Were you gender non-conforming as a child?

Liked cars, planes, trains, male dolls, fight games. DId mostly individual sports, but I liked team sports too, just didn't have much opportunity. Did my share of fighting, although I wasn't good at it. However, I hated being picked up or being turned upside down. As I grew older, 11 to 14, my manner grew increasingly effeminate until my sister made me aware of it. When I was small my friends were mostly girls, then boys ages 9-12 and then mostly girls again as boys started avoiding me.

Another tranny-bashing thread? Oh good, we'd hate to go a day without six new threads on this topic.

I hated sports, but it was because I was unathletic and nerdy, not effeminate. I also avoided "rough and tumble" play for the same reason. I preferred to play alone doing creative stuff like playing with blocks or Legos, etc. Comic books and video games came later. I was definitely a boy, but a sensitive and shy one who liked solitude and creative play.

I grew up to be a fairly masculine gay man (I usually pass without effort). I love my effeminate brothers but I'm pretty naturally butch. God knows what it would be like growing up today with a set trans-positive parents. I think some of these families are doing a real number on kids who should just be allowed to be themselves. I fear some naturally gay boys are being shoe-horned into a trans identity by parents who don't know any better. I can only imagine what it's like for tomboys and baby dykes being convinced they're really male. What's wrong with just being gender non-conforming?

[quote] Another tranny-bashing thread? Oh good, we'd hate to go a day without six new threads on this topic.

Another misinformed comment? Oh good, we'd hate to go a day without some moron talking out of his asshole.

R4 -

Bitch, please.

I was an awkward kid who preferred to stay in my room after school listening to original cast albums, rather than playing sports with the neighborhood boys. I remember rushing home from school just because CALL ME MADAM was on the afternoon movie.

It changed somewhat when I got to junior high school and discovered we were expected to shower after gym class. Suddenly team sports didn't seem so bad

Yes to all but cross dressing (mostly) and fem mannerisms unless you count my lifelong obsession with the old school Easy Bake Oven. The aqua one, please.

This isn't a trans bashing thread r2. It's a thread about non gender conforming children who could easily find themselves stuffed with hormones and their dicks lopped off today because of over zealous helicopter parents and trans activists who aren't content to let kids just be who they are until they're old enough to make an informed decision for themselves.

Lets see....I must've of been more a nerd than a "fag" growing up. Action figures, BB guns, biking, comic books...I did avoid team sports and was not so great in gym. (always one of the last picked) But I can't recall ever being overly picked on or seen as effeminate.

One thing I DO know is that I was clearly meant to find DL, because even though I was pretty well-behaved, I secretly had an attitude and critique about nearly EVERYTHING. I got real good at insulting under my breath, the old side-eye., and that "Oh, really?" expression. Obviously, much of it was defense mechanisms, but I'd like to think there was a decent amount of BS detection going on there, too...

[quote]On a scale of 1-10, with '1' being extremely gender typical , how gender-non corning were you?

DON'T ASK!

I think I was more or less like most kids. I loved to play with action figures and cars. My mother used to buy me plastic cars only and I always wanted one of those made of metal until a relative of mine bought one for me. I was so happy.

I didn't play sport much with my friends but we played other kind of games that required some athleticism. I was known for my agility among my friends and the fact that I used to spend a lot of time on trees, haha.

I had a balanced number of male and female friends although I liked to spend more time with the my male friends because we had a bit more in common. I had a friend whose mother used to buy him all action figures of the most popular cartoons. I was rather poor but he lent his toys to me.

There were periods when I also enjoyed playing with girls toys such as My Little Pony or just teddy bears, but that's natural in most kids. My mother actually once bought me a My Little Pony because I really wnated one and, even though I was a kid (4 years old) I felt the stigma of a boy playing with a toy that was supposedly for girls.

Since I was a child I experienced romantic attracion to guys older than me. I used to idolise them as syperheros, especially when they did or behaved in ways that gave that impression to me. There were periods during my childhood that I picked up some feminine mannerisms, very mildy. That was basically because I soon realised I was "different" from the other boys, that I was attracted to males and basically, I learnt from girls and adult women that men felt attracted to the way they (women) behave. We live in a world that emphasises the masculine-feminine dymanics of attraction so it was natural to assume that the way to attract men was by behaving feminine, but it was never pronounced in me and didn't last long either.

It was a bit hard for me to find myself in one of those two boxes (masculine or feminine) because I felt like a boy and loved to be one but my romantic attraction resembled that of women so you don't know where you belong.

Today, I consider myself kind of neutral when it comes to my gender expression. I don't show stereotypical effeminate behaviour and other stereotypes associated with homosexual men such as interest in fashion or interest in diva pop music; I am a bit more leant towards my masculine side, just not steretypical masculinity.

I put a six, but I am sure some of you would say I should have said 10.

Collected dolls and antique children's books from second grade on. Read Nancy Drew and Louisa May Alcott. Knit, crocheted, sewed and did embroidery. Cooked. Loved musicals. Very much into the nostalgia craze of the 1970s- loved old movies. Preferred female vocalists. Did not play sports.

Except when I was three and wanted to be Little Red Riding Hood for Halloween, never had any desire to be a girl or dress like one. I always wanted to be the Arrow Collar Man.

As a child our role models were our mother and Judy Garland!

i played with my charlie's angels dolls, my wonder woman doll and my bionic woman doll all fucking day.

I guess I was around an 8 ...

As a '70s kid, I had the long pudding-bowl cut. My hair, coupled with my long eyelashes and femmy voice, frequently got me pegged as a girl. I took it as a compliment. LOL

I idolized Lily Munster and Morticia Addams from watching old reruns after school. One time I locked myself in the bathroom and tried to replicate Lily's spooky makeup.

In (I think) fifth grade, I dressed up as Dolly Parton and won the church Halloween costume contest. Wasn't that big a deal since we were Presbyterian and the church also used to hold a "womanless wedding" (i.e., a straight-guy drag show) as a fundraiser.

I played with my sister's Barbies and Knit Magic machine (see link) almost as much as she did.

Hated sports for the most part, but mostly because I was a klutz who couldn't catch anything to save my life. I did like soccer and kickball, though.

I was also a Cub Scout and got as far as earning my Bobcat badge before I lost interest.

How could you POSSIBLY leave off "Dial the phone with a pencil" from your list of activities, OP?

I didn't play team sports but I didn't do anything else listed. I played with toy soldiers, sci-fi toys, trucks, etc, so I don't know how I would vote.

I was just nerdy. I loved comic books, anime, fantasy literature, sci-fi.

All my friends were guys though, and I had no aversion to rough play or having fun outside. Was never big into sports though.

But I was very gender-confirming I suppose.

R14 here -- I forgot to list my one big boy-esque attribute:

I was OBSESSED with cars. Starting at around 3 or 4, I could tell you the make, model, and year of virtually any car on the road. I also had tons of Matchboxes, Hot Wheels, and models I put together myself. My crowning achievement as a Cub Scout was carving and painting a wooden roadster for our troop's annual Pinewood Derby (still have it today). I even grew up to have a partner who does auto restoration!

I gave myself a 7 because of my sporting interest, but it wasn't necessarily for masculine reasons. For example, I spent hours designing more revealing team uniforms that would allow my players to get stomped on by opposing teams. I don't know why I found this incredibly erotic.

Maybe a 4 or so? I was never a particularly "feminine" boy, but I loved to play with my sister's Polly Pockets and dolls and loathed team sports, although I delved into solo stuff like windsurfing and quite enjoyed it. I never really developed meaningful friendships with girls or women until university.

Overall, I would probably describe my early childhood as nerdy with a dash of hyper. Late childhood (~13) was when I started finally coming to terms with being gay, so things got kinda awkward and I became a bit of a loner.

Same as r20, I would have been called either a nerd or a"spazz". I loved Legos though, and though didn't like sports, I'd play it.

When I was a kid my mom picked out and bought my clothes until I was 11 or 12...why do parents think they need to let their 4 year olds make decisions? Kids have parents for a reason.

I hated sports, played with Dolls and tried on my mom's wigs, makeup and clothing on a regular basis. But I also loved Ninja Turtles, micro machines and going to baseball games.

That's why I think the whole transgender kid acceptance is being misused by parents who crave attention. Yeah, I used to tuck my penis and wonder what it was like to be a girl. But as an adult I love having a dick. I also have no desire to wear makeup or women's clothing.

Kids arw curious and it's dangerous to try and push them into a,corner at a young age.

"Another tranny-bashing thread? Oh good, we'd hate to go a day without six new threads on this topic."

Realy? And to think that trans people are the most gender non-conforming people by default (females wanna act like men and males like girls).

