Human sexual drive and the negation of gender diversity

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Not correct in all thats been said. not all males are the same as youv said

so that needs to be brought in to perspctive, soft males those who are total not masculin those of us who dont fit the male ideal .

as i keep bringing this up intersexed, & even then we are all different with in our section of life,

Two, not all females have children . standared bog .no.

As to dear have you worked with them . i have & in close quarters it can be quite different , being confind, tho its right in the fields,
& what does a alpha male have that others dont have. self apiniated thinks hes the cats p j’s right, full of him self , & a arrgant sod ,
& a put down to us women thinks hes the boss, yeap meet them . & thers more, to boot.

& any way this so called game is just that a contrived game by a few,

Oh by the way im not a competitve person .never was . & we have 3 grown up kids & 9 grand kids. funny that.

Oh allmost for got acceptance comes by being involved with people & allowing them in to .your life , sorry not shunded as said because of difference, being indifferent yes being different no,.

oh well a start, ill just go get my flack jacket

…noeleena…

[Anonymous]

Greetings all,

With some interest and certainly a lot of respect I read Christina’s views on gender/sexuality and the mating game. I have though a few comments/reservations. I suspect the territorial imperative and hence the analogy with the animal kingdom is perhaps overvalued and indeed limited for a few basic reasons. While reproduction and the existence of a suitable heir to the conquered territory is a consideration it is not primary and probably is only a concern later in life as age translates into waning strength for the alpha male. The rather elementary assumptions of the ‘survival of the fittest’ in reproduction between super individuals will produce super offspring seems more victorian myth than reality at least in the short term effects of evolution and its impact on daily life. I think neither the territorial imperative nor evolution of the species is the point of the ‘game’ as Christina describes it but possibly only a long term and probably inadvertent consequence. Importantly, and for reasons I shall touch upon this qualifies her views and ultimately effects the status and choices available to the transgendered as I see it.

First of all the human species and the cultural rules it constructs and works within are a complex phenomena and I am not convinced that there are simple deductive conclusions readily available that will help those of us on the fringes know our place. Marriage is first of all is not about reproduction (or historically about love even) but alliance. It is this simple but structuring fact/truth that defines eligibility in the human/social world. This is incidentally also obviously very important to the argument for gay marriage rights that goes beyond love and reproduction to an emphasis on social bonding/unit. It is alliance and rather than reproductive image, though both often collude as political/social constructions that brings status/power and only a distant second, the benefits of regular sex (fuckability). A male marries to increase the domain of his power by establishing relationships with another group (hence the prohibition on marrying within your own family as well as the less tangible/ negotiable results that qualify same sex marriage). The supermodel sells her body because it is her best and probably only asset (as usually she has no family status to bargain with) whereas cultured/ powerful/ educated /wealthy woman do’t aspire to be supermodels or get alpha male partners (except as playmates and vice versa).

So the alpha male/supermodel game is really the domain of prime time fantasy. Life don’t really work like that. The transgendered are not marginalised on the basis of reproduction but more simply because they are a minority in terms of presence (numbers) and potential visible and viable status/power (a desirable alliance). Here it is interesting to note that with increasing social acceptance and importantly because of shear ‘numbers’, gay marriages are to some extent moving towards the same mainstream representative conclusions: marriage as alliance (as reproduction can be replaced by adoption) as has been historically the case in heterosexual marriages. Again it is notable throughout history that biology, the passing on of genes (and/or love for that matter) is of little relevance in terms of establishing an heir apparent to the throne which as every royal story/dynasty informs us is about appearances: political grunt and economic power. Consider media Alpha male Rupert Murdock’s approach: ‘if I think it,.. it shall be so”. Given the Murdock example can anyone really imagine that while Wendy is ever so attractive as a woman she is even more exquisite as a key to the asian/chinese media market. But two super sexual powerhouse images fortunately don’t equate to the reproduction of a dominate super race of oversexed imaginable offspring- such as the beautiful people of Hollywood tabloids would have us believe-or in other terms will James continue to be on the board of News Corp? – certainly the outcome will be complex beyond the Alpha male’s word of reproduction.

