Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
I'm not saying that it's one way or the other. I'm just suggesting that automatically attributing to socialization is irresponsible.
|
Just as irresponsible as attributing them to biology
Quote:
|
Yes, Dr. Money was a whack job. Are you suggesting that raising him as a boy for 1.5 years somehow damaged his successful gender transition to a woman?
|
No, I'm saying we don't know if it did or not.
Quote:
|
What about boys with 5-alpha reductase deficiency or CAH girls with male-typical cognitive abilities? Or research on non-human animal sexuality? Or the massive evidence across many areas of human psychology.
|
Generalizing a theory for the entire human race based on abnormal samples is very Freudian of you
Look we have very good evidence that socialization is a major factor in gender-role-stereotypes. Look at what used to happen 200 years ago. Something traumatic would happen and the woman would faint. Might take weeks for her to recover from the shock. That doesn't happen so much any more now does it? But then we no longer treat women like tall infants who need constant care and pampering lest they break.
Quote:
|
Note: I'm not suggesting that socialization doesn't occur. What I'm suggesting is that we can't simply attribute something to nature or nurture without proper investigation.
|
In which case you and I are closer to agreement on this thread than you think - namely that it's pretty pointless because none of us has done that investigation, nor are we qualified to do so. The OP spouted some blatant, vague, and unsubstantiated stereotypes and then wanted us to chew on them. OK, we bit, but the bottom line is that none of us is a psychologist engaged in a study of gender differentiation etiology, so the thread can't really go anywhere. It's kinda like asking how to fix a '65 mustang in a floral arrangement forum.
Quote:
|
My point was in response to your statement that we needed to screw with someone's childhood in order to tease apart innateness/socialization arguments of sexual identity. We don't need to screw with anyone's childhood to examine the arguments any more than we need to watch evolution happen in a test tube to validate evolutionary theory.
|
You're getting way off the track here. People didn't just witch up the idea of evolution while lying in bed at night. They saw evidence in the fossil record and put it together. You seem to be suggesting that we conduct thought experiments and then claim that the results mirror reality.
Many scientists have fallen into that trap - the ones, for instance, who claimed we could never break the speed of sound. They conducted a thought experiment, but fortunately someone decided to ignore what people knew from those dubious experiments, build a plane, and actually try to fly the damn thing past mach 1. Clearly I'm not suggesting that this needs to be done here - nor should it for the ethical reasons that should be obvious to us all. What I AM suggesting is that without that experimental data we can never be 100% sure that our theories on this branch of gender psychology are correct. I'm also suggesting that this is OK - we don't NEED to know, especially if the cost of knowing is the destruction of the experimental subjects' lives.