I was pretty gender non-comforming for the town I grew up in. Gender expectations were massively rigid, and I didn't meet many (or probably any) of the expectations placed on boys. I didn't play sport, I didn't fight, I didn't surf or fish, I didn't muck up in class. For that reason, I tended to hang out more with the girls at school, I think mainly because there seemed to be a broader range of accepted personalities - the girls got be on the spectrum from bitchy pretty girl through to goody two shoes and get away with it. In hindsight, if I'd grown up in the city I doubt I would have been that different from the other nerdy kids.

I liked Lego and sci fi toys (loved Star Wars). My sister had a Cabbage Patch Kid and I wanted one too, but knew without even asking that it wasn't the 'done thing'. Like someone up thread, I did read a lot of books that were aimed at girls, like Nancy Drew and the Babysitters Club, but also read Hardy Boys and other books aimed more at boys. I definitely got into computer games as I got older.

I was super imaginative as a child (I wish I still was as an adult) and loved to dress up, and I would sometimes wear dresses and the like. I didn't think anything of it at all at the time, but did learn when I was older how much my dad was embarrassed by it. Good on him though for not making a big deal out of it at the time, I guess!

I never had any stereotypical mannerisms and could pretty much fly under the radar during my teenage years stuck in a conservative small town. I can't imagine how bad it would have been if I'd been unable to hide.

I was fascinated with womens hair and would comb my sisters hair. I would even tell family members I was going to be a hair dresser when I grew up. That was when I was 5 or 6 years old. That changed in grammar school when I found I could play baseball really well and so many of the other guys who played were cute as hell. There was always one guy I would latch on to every year. We moved around the world (military brat) so it was seldom the same guy I would pal around with. Great school years.

Do they say "sport" instead of "sports" in England? Kind of like how we in the US say "math" instead of "maths."

Yes. I wanted to be called Joanne in my preschool years. I even wrote it in all my books.

Still hate sports.

Didn't play with girls, though. My neighborhood was mostly boys.

I was very gender-conforming-- team sports, cars and soldiers and all that. Read a lot, which a lot of boys didn't do. Was close with my female cousin who lived on our block and was the same age, but other than her, my friends were all guys. I did have more of an interest in clothes back in high school than many of my friends, but that may also have come from my mother who was a social climber and very status conscious.

Have never fit in well in gay-land, just don't have a lot of common interests with most gay guys. That's gotten easier after 30, as people feel less need to fit into a stereotype or maybe it's just that I've met more guys with interests similar to my own.

[quote]Do they say "sport" instead of "sports" in England? Kind of like how we in the US say "math" instead of "maths."

We say sports. In the US you've got Gym Class, while over here it's called P.E. (Physical Education).

We use "sport" in Australia as a plural.

LOL @ R28. This belongs in the old Dialing with a Pencil thread.

Actually, more as a collective noun than a plural. You'd still say "my favourite sports are..."

R23 Apparently this thread has NOTHING to do with Transgenders, so your point about not approving of giving kids hormones or telling them they are trans (Which has been made on here 100 fucking times and we've all agreed with) is pointless.

We used to give permanents to our sister's dolls, causing all the hair to fall out.

I'm confused about the thread now.

In Japan you find lots of heterosexual men who are gender non-conformist.

It's such a strange fixation, this focus on transgenders. The medical and psychiatric communities are not going to cut little kids' dicks off at the drop of a hat.

R37 I mostly agree with you and I do think this forum tends to overreact out of spite towards the trans community. But what exactly do you call it when there are doctors out there who approve of giving kids puberty blockers and estrogen? That is extremely disturbing.

It's odd, R38, but I don't hear of it happening much. In fact, I only hear of it second, third and fourth hand on the internet. Transgenderism has been around for decades. There are established protocols, none of them involve transitioning children.

Greater acceptance of gender-non-conforming children would be a good outcome. They're so often picked on and ostracized.

I was mashup. I hated sports and rough play. I loved my toy cars and Star Wars toys but also played with my sister's dolls once in a while. I know I tried my mom's clothes on but stopped because I didn't like it. I had close guy and girl friends.

I shudder to think what would have happened to me if I was raised by one of today's parents. I'm glad I was allowed to grow up naturally.

R39 Of course it is a rarity but the fact it happens at all is still disturbing to me, and there is a point to be made that the Trans community encourages this and disparages anyone who speaks out against this practice. This could potentially lead somewhere bad.

This idea thats pedaled around here so often that this is some sort of conspiracy to "Do away with gays" is nonsense, not only is it nonsense but it is neurotic. But trans politics can also be very neurotic as well.

There's no actual evidence of this actually ever happening, is there? Right now it's just an urban myth, that like many urban myths, sounds like it could be true.

The lawsuits will tell a different story

R42 Yes giving children puberty blockers and hormones is an actual thing, In fact on the Docu-series "I Am Jazz" which follows the life of Trans-teen Jazz Jennings she actually goes to the doctors office where they talk about possibly increasing her estrogen dosage so she could grow bigger breasts.

Yes R44, but I meant that taking effeminate boys or tomboys and convincing them they are really trans and more or less forcing them to switch gender-- we have yet to see instances of that.

R45, what do you think I Am Jazz is all about?

'Jazz' was an effeminate boy. Mother convinced him that Jazz is a girl.

What more do you need to know?

Anyway, it's happening more than you think

[quote]In Japan you find lots of heterosexual men who are gender non-conformist.

But what about gender non-performing Japanese boys who grow up to be heterosexual? Not many I'd predict.

I put an 8, but after reading this thread, I think I should go down to a 5 or so.

I was an 8 behind closed doors, I think, but I had to do some conforming to survive my familiy and blue-collar town as a child. My childhood was bittersweet in many respects.

I feel sad that the pendulum has swung so far now that boys like I was are getting tracked into believing that they are girls. Whatever happened with not adhering to stereotypes and expectations? It feels like more rigidity on another end of the spectrum.

I don't hate trans people at all, but I don't get the militant aspect of the movement, nor the inflexibility and disregard for divergent opinions.

R45 Oh, I see what you are saying. I don't believe that many of these kinds of parents are literally "Forcing" their kids to be Trans. They are just misguided.

I was pretty gender conforming for the most part. Athletic and preferred stereotypical boy activities and toys ( obsessed with video games ). I did play with girls but they were usual girls who liked stereotypical boy activities. Although I did play house with them and those hand clap games sometimes.

[quote]I don't get the militant aspect of the movement, nor the inflexibility and disregard for divergent opinions

That's because their house of cards would crumble if they were open to opinions.

Sexual orientation doesn't determine gender expression. Masculinity and femininity are almost completely a cultural construct and, we always see that what is masculine for some it is not for others and the same about what is considered feminine, R47

The problem with westerners is that there is a strong cultural conditioning to impose a certain character to people according to their sexual orientation.

There are many heterosexual men who have a fetish with transvestism. If society allowed them to dress like women society would conceive them as effeminate, gender non-conformists.

[quote]Sexual orientation doesn't determine gender expression.

As shown by the studies of J Michael Bailey and others in this field of interest (and even this thread itself), there is a link between gender non-conforming behavior and sex atypical interests with homosexuality, from childhood throughout adulthood.

R53 Gender expression is a social construct almost entirely which means it is influenced by external factors.

Most gay guys are not gender non-conformist. How do you explain that?

Most of those studies that try to link sexual orientation with gender expression are biased and never really care to study the external factors that may lead a person to adopt the gender expression that society deems it belong to the other sex.

If you are a homosexual child there is a chance that because you share the same attraction for men with heterosexual women you might end up imitating their behaviour to attract men in the future. This is what happens to heterosexual girls, they subconsciously imitate the behaviour of teen and young adult heterosexual women when they are around men. However, this only happens to a fraction of gay kids; not all of them adopt the feminine behaviour of their sisters and mother and instead lean towards a more masculine personality. We learn some forms of interaction at a very young age.

Sexual orientation neither determines nor dictates gender expresison and every serious institution that studies this will tell you that sexual orientation and gender expression are two different streams.

There are some books about this. I once posted an extract on other thread.

How is team participation masculine or feminine?

[quote]Most gay guys are not gender non-conformist.

Where are you statistics for that? And don't just say "from my personal experience." Anecdotal evidence holds little currency in these debates.

[quote]How is team participation masculine or feminine?

Team sports tend to be homosocial activities.

R56 Same question applies to your claims. Your source is biased which is very common. You need to think of associations suhc as APA for these things.

Could you explain why homosexual men where thought of as mascuine in ancient times?

Could you explain why there are many homosexual men who are masculine?