This is of course allows all of us minority groups to breath a sigh of relief as we need not contemplate suicide just yet because we’re not fuckable/reproducible as the only way to validate our presence in society. Equity and fairness are essential values and worth standing up for as well as offering an alternative side of the morale coin contradicting in part Christina’s emphasis on the alpha male model. To console the transgendered, life may indeed be about power and conquest but reproduction is not the only interesting strategy or summary conclusion. I suspect there is more than one model of relationships working in parallel if not in contradiction that makes culture more than just a game- or more cynically a very sophisticated game. Personally I would always be disposed to err on the part of the underdog in the defence of a common humanity against the spectre of a master race-produced by the alpha males’ perfect offspring. As a transgendered person I view the entrance qualifications for the mating ‘game’ of little interest for me- or at least I find consolation here. Perhaps it is just the anti-hero in me but as Graucho Marx /Woody Allen would say: “I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club that would want me as a member” -Should I really be concerned with Alpha males and supermodels?

cheers,
Sonya

[Anonymous]

Noeleena, I did ask people to not refer to the personal in this thread.You have done this and I do consider it off topic as a result. I am after a philosophical debate here.
Of course ALL men are NOT the same( not competitive etc) , though the exception can often prove the rule . I am talking generally about the species and it’s drives and how we adapt those to our complex social interactions.

I challenge you to give me an example where a HUMAN activity contradicts my argument and be prepared to defend that opinion.

As for Sonya, I am glad you posted, good argument. I will consider your thoughts and reply in more detail shortly.

[Anonymous]

Sonya, on reading your post I feel that you have attached too much emphasis on the alpha male example. It was only meant to be “evidence” and not the whole argument.

You are right, marriage is about alliance and material wealth more than genetic inheritance but why do we seek to ally?Why other than to provide material and territorial security for ” our ” people( on both sides) . Why do we seek this security for “our ” people to the detriment of the “other”? Because that way our own genetic line is improved and maintained. British History is an example of how Dynasty’s were created on the back of basically political marriages but that brings us to an interesting and important point.
It is not only our genes that we work to pass on but also our memes. How often did we hear that by making war ( say on Afghanistan ) that we were trying to preserve ” our way of life , our values , our Civilization ? We value ” our ” thoughts above the thoughts ,culture and values of strangers ( maybe not the critically self conscious minded amongst us!)

The whole “we are ONE” view of the world is a very recent one in human history and you don’t have to dig very deep to show how hypocritical this can be when one’s own family and welfare are threatened. A wildebeest will risk death for her own calf and yet standby when her sisters calf is taken by hyenas. Are we so different?

I take note when reports of an Aussie soldier is killed by Taliban and is lauded as a good soldier and a warrior ( read good at killing people!) but never hear that 20 Taliban are described as fathers, sons , brothers etc. Not to say that their cause is right or just but they are humans just like “our ” soldiers. We just don’t VALUE them as much as our own .

I contend that anything to do with improving ourselves such as education ( status), making our life more comfortable , lighting a fire on a frosty night ( survival) , forming and maintaining peer groups -having a coffee with friends or joining TgR! ( alliances)- is about being in the game.

We are a social animal and we act from the same motives as our animal cousins. We may , due to our beliefs about our ” higher ” being , find this uncomfortable, but that does not make it less true.

I challenge you to give me a specific example that goes against my contention.

We , as a marginalized group, may not be so typical as the ” mainstream” though a careful watch of the news and the issues of importance in other people’s lives will give you plenty of examples of my argument.

BTW , I do not blame anyone for acting in their own self interest – it is human nature and we all have a share of that nature I contend.

