That would make sense, but in that I case I wonder which characteristics constitute the “masculinity” or “feminity”, and what is their relative weight in the set. Again, to use myself as an example, I don’t like drinking beer, and I don’t like watching football or hockey—and I wonder how many masculinity points did I lose by that: 1% or 20%? On the other hand, how many masculinity points do I get for being good at math, or being a computer programmer, or enjoying rationality?
I think that while many people would in general agree that there is a “masculinity” and “feminity” scale, if we tried to talk about details (like: how many points of masculinity scale you lose for not being interested in football or beer), we would find out that we actually don’t agree on what the scale consists of, because there would be wildly different definitions given e.g. by different social classes. I imagine that for a working class, beer and football are pretty important masculine characteristics, but much less important for the middle class. (Or by country: I guess Russian men drink vodka, and French men don’t lose masculinity points for preferring wine.) So the archetypal example of a “man” could turn out to be mostly an archetypal example of a “working-class man (in my country)”.
So where is all this extra variation coming from in the first place?
Testosterone level seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
But if we accept that the concepts of “masculinity” and “feminity” depend on culture (subculture, social group, etc.) then simply coming from a different subculture may cause one to identify differently with expectations of the culture they live in. To give a silly example, if I would move to a hypothetical country where all men are expected to jump on one leg all day long, while women can walk normally, there is a chance I would get labeled as a ‘feminine walker’, and I might even choose such label for myself. If there would be too many such labels, maybe I would conclude that I am more feminine in general.
But these are, like, two completely different topics: (1) feeling comfortable in a body shaped by given hormones, and (2) feeling comfortable with cultural gender norms. Those are not the same thing. For example, enjoying neither beer nor football is not the same as wanting one’s penis removed. I can think that a masculine archetype (some exaggerated version of a working-class man) is silly in many aspects, but still feel quite comfortable in my body.
I think that while many people would in general agree that there is a “masculinity” and “feminity” scale, if we tried to talk about details (like: how many points of masculinity scale you lose for not being interested in football or beer), we would find out that we actually don’t agree on what the scale consists of, because there would be wildly different definitions given e.g. by different social classes.
While I expect that different people would wildly disagree about absolute positions of different characteristics on that scale, I would also think that there would be much more agreement about relative positions, that is, about which one of the two alternatives is more masculine and which one is more feminine.
To give a silly example
A silly example defeats the point, because the underlying issue is to what degree biological differences drive social expectations and to what degree these social expectations are independent of biological differences.
Yeah, but I suspect we have a “motte and bailey” type situation here.
Either we suppose huge differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behavior, in which case I would argue that the majority of men and women do not belong into these categories… or we suppose small differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behavior, in which case such small difference does not per se explain why someone would be uncomfortable with their body.
In other words, if “masculinity” means “being the Hulk”, that would perfectly explain why someone born biologically female, who feels and behaves like the Hulk, would want a sex change. However, it should be noted that most men actually are not the Hulk.
On the other hand, if “masculinity” means “slightly more competitive at sports and willing to take risks”, that would apply to many men. But it wouldn’t explain why a woman who is slighly more competitive at sports and wiling to take risks, wants to have her sex changed surgically.
Either we suppose huge differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behavior, … or we suppose small differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behavior
And why would we do such a stupid thing?
It seems obvious to me that some differences between men and women are quite pronounced, and some are very minor if they exist at all. There is a whole spectrum of differences and trying to force them into a black/white dichotomy seems misguided.
if “masculinity” means
Biologically or socially? Social markers of gender tend to change; biological stuff is pretty well fixed.
That would make sense, but in that I case I wonder which characteristics constitute the “masculinity” or “feminity”, and what is their relative weight in the set. Again, to use myself as an example, I don’t like drinking beer, and I don’t like watching football or hockey—and I wonder how many masculinity points did I lose by that: 1% or 20%? On the other hand, how many masculinity points do I get for being good at math, or being a computer programmer, or enjoying rationality?
I think that while many people would in general agree that there is a “masculinity” and “feminity” scale, if we tried to talk about details (like: how many points of masculinity scale you lose for not being interested in football or beer), we would find out that we actually don’t agree on what the scale consists of, because there would be wildly different definitions given e.g. by different social classes. I imagine that for a working class, beer and football are pretty important masculine characteristics, but much less important for the middle class. (Or by country: I guess Russian men drink vodka, and French men don’t lose masculinity points for preferring wine.) So the archetypal example of a “man” could turn out to be mostly an archetypal example of a “working-class man (in my country)”.
Testosterone level seems like a reasonable hypothesis.
But if we accept that the concepts of “masculinity” and “feminity” depend on culture (subculture, social group, etc.) then simply coming from a different subculture may cause one to identify differently with expectations of the culture they live in. To give a silly example, if I would move to a hypothetical country where all men are expected to jump on one leg all day long, while women can walk normally, there is a chance I would get labeled as a ‘feminine walker’, and I might even choose such label for myself. If there would be too many such labels, maybe I would conclude that I am more feminine in general.
But these are, like, two completely different topics: (1) feeling comfortable in a body shaped by given hormones, and (2) feeling comfortable with cultural gender norms. Those are not the same thing. For example, enjoying neither beer nor football is not the same as wanting one’s penis removed. I can think that a masculine archetype (some exaggerated version of a working-class man) is silly in many aspects, but still feel quite comfortable in my body.
While I expect that different people would wildly disagree about absolute positions of different characteristics on that scale, I would also think that there would be much more agreement about relative positions, that is, about which one of the two alternatives is more masculine and which one is more feminine.
A silly example defeats the point, because the underlying issue is to what degree biological differences drive social expectations and to what degree these social expectations are independent of biological differences.
Yeah, but I suspect we have a “motte and bailey” type situation here.
Either we suppose huge differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behavior, in which case I would argue that the majority of men and women do not belong into these categories… or we suppose small differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behavior, in which case such small difference does not per se explain why someone would be uncomfortable with their body.
In other words, if “masculinity” means “being the Hulk”, that would perfectly explain why someone born biologically female, who feels and behaves like the Hulk, would want a sex change. However, it should be noted that most men actually are not the Hulk.
On the other hand, if “masculinity” means “slightly more competitive at sports and willing to take risks”, that would apply to many men. But it wouldn’t explain why a woman who is slighly more competitive at sports and wiling to take risks, wants to have her sex changed surgically.
And why would we do such a stupid thing?
It seems obvious to me that some differences between men and women are quite pronounced, and some are very minor if they exist at all. There is a whole spectrum of differences and trying to force them into a black/white dichotomy seems misguided.
Biologically or socially? Social markers of gender tend to change; biological stuff is pretty well fixed.