Do you think that you might be conditioned by culture to think of homosexual men a ceratin way?

[quote] Anecdotal evidence holds little currency in these debates.

One would think that but I've seen a lot of anecdotal anti-trans "evidence" bandied about in these threads. The standard for what constitutes "evidence" is often determined by whether or not you agree with what the "evidence" shows.

In other words, R59, you're basically saying : I refuse to believe anything doesn't match with my way of thinking, hmm?

No, I'm saying that anecdotal evidence seems to be more persuasive when it fits in with whatever you already believe. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence used in these threads. As long as it fits their views people have been perfectly okay with it. When someone brought some anecdotal evidence with which they disagreed, then it suddenly wasn't good enough.

It's just human nature and nothing out of the ordinary but it's interesting.

If sexual orientation determines gender expression then why are there so many gay men in tough sports such as rugby, football, wrestling, powerlifting, other who are policemen, and many other activities a dn formes of expression that are not gender non-conformist?

I suppose men like Steve Grand are "lying to themselves"....

Confirmation bias is a problem.

R58 Ah yes, the "Greece, Rome, Sparta, etc were totally okay with homosexuality and just mega macho gay". Except no, none of them were and they abode to an incredibly homophobic and sexist sexual code of conduct.

Like it or not, childhood gender nonconformity has been linked numerous times to adult homosexuality (Friedman, Baumeister, Schroeder, Gordon) even years before the child begins to understand that their feelings toward the same sex is deemed wrong. The social and personality aspects always develop before sexual and romantic attraction.

IS R42/R45 trolling, or just deeply stupid?

Perhaps you need to read this, R63

"Gender Expression. Refers to the ways in which people externally communicate their gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, haircut, voice, and other forms of presentation. Gender expression also works the other way as people assign gender to others based on their appearance, mannerisms, and other gendered characteristics. Sometimes, transgender people seek to match their physical expression with their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex. Gender expression should not be viewed as an indication of sexual orientation."

R63 You are trying to reduce gay men to a bunch of stereotypes which is a very narrow-minded conception and very dehumanising way to see people since it makes you unable to acknowledge the diversity and complexity of human nature.

You will find gender non-conformist people who are heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Because of cultural condictioning, whenever you find a man who looks or behaves feminine you will think he is gay even if he tells you he is heterosexual or bisexual.

All valid entities that study sexuality are clear when stating that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are all different aspects of someone's identity and they are not determined by one of the three.

You are being influenced by confirmation bias which means that you only notice examples that fit your conceptions of, in this gays, how supposedly gay men are collectively. You will not see the ones that don't match your conception of gay men and even if you notice them you will probably believe they are not being themselves.

It is worth asking, if sexual orientation determines gender expression, then how come not all gay men are effeminate? Even more, if effeminacy is inherently a homosexual trait, how come most gay men find effeminacy unattractive? If nature has decided that homosexual men must be effeminate then effeminacy should be naturally highly desirable and arousing sexually, right? But that's not the case.

The context under which homosexual men are born should never be overlooked since it plays a great role for its potential to affect aspects of our identity in some way or another.

From the book: One of the Children: Gay Black Men in Harlem by William G. Hawkeswood, Alex W. Costley:

"Most gay men are raised in heterosexual two-parent households, and whether or not parents are in fact heterosexual, their children perceive them as such. Furthermore, since heterosexuality is the dominant image portrayed in public, gaymen tend to be socialized according to heterosexual norms. If a gay man is attracted to other males as a child, consciously or not, his earliest model for interacting with men, emotionally, socially and sexually, may be female. From watching and interacting with his mother, sister, grandmothers, aunts, female cousins, and female friends, the gay black male may be less inclined than a non-gay male to reject femenine traits. This was the case among several of my informants. "

"Gay men are often perceived as being effeminate socially and passive sexually. Some men who are overlty effeminate in their gay social lives may in fact be modeling their behavior on that of females who played important roles in their socialization. They may feel they have to act effeminately to entice a man, regardless of what they might actually want to do with him sexually. Effeminate black men, "sissies" in Harlem, may also be acting on stereotypical models of gay men prescribed for them during their socialization by heterosexuals".

Wheter you are homosexual or not, gender expression is greatly affected/influenced by external factors.

A 2013 report by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health found gender 'variance' in children is more indicative of a person who will grow up to with a degree of same-sex attraction than a person who will identify as transgender as an adult. There is no clinically reliable way to differentiate between a child’s future sexuality and their 'gender identity'.

But my gender variance started well before any same-sex sexual attraction.

More simply put, I liked dolls before I liked dick.

Is my experience irrevelevant?

That said, as an adult gay man, I have met a few men (or former men?) on both ends of the gender spectrum: transwomen who only lean toward women sexually and hyper-masculine (by western norms) men who are pretty fluid. Some of these men are more fixated on male body parts (either the dick or the ass) rather than the man attached to them, however.

Women, I have found, tend to be more fluid in general. And I find this increasing rather than decreasing as I get older, meaning that the "bi in college" phase doesn't seem to hold so much, as I have acquaintances in their forties formerly in marriages with men who now have LTRs with women but consider themselves bisexual or simply sexually fluid.

I wonder if the acceptability of such fluidity is going to open the door wider for more people.

Did this not post the first time? There's a study on this... using childhood home videos & having them rated. The issue with the study is that the researcher selected specific behaviors for people to rate...he didn't select at random. So, it's slightly biased in my opinion.

The reason he didn't select at random was because these tapes were hours long & involved many family members and distracting things - and finding one isolated clip of the child was difficult... so when he did find a clip - he (I think) tended to "stack the deck" in favor of his hypothesis.

This is some Jack Donovan "Androphilia" cult obsessed with sweeping gay boys and men who don't particularly act "manly" under the rug as some kind of extreme minority, all with absolutely zero sources aside from anecdotes and faulty logic.

Fact is, sexual orientation will not dictate or will predispispose your gender expression. If male role models have a positive impact on you you might end up picking up mannerisms associated with men more easily. If female role models have a positive impact on you you might end up picking up feminine mannerisms more easily. If both genders affect your life positively you might end up picking up mannerisms of both genders which the most common thing.

Actually, we are constantly and subconsciously picking up other people's mannerisms when they seem admirable.

[quote]Fact is, sexual orientation will not dictate or will predispispose your gender expression.

If it's a fact, find me the studies that confirm it.

R72 Does APA confirm sexual orientation and gender expression go hand in hand?

If you are gender non-conformist doesn't mean everybody is just because you are.

[quote]Does APA confirm sexual orientation and gender expression go hand in hand?

Misdirection. I asked for [italic]studies.[/italic] I assume you're avoiding the question because you can find any.

FYI I'm a pretty masculine gay guy and wasn't very gender non-conforming as a child. I wasn't great at sports but that was more out of clumsiness than anything. Remember dressing up and lip-syching on video as Agnetha from Abba (my female friend was Anni-Frid), but that was just a one off, I think...

What I've got a problem with is androphilic (presumably gender conforming) gay dudes who try to dismiss and marginalise more feminine gays as just tiny proportion of the community (going by personal experience of over 40 years, I have to say that's pure bullshit).. Along with that usually goes the convenient claim that gender expression and sexual orientation have no link at all, and that all feminine behavior is entirely learnt.

*can't find any

APA is one the most validated entities regarding the study of sexuality. Let's see what it says about the topic, R74

all the gay man that I am aware from work all feminine. I don't know of any straight man that walk with his hips or swishes his hands. not even straight transvestite are that feminine

Jon Cryer

[quote]APA is one the most validated entities regarding the study of sexuality. Let's see what it says about the topic, [R74]

Oh no, I know your game. Find me the STUDIES.

R79 You seem to be one of those who are uncapable to understand that homosexual people just like anybody else show a diverse spectruum of behaviors and gender expressions.

R80 Er, no. I fully accept that. I also believe from personal experience that there are far more feminine gay men than there are feminine heterosexual men, and that the pre-natal environment probably has an influence (just as it does on mental rotation, verbal fluency and spacial memory).

What you are asking for R81 is practically impossible to find because the institutions that are validated by scientific community make it clear that sexual orientation and gender expression are two different things, that one doesn't determine the other. Most of our gender expression is acquired by subconsciously observing adults. Kids are looking for role models, the one that affects our lives more positively will certainly affect the way we will express ourselves.

Gender expression is not a fixed trait in human being, it may vary even being an old adult.

Have you seen boys who admire their fathers? They usually end up picking up their father's mannerisms. If a boy finds that their mother or any other woman impavts their lives positively they might end up picking some of their mannerisms too. Regardless of their sexual orientation.