[Anonymous]

Dear Christina,

You do indeed provoke me, and I will with pleasure try to pick up the gauntlet and hopefully without unduly tripping over my dress. Perhaps it would be best if, as you say, we left the alpha male to one side and instead looked at your proposition of group dynamics, which for you has some foundation in the animal kingdom. You indeed contend that we at heart still bear many similarities to animals as part and parcel of human nature. In what follows I would like to question your assertions on ‘instincts’, debate your assumptions on ‘human nature’ and argue for ‘reason’ as a critique and alternative to accepting social groups dynamics. Please at this point accept my assumption that we are probably not very far apart in our respective views and simply enjoy to tease out our differences.

You say, “we are a social animal and we act from the same motives as our animal cousins….”

Further, you contend that we ‘behave like animals’.

In the first instance you suggest we are like animals in forming social groups for our own survival and all related behavior regardless of sophistication of motive (education/betterment) can be reduced to playing the ‘game’. This you interpret as instinct culminating in the fundamental identification with one group to the detriment of other groups. Group dynamics based upon/through oppositional or adversarial differences.

Certainly I would agree on one side that the evidence of history points to a woefully continuous oration of man’s inhumanity to man. No issue between us here.

But, I would further suggest or contend that this expression “behaving like animals” is in my opinion unfair to animals, and in truth a not very subtle slight against the animal kingdom that allows us to hide behind that rather dodgy and universally ambiguous quality we call ‘human nature’. A quality to which the whole of literature is devoted to undress/explain and having no answers after two thousand years we are left with the pleasure of the text alone. -Let me explain.

Is there a difference between human nature and animal instincts? I think there is. First of all I don’t think animals play the ‘game’. The assumption of a game implies reasoning and strategy. Reasoning and strategy is not the same as instinct. What is the difference between a man and a tiger? In simple terms a tiger awakes each day to rediscover what it means to be a tiger –to survive by instinct not reason. A man, on the contrary, awakens conscious of the events of yesterday and formulates his needs, creating strategies to confront the problems and joys he is able to conceptualize through his memory. Without memory we could not formulate the values we live by; those arbitrary and abstract oppositions between ‘us and them’ that define society and the ‘game’. We don’t really behave like animals. As must be obvious there is no evidence that animals operate/behave on the basis of values. There doesn’t seem to be hatred or vengeance between them. They don’t arbitrarily oppress others on the basis of preferred values. There is no evidence that an animal kills or intentionally tortures their own kind for pleasure yet it there is ample evidence that could ascribe this behavior, as you contend, as an inevitable part of human nature.

Why?.. Because we play the game. As you say, we are social by nature. I am certainly in agreement here as my earlier discussion of marriage suggests. Animal societies though are different from ours because their societies are limited in cooperation and only extend to a specific species in a given physical area –a known rather than hypothesized world. Perhaps they are more fortunate in that all of a single species looks the same and a complex hierarchy of discrimination imposed by arbitrary values doesn’t seem to stimulate them to indecent behaviour. By contrast, human societies necessarily confront diversity not only of physical variation but more importantly through contrasting idealizations of values. To be a force for survival at whatever level you may wish to discuss, societies and culture are by definition coercive. Ideas and more particularly ideals are coercive. This is why as you note we are in Afghanistan and other similar conflicts.

Here, in my opinion lies the problem. There is nothing instinctual in the willingness to oppress. Our societies exist ostensively on the basis of good reasons; a logic of identification/shared meaning- ideal values. Yet the good reasons are value judgments, which, are in turn, translate into social injunctions that become exclusions. Human society. with increasing complexity ultimately confronts through language the need to arbitrarily make increasingly precise definitions to communicate meaning and values. But with precision, in my opinion necessarily comes a shift in perspective from proscriptive value definitions (“you ought to”) to narrower prescriptive formulations of (“you must”) as groups search for internal coherence through self-definition, a progressive magnification of the ‘us and them’ proposition. Ultimately as the sociologist Max Webber stated ‘power corrupts’. This ‘propensity for limiting conditions’ stands as an interesting /yet contradictory principle to your acknowledgement (and implicitly Globalism’s as well) that we are moving towards a ‘whole’ of ‘we are one’. In the midst of all this ‘oneness’ and the opportunity for exploitation that seems to accompany it there is a growing parallel movement towards a fundamentalist conservatism. Recently by example, an American presidential hopeful has even vowed to put creationism back in American schools. The rise of fundamentalism is an international phenomenon and I’m sure we both will agree a dangerous one.

