are a lot of rules for the genders that as long as you follow your prescribed gender role, you may never notice.