"Gender expression is everything we do that communicates our sex/gender to others: clothing, hair styles, mannerisms, way of speaking, roles we take in interactions, etc. This communication may be purposeful or accidental. It could also be called social gender because it relates to interactions between people. Trappings of one gender or the other may be forced on us as children or by dress codes at school or work. Gender expression is a continuum, with feminine at one end and masculine at the other. In between are gender expressions that are androgynous (neither masculine nor feminine) and those that combine elements of the two (sometimes called gender bending). Gender expression can vary for an individual from day to day or in different situations, but most people can identify a range on the scale where they feel the most comfortable. Some people are comfortable with a wider range of gender expression than others. "

You're arguing the case for a social constructivist view of gender expression, but I don't buy it, any more than I do the essentialist position that it's immutable. Why should gender expression, just like human intelligence, not HAVE a biological component?

So I suck at baseball (and every other "ball" game) because I liked my mother more than my father?

R84 What does sucking at baseball have anything to do with gender expression? O.o

Your gender expression has nothing to do with your performance in sports or any other activity

r83, gender is a social and cultural construct and not a biological trait. If it were a biological trait, gender expression would be consistent across different societies and cultures.

To some extent gender expression is and has historically been pretty consistent cross-culturally. One of things that made our species successful is division of labor based on sex/gender. Males hunted while females gathered. Neanderthals for example didn't have divisions of labor which made them less efficient and less successful. Studies have shown that there are behaviors in young boys/ male babies that are consistent with the behavior of a hunter. Boys are more likely to wander away from parents, explore their environment independently, and take risks. Girls tend to stay close to their parent, are more social/verbal and tend to be more risk averse.

Studies of pre-agricultural societies have provided very little evidence of consistent universal gender roles. The division of labour in prehistoric and hunter-gatherer societies can be just as plausibly explained by the biological demands of childbearing and breastfeeding as by the existence of innate blue/pink gender traits.

Could you post the studies you are referring to, r88? I majored in biological anthropology and I've never come across those studies ( and to be honest whether they were consistent is irrelevant). Divisions of labor based on gender is what made our species successful and this lack of division in Neanderthals made them less so. The idea that it is an either/or ( all nature or all nurture) is outdated science. You can't admit that men and women have distinct biological demands and then say gender traits aren't innate to some degree. Natural selection doesn't work that way.

Brief discussion of a relevant study.

They found evidence of sexual division of labour among neanderthals fairly recently. The grooves in their teeth differ. I'm not saying there are no behavioral differences between males and females - I'm saying those divisions are the result of biological difference (hormonal and reproductive) and socialization more than innate 'gender' traits. I'm always happy to be proved wrong - it's a learning opportunity.

Pink was a masculine colour in the past.

Yeah pink was considered appropriate for boys because it's a watered down version of red (the most aggressive color and the color of blood, associated with Mars, god of war). Pale blue is a placid, serene color and was considered feminine. That flipped in the early 20th century, but the whole pink/blue thing didn't get crazy until the 90's and Aughts (I was a child in the 80's and had toys of all colors, with only minor emphasis on gendered colors).

Don't forget the feminine look of aristocrat males, the wigs, the heeled shoes, etc.

OP, you moron, you should've explicitly asked that voting be limited to gay men. I have no doubt that a vast share of voters are women, as happens you make a poll on DL that doesn't set a sex limit.

The average score for the poll is 5.7. That's a tad too high - I'm pretty gay, and I 'only' scored 4.

I think I know which study you're referring to with regard to Neanderthal teeth and division of labor and I remember finding the conclusion to be a bit of a stretch and not very convincing. Teeth marks may show some gender division in certain activities( I don't even know if they tried to guess what the activity was. I think I assumed it must have had something to do with childcare) but it tells us nothing of systematic divisions of labor. Neanderthal men, women and even children hunted big game together while homo sapiens left that predominately to men.

The truth is that according to mother nature men are much more expendable than women. Women carry the children and put in the bulk of parental investment which makes them more valuable to our species. A man could impregnate a woman and go die while hunting or die in war and the offspring will still be born and taken care of. With women this isn't so. If women were the predominate hunters or put themselves in harms way as often as men it could lead to the extinction of the species. Therefore, if mother nature simply left it up to chance and relied on socialization to teach women to be more pragmatic and risk averse we'd be screwed as that would be a rather inefficient, error prone way to learn qualities/behaviors that our species relies on for its survival.

Well, according to some scholars, homosexual males were supposed to be the hunters and also were supposed to protect other people's children in a community.

They assumed activities such as curing hides and working tools, r96. It's cute that you think it's a stretch to conclude that different patterns of tooth wear resulted from divided labor but have no problem arguing that 'mother nature' gave us gender so we don't throw pregnant women into the hunt. The argument you're making re division of labor among early humans relates more to efficiency than survival - no organism, male or female, is going to routinely put itself at such risk as to threaten its reproductive viability - dividing labor made for more efficient resource returns, especially given the concurrent demands of bearing and rearing children.

I'm not sure. I've read things that said the purpose of homosexuality may be alloparenting. Meaning helping to look after or raise children/offspring who weren't their own which would give the offspring a better chance at survival. But again, I'm not sure . I haven't read a great deal on the subject.

You're right, r99. Homosexual adults can help provide for and protect children to which they're genetically related, even if they're not their own.

Explain how curing hides( making clothing) and making tools ( used for any number of things, you know like curing hides) relates to labor divisions in hunting and gathering r98? Neanderthal men, women and children hunted big game together. We used men for that. We are still here, they aren't . The rest of your comment is nonsensical. Efficiency aids survival. Which should be clear based on the aforementioned example.

The problem is that modern society has conflated homosexuality with gender non-conformism/expression. Once christianity managed to stigmatise homosexuality across the world which made most hide their same-sex attraction, the only ones who stood out becaise of their obvious defying nature were gender non-conforismist men and women within the entire homosexual population which eventually ended up becoming the image of what your average homosexual person is supposed to be.

That is why is it so hard for so many people to conveive the idea that homosexual people can be gender conformistand whe discussing these matter we see that in many societies homosexual men were thought of as masculine rather than effeminate.

Horrible typing. I am in a very uncomfortable position, but you get what I mean.

Gee, I don't know, r101. Maybe males were using their teeth to make stone hunting and meat preparation tools while females were preparing and curing hides for clothing and shelters while they tended to the kids. They found differences in the nature of tooth wear which indicate differences in the use to which males and females put their teeth. Is that clear enough for you? Neanderthals died out because homo sapiens were more intelligent and adaptable, and competed more successfully for the same resources, not because they let females hunt. You sure seem obtuse for an anthro major.

The guy who said that division of labor between the sexes was more about efficiency than survival without realizing that efficiency aids survival is the same guy who says that we survived and Neanderthals didn't because we are more intelligent and better able to adapt without realizing that our highly efficient, intelligent, adaptable systematic division of labor with regard to hunting and gathering is actually proof of of those things, is calling me obtuse. Oh the irony. Some people just love making fools of themselves because they can't stand being wrong. He also doesn't seem to understand that tool making is not the same thing as hunting and gathering. Boy oh boy.

I should have known better than to enter into a discussion with an argumentative person with a chip on his/ her shoulder who knows little about science or anthropology and relies on namecalling when all else fails.

I was also into boy toys, sci fi, was keen on rough play and fighting, but hated team sports. I read a lot.

I see a pattern here.

Maybe one person on this thread has said they liked team sports as a child (baseball). Everyone else mostly did 'boy stuff' EXCEPT for team sports.

I think there might be something in that. Something to do with homosociality vs homosexuality.

I thought the thread was more about gender expression than gender roles.

r105, at r87 you made the point that neanderthals died out because they had no sexual division of labour. When I pointed out that evidence of sexual division of labour had been found, you said you thought the conclusion was a bit of a stretch. I clarified what evidence was found and you asked what that had to do with hunting and gathering (an anthro major who doesn't understand that different tools are used for different activities? really?). Perhaps your original point should have been that the neanderthals died out because their women were hunters. I'd like to see your citations for that.

Your link is from 2006, r106. Here's a link from 2015 re the evidence for sexual division of labor amongst neanderthals. There are a number of hypotheses out there to explain the supplanting of the neanderthals by modern humans, from the advantages gained by the use of hunting dogs, to greater ability to adapt to the changing nature of prey animals from megafauna to smaller mammals, to plain old cognitive superiority. BTW, I've been employed as an anthropological researcher since 2004.

Nature doesn't make every man strong and athletic, though. Some women are much stronger than some men.

Everybody must find their place in a community according to their skills and that's how a community can be successful.

[quote]the whole pink/blue thing didn't get crazy until the '90s

Not true.

The 'good uncle' hypothesis for male homosexuality has no support in empirical data. Gay men are no more likely to be involved with the lives of their nephews and nieces than straight men.

R110, if you truly worked as a anthropological researcher since 2004, you'd know that women making clothes and men making tools does not suggest that women gathered while men hunted. R109 it sounds like another nonsensical word salad from you. I don't recall saying that I didn't know that tools were used for different purposes but to imply that because men made the tools that they were the only ones to use them and because women made clothes suggests that they were the only ones to wear them is embarrassingly absurd. As to your point that I should have said that Neanderthal women hunted is interesting since in my first post I clearly referred to systematic sex division of labor present in modern humans so what else could I have been referring to? I'll give the two if you a task ( if you are actually two different people). Since the article is too old for you, find a legitimate article from 2015 to refute it. Find an article to refute the one below. Not that Neanderthal women made clothes and men made tools. Find an article that explicitly states that Neanderthal women gathered while men hunted.

The idea that sex differences in behavior are exclusively the domain of socialization is probably the most absurd assertion I've read in awhile. In a world full of billions you'll find that women in every society and culture commit much less crime, engage in less risky behavior ( thus far less likely to be nominated for Darwin awards), less aggressive, more pragmatic, risk averse yet supposedly this is all due to socialization. If society has been this universally successful in socialization women to be this way then they better get to work on men so that we can have a much safer world.

video video

Agreed R115. The pernicious feminist idea that all children are a blank slate waiting to be imprinted, has made its way into this thread. It doesn't tally with scientific findings, despite what the APA may claim.

But truth is most or our behaviour is learnt. Kids don't come to the world with all that coded. That's why most kids when playing with toys thought for the other sex never think of them thast way until they see the reactions of adults around them.

The APA is more about political advocacy than actual science. No credibility there. Men and women even process emotions differently . Women are more in touch with their feelings and are better able to express emotion because they have a larger limbic system. You'll notice that most of women's natural behavior tend toward establishing and maintaining group bonds, cohesion and relationships. Women are naturally group oriented. Men and women aren't born blank slates.

Homosexuality helps same gender cooperation on the hunt.

R118, it is nature and nurture as someone pointed out upthread. I think men and women are born with some basic differences or sex specific predispositions due to being biological distinct. There are certain behaviors that women need to prepare for motherhood and their are certain behaviors that men need to prepare for being a provider or protector. It doesn't mean that one set of behaviors is better than the other. I see them as complementary and necessary.

*There

Nice move trying to vilify APA so that next person who brings up APA you get to reject their position.

Foxy.

R71 [quote][bold]Fact is[/bold], sexual orientation will not dictate or will predispispose your gender expression.

R118 [quote]But [bold]truth is[/bold] most or our behaviour is learnt.

And know you and I aren't going to see eye-to-eye, but could you kindly drop this annoying rhetorical phrase.

If you don't like it then I don't care. That's the truth. Sexual orientation and gender expression are two different things. That's why people show diversity in the way they express themselves.

Happy day R124 n_n

We don't even fully understand sexual orientation so you can't make claims like that. A lot of ancient societies viewed homosexuals as encompassing both and male and female traits or spirits. There had to be a reason for that.

Women raise both women and men, so they set gender norms for our society. None of you masc gay guys is doing anything but trying to live up to Mommy's need for a little man of the house! Grow up!

R126 I think you're conflating homosexuality with transgender or more specific, you're conflating homosexuality with two-spirit which actually transgender.

That was a very common conflation made by writers in the past who didn't know the difference between attraction and self-expression.

It doesn't matter what I'm "conflating." The fact remains that we don't fully understand sexual orientation so you can't make blanket claims about a subject that isn't even fully understood

So, one has to be feminine in some way or another in order to like guys?

R114, at r87 you argued that neanderthals were replaced by homo sapiens because they had no sexual division of labor. I replied that evidence of sexual division of labor in neanderthal society has been found, and I even provided a recent link with details of the evidence. Different patterns of teeth wear between males and females indicate they used their teeth for different tasks - if you'd read the link you'd have noted that they haven't identified specifically which tasks caused the tooth wear - curing hides and working tools were mentioned as suggestions only. Your original point, that neanderthals had no sexual division of labor, was incorrect. Your NYT link, also from 2006, refers to exactly the same paper as the National Geographic link you provided. Perhaps you should have read the Nat Geo link a little more closely - they end with a caution against interpreting their research as providing one neat reason for the extinction of the neanderthals. I never tried to argue that neanderthal women didn't hunt (show me where I did) - I simply pointed out that neanderthals did have a sexual division of labor, contrary to your original claim at r87. Interestingly, most accounts of neanderthal women hunting that I've read in the past couple of days state that the females participated as blockers and beaters while the men killed the prey, which seems very much to me like sexual division of labor. My own field of expertise is in Australian Aboriginal society, particularly the societies of the central Australian lakes region and the western desert cultural bloc. As for my gender conformity in childhood (because this off-topic argument is becoming tiresome), I conformed well to some gendered expectations but not so well to others.

[quote]So, one has to be feminine in some way or another in order to like guys?

What does it always have to be a zero-sum thing with you? e.g. if you're gay you must feminine (which no one here has said) or that there's no connection whatsoever between homosexuality and gender expression, and all feminine homosexuals are a minuscule minority.

The truth is more nuanced.

Reading the comments there's a guy suggesting there's a connection between homosexuality and gender expression, that being a homosexual male you're practically biologically predisposed to femininity. R132

R131, my first post on the subject was at r87, second at r89, third at r90 , fourth at r96, fifth at r101 , sixth at r105, seventh r106, and eighth at r114. In each and every post from the very beginning I specifically and explicitly mentioned hunting and gathering, not tool making, not making clothes, not rainbows or unicorns. I specifically mentioned the sex based division of labor in modern human hunter gatherer societies giving us an edge due to efficiency.

In fact, in spite of you continuing to say that I'm unaware that tools can be used for different purposes, I clearly stated at r101 that tools can be used for a number of purposes. Unless of course you don't comprehend what tools can be used for 'any number of things' means. At r98 you spefically state that it was assumed that the teeth marks represented curing hides and working tools, yet in your latest installament you claimed that researchers don't know what the teeth marks represented. I have to wonder if you have a severe learning disability that makes it impossible for you to comprehend anything that you read( including your own posts) or if your self-esteem and self-image are just so fragile that you can't admit to being in over your head regarding this subject and would rather continue to argue and make a fool of yourself while calling people names in order to make up for your shortcomings .

In a previous post you stated that efficiency and survival are two separate issues, then you said that we outlived neanderthals because we were smarter failing to realize that it was due to our efficiency and not our ability to recite Shakespeare verbatim. And finally you are claiming that because women and children may have traditionally played certain roles during the hunt that this represented a division of labor between sexes. The same person who called me obtuse thinks that if one group of people has one role and another group has a different role while engaging in the same activity ( hunting) together it somehow represents a sex based division of labor equivalent to modern humans .

You also don't seem to realize that the idea that Neanderthal women may have assumed the role of the blocker during the hunt is called hypothesizing based entirely on beliefs about female physicality. There's no evidence to support it as skeletal remains of Neanderthal men, women, and children show many of the same injuries which suggests that they likely engaged in the same activities the same way with that activity likely being hunting big game at close contact. Since you failed my first task and were unable to refute my links. I'll give you another task that (you're doomed to fail). Find research from a credible anthropologist to back up your assertion that since Neanderthal women may have played a specific role during the hunt that it somehow represents what anthropologists deem a division of labor between the sexes, especially a division of labor equivalent to modern humans. Find credible research to show that women making clothes and men making tools( which by the way is also a hypothetical based on beliefs about Sapien Sapien male and female interests, abilities, and usefulness. There's no evidence that the divergent teeth patterns in Neanderthal men and women means that they performed different tasks based on sex or different tasks at all) is equivalent to women gathering and men hunting that made our species so successful. Or maybe just consider not making a fool of yourself. But it seems that you enjoy it too much. Good grief.

It could be inferred that, in the past, some gay men who embraced feminine mannerisms such as referring to themselves using feminine pronouns, and dressing and expressing themselves in feminine ways did so to let other males know they liked men. They did so assuming that ALL men like women or feel attracted to femininity.

Most homosexual men were in the closet, the only expressions of affection and sexual attraction that they observed was that between heterosexuals so it is easy to conclude that "if I want to attract a man I must behave this way (like women do)". Obviously, since most homosexual men were in the closet the idea that ALL men are attracted to women and femininity is reinforced in one's mind.

They probably felt they were THE ONLY kid/man who felt attracted to men in the whole world, but since one's urges cannot be suppressed for ever, don't you think that in your dispair you would pick up mannerisms that seem to work to attract men?

[quote]Reading the comments there's a guy suggesting there's a connection between homosexuality and gender expression, that being a homosexual male you're practically biologically predisposed to femininity. [R132]

"Suggesting there's a connection between homosexuality and gender expression"

"being a homosexual male you're practically biologically predisposed to femininity."

While not mutually exclusive, those are two very different statements that you seem to be conflating. Not being nasty, but is English not your first language?

The whole "picking up mannerisms to attract men" argument is pure bullshit, and one you normally see banded about by clueless straights. Gay men are mostly androphilic and efemmephobic. Feminine mannerisms are generally a hindrance to homosexual courtship, not an aid.

Most of the time picking up mannerisms is subconscious. Nobody sits and thinks: hmm, I think I will behave like he/she does.

I think all the scientific studies so far on gender roles and sexuality have been garbage. Bio anthropology has assumed what needed to be proved for hundreds of years and you don't unwind that bias overnight. Even studies which attempt to eliminate bias like the home movies could have easily been "led" by the researchers choosing the videos to get the results they wanted.

A big part of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the brain. It's our most complicated organism, but its genetic coding is simpler than the complex result because it is coded to grow in response to its environment. Thus the brain always reflects its environmental experience and since ultimately most human variation happens in the brain, not the gonads, it is very hard to nail down the genetic components. We can be sure they are there, but we can probably never nail them down at the level of the individual experience because mathematically the individuation of the brain caused by differential wiring of the brain because of smells, tastes, touches, sights, bug bites, amoebas, bacteria, viruses, etc. that are not shared with anyone else, overwhelms them.

You write as if everyone will automatically know what you're referring to. Home videos? Which ones? All studies? Thousands and thousands of studies in different fields and subfields are all garbage?

r134 thinks that this statement at r87: "Neanderthals for example didn't have divisions of labor" actually means 'neanderthal women hunted and sapien women gathered'. Your post at r87 refers to modern humans dividing the hunting and gathering and states re neanderthals "Neanderthals for example didn't have divisions of labor". That is the statement I was disputing and, like I said, I did not at any stage try to argue neanderthal women didn't hunt.. You've not answered my point that they DID have a division of labor. Labor in any society involves more than hunting and gathering, and you cannot argue that neanderthals had no sexual division of labor.

R134 if "there's no evidence that the divergent teeth patterns in Neanderthal men and women means that they performed different tasks based on sex or different tasks at all" then please provide us with an explanation for why the patterns of grooves and chips in teeth enamel in neanderthal females were markedly different to those in neanderthal males (as per link at r110). You're the only one disputing that's evidence of using teeth for different tasks. Amaze us with your knowledge.

Let's see. What do humans do with their mouths that actually helps keep them alive a physically healthy? Cure wool? Make tools? Spout nonsense when they haven't a clue what they're talking about? Oh that's right, we eat! And wouldn't you know that sex differences in food preference and nutritional needs is actually a thing. Helga, bring me the smelling salts!

And would you believe it that these differences in food preferences and nutritional needs can produce divergent patterns of dental wear between the sexes. Holy smokes!

You see when studies present hypotheticals or assumptions based on limited data and no evidence to back them up, it takes a degree of critical thinking skills ( and knowledge of the subject) to figure out whether or not the hypothetical is the most plausabile explanation. There's no concrete evidence of sex based labor division in Neanderthals, that study is merely a hypothetical that as I said before sounds like a reach. If that evidence existed I'm sure that even you could have figured out how to link to it. I'm starting to enjoy picking at you simply because I see how desperately you need to be right.

I liked both. I am male. When little, I enjoyed activities related to both. I

R140, I think this is the study he's talking about.

[quote]Homosexual adults tend to be more gender nonconforming than heterosexual adults in some of their behaviors, feelings, and interests. Retrospective studies have also shown large differences in childhood gender nonconformity, but these studies have been criticized for possible memory biases. The authors studied an indicator of childhood gender nonconformity not subject to such biases: childhood home videos. They recruited homosexual and heterosexual men and women (targets) with videos from their childhood and subsequently asked heterosexual and homosexual raters to judge the gender nonconformity of the targets from both the childhood videos and adult videos made for the study. Prehomosexual children were judged more gender nonconforming, on average, than preheterosexual children, and this pattern obtained for both men and women. This difference emerged early, carried into adulthood, and was consistent with self-report. In addition, targets who were more gender nonconforming tended to recall more childhood rejection.

Homosexual kids and heterosexual kids don't experience the same as they growing up. Most homosexual kids realise their feelings differ from those of heterosexual men given that heterosexuality is intensely promoted and shoved down kids' throat since the day they were born. This immediately makes kids understand their difference from the other males which will impact their lives. Eventually, they will learn to hide that aspect of themselves that makes them different from the rest, they will not develop the same skills to socialise with and relate to other males the way heterosexual kids do given that society and culture doesn't embrace homosexuality. Certainly, because of this, homosexual kids are more likely to feel a disconnection with those who are supposed to love them unconditionally, especially the father and then the other males.

When studying these things one should never forget nor overlook the struggles homosexual kids experience since they are very little because both homosexual kids and heterosexual kids experience life differently given that the world has been designed for one but not for the other.

r143, the tooth wear/damage patterns which differed between male and female neanderthals were found across different sites scattered across Europe. Groups in different parts of Europe, which would have accessed different types and quantities of food resources, showed consistent patterns of tooth damage. Those patterns differed between male and female neanderthals across widespread sites, suggesting the teeth were engaged in different activities in neanderthal culture. Seeing as you're having such a hard time grasping the idea that prehistoric humans also used their teeth for purposes other than eating, see Molnar S (1972) Tooth wear and culture: a survey of tooth functions among some prehistoric populations. Curr Anthropol 13:511–526. The neanderthal diet was largely animal protein based,supplemented with small amounts of vegetable matter, and they hunted mostly large animals, so unless you've got evidence for different diets between male & female neanderthals, your link at r144 is completely irrelevant. Now you're trying to argue that they had no sexual division of labor but a sexual division of diet. I'm happy to be wrong (as I wrote above, it's a learning opportunity), but you've not yet provided any proof that I am. I'll say it again - there is reliable evidence of sexual division of labor among neanderthals.

Will no one reply to R148?

Well, looky here another study showing the influence of dietary behavior on dental erosion, abrasion, and attrition. We know that sex based food preferences exist( and have a genetic component) at least partially due to sex specific nutritional needs. We also know that these sex based food preferences can cause divergent tooth erosion patterns between the sexes. In spite of all of that the only plausible explanation for the divergent tooth erosion patterns that were found among the skeletal remains of Neanderthals is that the they used their teeth to cure wool and chew stones.

If all of your other posts didn't make it clear that you are severely learning disabled your last one sealed the deal. Anyone who ( presumably) read the studies I linked to and still comes back asking such idiotic questions is hopeless. This subject is clearly alien to you.

At this point I just skim your posts ( I only read a few sentences) and chuckle when I see no link ( failed again). Your posts are a collection of words and phrases you discovered in your latest Google search that appear like nothing more than a nonsensical word salad. I won't even try to make sense of that mess. You built your entire argument on something that was presented as an assumption, a hypothetical. The article clearly mentions that it was an assumption yet you presented as fact. You built your house on quicksand but thought it was a good idea to call me obtuse. You made a fool of yourself because you lack the necessary critical thinking skills ( and comprehension) to properly analyze information. There's no concrete evidence of sex based labor division among Neanderthals period. If that concrete evidence existed even someone as daft as you could have linked to it. Stick to subjects you know something about, like eating chips on the couch while scratching.

My 9 year old relative found this book very helpful and gave it excellent reviews. I thought it would perfect you, r149. I think it will help you better understand the difference between 'reliable evidence' and research that even the researcher called an assumption.

Here's another suggestion that could ( but unlikely) do wonders for you. But be sure to read the comprehension book before starting, you don't want to waste 20 minutes a day reading words you don't understand.

r151, You call those little rants evidence that neanderthals ate exactly the same diets, divided along sex lines, in Belgium, France, and Spain? Do you think the researchers at the Spanish National Museum of Natural Sciences wouldn't have considered dietary dental wear? Oh, look here: " Interestingly, this wear was different to the damage usually caused by chewing food. Neanderthals are known to have had extensive anterior dental wear and their teeth often show scratches and chips. This is due to Neanderthals having used their front teeth as a tool for tasks such as food preparation, tool production and preparing skins." So where are your articles refuting their 2015 paper in the Journal of Human Evolution, which found they had a sexual division of labor? Where's your evidence that neanderthals had no sexual division of labor but a sexual division of diet? I don't need to provide more links because you've done NOTHING to refute the link I provided at r110, but here's another one anyway. I'll say it again - there is evidence, which is yet to be disputed (except by imbecilic you, of course), of sexual division of labor among neanderthals. Mock me all you like - it's you who's coming across like a hysterical dimwit.

R154, you're so daft that you post an article that says that these signs 'could be' evidence of sex labor divisions in Neanderthals but in the same post you say it has yet to be disputed. Could you point out the problem with that assertion? Of course you can't. 1) In science speculation doesn't have to be disputed, actual theories do 2) these findings were released earlier this year which means there will be more speculation and attempts to explain divergent dental patterns observed between male and female Neanderthals in the years to come 3) the research was published in that journal based on the factual, observable differences in dental patterns between male and female Neanderthals not because of the assumption as to why they exist, which obviously hasn't been tested.

I know that someone as scientifically illiterate as you are thinks that if you read an assumption ( which clearly means unsure) or 'could be' by scientific researcher that it is a fact or the last word. That's not how science works. There will be many assumptions, hypotheticals, and could bes presented. There will be much more testing or testing to begin with. There is no concrete evidence of sex based divisions of labor in Neanderthals period. I initially entered this discussion because I thought it was interesting until you called me obtuse in your attempt to be right about a subject you know nothing about. So I've enjoyed making you look stupid. You have to be plenty stupid to think that research that even the researcher called an assumption and framed it as ' could be' is factual evidence of sex labor divisions in Neanderthals. You also have to be plenty stupid to post the same research again but this time from a different website. I think I've done my job. Be sure to read those books though.

It's all about neanderthals now.

I know r156. That's not exactly the purpose of this thread. If you look upthread a bit, it is all an effort to prove that we are born blank slates and everything we are is the result of social imprinting. Not only is that patently absurd but it has been thoroughly debunked. It's asinine to think that the only difference between men and women is external and internal sex organs or genitalia.

r155, your links re the lack of sexual division of labor were as much speculation as my links about tooth wear and sexual division. Without a time machine it's all speculation/theories based on available evidence. I'm surprised such an expert on bio anthropology doesn't know that. Activities which varied between male and female neanderthals are the most plausible explanation for the tooth damage, given that they were able to rule out dietary dental wear. The beauty of academic research is that academic peers will refute flawed work, so find me a better explanation for the variations in patterns of tooth damage between male and female neanderthals across Europe. You rant and rant but you've provided no better explanation or refutation of the 2015 research. It's cute that the same dolt who posted two 2006 links to the same research calls me stupid for doing the same thing re the 2015 findings. I showed our conversation to a consultant anthropologist I'm working with on an upcoming native title trial. He's one of the most recognized and respected anthropologists in Australia. He thinks you're a buffoon and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary.

r157, link to posts showing "an effort to prove that we are born blank slates and everything we are is the result of social imprinting", or stick your straw man up your ass.

That's because many feminists think in order to be equal to men they have to be exactly like men. Let's not even get into the gay "dude bros" who pretend to be masculine on the Internet and flock to these topics with all sorts of bizarre theories.

Funny you react so defensively when I didn't name you specifically, r159. Pretty telling.....You seem determined to derail this thread by fighting with everyone who doesn't agree with you. In any event, r86 sounds a lot like blank slate to me. It would be a good idea to learn the differences between gender roles and gender expression. Some of us are actually interested in the topic of the thread so since you can't handle anyone disagreeing with you without getting so defensive perhaps you should find a thread where everyone agrees with everything you say so all can be right with the world. I' m not going to fight with you for days on end so perhaps you should find a better target.

R157 Really? I thought the purpose of this thread was another covert way to sneak in Tranny-bashing on this forum. I saw it as "Were you a gender non-conforming child? Because in todays generation your parents would have falsely labeled you trans and started giving you hormones and puberty blockers"

Y'know because we don't see that same point being made on this site a million times a day.

You're projecting your own insecurities and biases onto my inkblot of a thread, R162. This was simply done out of curiosity to see how self-rated GNC behaviour as children is distributed, with DL as a microcosm of the broader gay community. As expected, it forms a bell curve.

R163 Why would observing an abnormal hostility towards transgenders on this forum make me "insecure" ?? or does the mere fact that I notice it mean that you are accusing me of being Trans? (which im not)

Anyways I said "I thought" I still think that honestly, but I never claimed to know for sure what your intentions were. It doesn't really matter anyways.

R161, the post at r86 is perfectly consistent with the Oxford Dictionary definition of gender, which is "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)"? Please show us where people have argued that there are no biological or behavioral differences between males and females. Please show us where, in your words, posters have argued that "everything we are is the result of social imprinting". I wouldn't argue that behavioral differences between men and women are entirely down to environment and social conditioning because I don't believe it.

Guys just put r165 on ignore. Don't engage. Obviously there's some sort of...erm..."issue" going on there.

There are a few minor (or major, depending on how you look at it) biological differences between males and females, but modern masculine and feminine gender roles are nearly entirely socially constructed. There is no gene that makes boys want to cut their hair short and dominate STEM and tech fields; likewise there is no gene that makes little girls love pink and aspire to nursing and secretarial careers.

I remember this documentary about a woman who lost half her body to a disease when she was a child. She is very masculine, loves cars and her role model was her father. She's heterosexual and has a family of her own.

Shouldn't her heterosexuality dictate femininity rather than masculinity for her?

What happens when your role models and interests switch from masculine to feminine during adolescence? And how does that explain anything?

Sooo whether you believe in gender essentialism or gender constructivism, the trans narrative still doesn't make sense from either perspective, does it?

[quote]There is no gene that makes boys want to cut their hair short and dominate STEM and tech fields; likewise there is no gene that makes little girls love pink and aspire to nursing and secretarial careers.

Well there wouldn't be a single gene - that's a glib oversimplification on your part. There's probably a number of biological (including pre-natal epigenetic and hormonal influences) and social factors at play.

[quote][italic]Amid ongoing public speculation about the reasons for sex differences in careers in science and mathematics, we present a consensus statement that is based on the best available scientific evidence. Sex differences in science and math achievement and ability are smaller for the mid-range of the abilities distribution than they are for those with the highest levels of achievement and ability. Males are more variable on most measures of quantitative and visuospatial ability, which necessarily results in more males at both high- and low-ability extremes; the reasons why males are often more variable remain elusive. Successful careers in math and science require many types of cognitive abilities. Females tend to excel in verbal abilities, with large differences between females and males found when assessments include writing samples. High-level achievement in science and math requires the ability to communicate effectively and comprehend abstract ideas, so the female advantage in writing should be helpful in all academic domains. Males outperform females on most measures of visuospatial abilities, which have been implicated as contributing to sex differences on standardized exams in mathematics and science. An evolutionary account of sex differences in mathematics and science supports the conclusion that, although sex differences in math and science performance have not directly evolved, they could be indirectly related to differences in interests and specific brain and cognitive systems. We review the brain basis for sex differences in science and mathematics, describe consistent effects, and identify numerous possible correlates. Experience alters brain structures and functioning, so causal statements about brain differences and success in math and science are circular. A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to sex differences in mathematics and science achievement and ability—including the effects of family, neighborhood, peer, and school influences; training and experience; and cultural practices. We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics.[italic]

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

Talking about boy/men cutting their hair very short. I think that stems from the New Testament because there are passages in which men are instructed to cut their hair short becasue men are the image of god on Earth so they must let their face completely visible. On the other hand, women must keep thei hair long.

(1 Corinthians 11:14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

(1 Corinthians 11:7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

(1 Corinthians 11:15) But if a woman lets her hair grow, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.

I've always wondered where homosexuals fit in all of this? I mean where do we fit with regard to male vs female brain differences? I always see research on homosexuality that only seems interested in the origin of homosexuality while neglecting things like gender expression.

Studies have shown that women use more words during the day than men. Is this also true for lesbians? Do lesbians use more words than men but fewer than straight women? Do gay men use fewer words than women but more than straight men? Do gay men communicate better than straight men, worse than straight women? Are lesbians better at math than straight women? It would be interesting research to see if sexual orientation has any impact on any of this.

I am a guy who loves guys. I don't feel nor wish to be a woman.

I'm kind of nerdy, shy. I don't speak with a lisp, I don't move or walk feminine. I don't speak nor walk STEREOTYPICALLY masculine either. My nerdy and kind of non-aggressive nature makes me be found somewhere in the middle of both gender expressions but more on my masculine side.

I have male and female friends. Even though I like to spend time with my female friends I usually get bored around them if I'm the only male. We share the same attraction to guys but don't experience life and our attraction for men the same way so I don't really relate to them in this matter. I think this is true for many gay guys too. We both love men but we don't feel the same way because they are women and we are men.

The fact that I am a guy who likes guys doesn't mean that I am a woman or that I must feel like a woman to validate my same-sex attraction.

[quote]Studies have shown that women use more words during the day than men. Is this also true for lesbians? Do lesbians use more words than men but fewer than straight women? Do gay men use fewer words than women but more than straight men? Do gay men communicate better than straight men, worse than straight women? Are lesbians better at math than straight women? It would be interesting research to see if sexual orientation has any impact on any of this.

Apparently so.

On verbal fluency:

[italic]This study examined the performance of 60 heterosexual men, 60 gay men, 60 heterosexual women, and 60 lesbians on 3 tests of verbal fluency known to show gender differences: letter, category, and synonym fluency. Gay men and lesbians showed opposite-sex shifts in their profile of scores. For letter fluency, gay men outperformed all other groups; lesbians showed the lowest scores. For category fluency, gay men and heterosexual women jointly outperformed lesbians and heterosexual men. Finally, gay men outperformed all other groups on synonym fluency, whereas lesbians and heterosexual men performed similarly. A difference between heterosexual men and women was demonstrated on category and synonym fluency only. The findings implicate within-sex differences in the functioning of the prefrontal and temporal cortices.[/italic]

Spatial ability.

[italic]This study examined the performance of heterosexual and homosexual men and women on 2 tests of spatial processing, mental rotation (MR) and Benton Judgment of Line Orientation (JLO). The sample comprised 60 heterosexual men, 60 heterosexual women, 60 homosexual men, and 60 homosexual women. There were significant main effects of gender (men achieving higher scores overall) and Gender×Sexual Orientation interactions. Decomposing these interactions revealed large differences between the male groups in favor of heterosexual men on JLO and MR performance. There was a modest difference between the female groups on MR total correct scores in favor of homosexual women but no differences in MR percentage correct. The evidence suggests possible variations in the parietal cortex between homosexual and heterosexual persons. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)[/italic]

More.

Thanks r176. That's exactly what I was looking for and what I suspected. It seems that in some ways at least that we are an intermediary. Great info.

You're welcome R179. It perhaps explains why there have been so many gay writers and poets. WH Auden, Tennessee Williams, Oscar Wilde, Alan Bennett, Truman Capote, Arthur C. Clarke, Noël Coward, E. M. Forster, Allen Ginsberg, Christopher Isherwood, A. E. Housman, Larry Kramer, Arthur Rimbaud, Thornton Wilder, John Ashbery etc.

How do you explain the so many heterosexual male writers and poets?

Probably just natural in group variation. There's an average that some people will fall below and others will be well above.

[quote]How do you explain the so many heterosexual male writers and poets?

How do you explain the relative deficit of gay male mathematicians, physicists, engineers or even golfers?

Alan Turing was a brilliant exception.

See? You can't.

Trying to impose certain behaviour on people according to their sexual orientation is stupid and it reinforces stereotypes and, as usual, stereotypes oversimplify the complexity of human nature not allowing to you to see diversity.

Heterosexism forces most heterosexual men to conform to behaviours society deem masculine. Even if they don't desire to be stereotypically masculine they feel forced to meet such expectation for the fear of segregation.

I used to be part of the Visual Kei scene which a Japanese subculture and music that is characterised by extreme androgyny to the point where, if the man has the right traits, he could easily pass as a woman. Most of the people who make up this subculture are heterosexual men; not homosexual. A girl friend of mine had a boyfriend who joined the scene because of her, but at the same time, he told us that he always felt fascinated by women's clothes and mannerisms since childhood. It made him happy being able to dress feminine and not being judged for it. He didn't desire men, he is heterosexual. By the way, he didn't like Visual Kei music much, haha.

Me joining the Visual Kei scene wasn't because there I could express my repressed effeminate personality. I joined mainly because I fell in love with the music. Then I loved the theatrical element and the gender-switching as a shock element.

Most Visual Kei musicians are also heterosexual men, they play around with genders and defy the conformity of Japanese society. In fact, many of them write lyrics form a woman's perspective and sing as if they were one.

You will find gender non-conforming people in every sexual orientation.

Gender expression is not a fixed trait. You can switch and blend, you can take from here and there. It is permanently subject to change.

[quote[I used to be part of the Visual Kei scene which a Japanese subculture and music that is characterised by extreme androgyny to the point where, if the man has the right traits, he could easily pass as a woman.

Is that you, PMBT?

No one is imposing any sets of behavior on all men or women. We're reflecting on averages, not absolutes.

Gender expression isn't a fix trait only in that people can choose to behave in ways that aren't in line with their natural inclinations. However, the idea that we are victims of a repressive society that forces us to behave in ways that aren't natural to us is inaccurate. Gender expression isn't random. There are very real reasons for men tending to be more exploratory, aggressive, risk taking.... and women tending to be cautious,practical, group oriented.....

R186 Acronyms are annoying when they are not massively known so refrain form using them if they will cause confusion.

Onna-bugeisha (女武芸者).

Long before the emergence of the renowned samurai class, Japanese fighters were highly trained to wield a sword and spear. Women learned to use naginata, kaiken, and the art of tantojutsu in battle. Such training ensured protection in communities that lacked male fighters. One such woman, later known as Empress Jingu (c. 169-269 AD), used her skills to inspire economic and social change. She was legendarily recognized as the onna bugeisha who led an invasion of Korea in 200 AD after her husband Emperor Chūai, the fourteenth emperor of Japan, was slain in battle. According to the legend, she miraculously led a Japanese conquest of Korea without shedding a drop of blood. Despite controversies surrounding her existence and her accomplishments, she was an example of the onna bugeisha in its entirety. Years after her death, Jingu was able to transcend the socioeconomic structures that were instilled in Japan. In 1881, Empress Jingū became the first woman to be featured on a Japanese banknote. Designed to stop counterfeiting, her image was printed on oblong paper.

During the earlier Heian and Kamakura periods, women who were prominent on the battlefield were the exception rather than the rule. Japanese ideals of femininity predisposed most women to powerlessness, in conflict with a female warrior role.[2] Women warriors were nonetheless.

There are so many female weightlifters, perfectly heterosexual, but in most of them it was a male role model that drove them to develop a passion fos and activity that society associates with masculonity and many times thye might make display of some masculine mannerisms. Still that doesn't affect their heterosexuality.

Stereotypes

I always picked Peach in Nintendo games.

I'm glad I was a kid in the 90s and not now. I definitely would have been diagnosed.

CORN! WHEN DID I EAT CORN?

Why does anyone even care about this? People upthread are demanding studies to "prove" their point of view, links to sources, bla bla bla. Why does it matter? People are free to be who they are and how they are. It makes no difference to the lives of others unless those others are pathetic insecure people who have nothing better to do with their time than obsess about how other people live their lives or "express" themselves.

It's the anti-trans trolls flooding DL with their spew, R195. They show up late at night our time (because they're mostly in the UK) and try to take over the board. They do a mix of posting new threads and bumping old ones like these, then go running to Twitter or Mumsnet or whatever and link to us and say "Look, the gays agree with us!"

It is pathetic, you're 100% right about that.

I was pretty good at sports but better at music,art and drama, so other than making the occasional team, I was a fem boy who checked all the boxes.

How does the 2015 troll even find these threads? Must take a special talent.

I hated team sports, still do. Individual ones I like doing, but not watching. On sports days and such I just fucked off down to the mall or the local pool hall. Nobody was gonna pick me cos I was shit and I didnt want to be there so I wasnt. And I wasnt missed

In most other ways I was fairly gender conforming. Dont ever remember having the slightest interest in cross dressing or girls toys etc, did read quite a lot, mostly scifi and car books

- Avoid rough and tumble play? No. I climbed trees, played in the dirt Played army a lot.

- Prefer to play with dolls, pots and pans and other typically feminine toys to trucks and soldiers? I was into trucks and tractors. First Tonka trucks and later Matchbox trucks & tractors. Never had a doll.

- Cross-dress? Never

- Hate team sports? I was uncoordinated and not good at sports. I did like softball.

- Exhibit feminine mannerisms and speech patterns (hand flapping, gay voice, hands on hips etc.) Nope

- Have more female friends than male friends? No female friends only male ones. And we did some showing each other our "dinks" as we called them. After puberty jerking off together. That's when I knew I liked guys.