You challenged me to provide examples that contradict the animal nature of society and with it I suspect a rather stereotyped set of assumptions on human nature as a given quality perhaps, containing equal measures of good and evil. While you are correct in asserting the difficulty of finding contemporary examples where the ‘game is not a part of life, you are wrong in assuming this as a given for human nature. There are numerous examples of basic societies, aboriginal ones here and elsewhere that have lived for thousands of years without the conceptual frameworks required to exclude/oppress by definition as a vehicle to form cohesive internal structures-‘groups’- the assumption or foundations that there must be a game. This is evidenced by the absence of linguistic expressions that would facilitate the more coercive aspects of game playing and the violent behavior that accompanies them.

I will try to conclude by summarizing my areas of concern/difference. My contention is that there is no ‘given quality’ that we can implicitly define as ‘human nature’ but more poignantly a wealth of evidence for learned behavior. So in answer to your conclusion I must say that I do blame someone for acting in self-interest and no I don’t agree it is a given part of human nature any more than I would assume there can be a blanket assumption of good and evil within any ‘typical individual’ as an ‘excuse for gaming’. Indifference and self-interest, which comes at the expense/ disadvantage to someone else, must be opposed on principle not qualified by group standards. I don’t agree (and here it may well be a question of interpreting behavioral forms/standards) that mine (or anyone else’s for that matter) interactions, at all levels of discourse, can be simply ascribed to instinctual group dynamics; the play of power and status.

So as all of ‘our group’ who have waded this far through the discussion are probably asking: what is the significance of this for us as a transgendered minority. I think that probably we are mistaken in any assumptions to be included in the game but not because it is instinctual or human nature exclude- I know I won’t win any friends with this observation. In both India and parts of Polynesia the transgendered are recognized and integrated –given social status. But the more rationally (and that rationality is what makes us human) because we are too small a minority group to reasonably expect to influence the ‘group’. On a personal note I return to the question of why I need to play the game anyway. One side of the coin we hold in our hands certainly describes everyone’s experiences, and levels of accompanying anxiety that defines us as ‘different’. On the other side of the same coin I prefer to look at it more positively as I’m blessed to understand difference in a way others don’t- painful but interesting. I have no interest in joining a group I don’t identify with or want to play their game, or validate their rules. It is not a question of all or nothing. Finally, as Bertram Russell stated in his defense of atheism that when you look up at the stars above on a clear night, you realize that reality and the meaning of the world we live in just can’t be reduced to such a simplistic and mechanical ethnocentrism of a god and values made in our image or through our group’s ideals. We are ultimately fortunate to have the ability to ‘reason’, and to ‘wonder’, both capacities not only being more entertaining and rewarding than the instinct for survival but uniquely human.

cheers,
Sonya

[Anonymous]

Touche Sonya!!! Your post is more than I can take in at once but as I am keen for the fray, I will dive in regardless.

First I would like to counter your assertion that I am being unfair to animals. I think that it is you who are being unfair in condemning them to mere instinct rather than reason. Do you not think that a tiger doesn’t hunt where she “knows” that the chital deer will be coming down to drink? does she not ” read” the slight limp that the old one on the left has just like she ” learned” from her mother? I contend that animals and especially social animals learn to reason from their parents and peers just as we do. Certain Macaque monkeys in Sth East Asia who live along the seashore now wash in salt water the sweet potato they receive from scientists who are studying them , just because one female did so in the 70’s and now they all do so to wash off the sand or because they enjoy the salty taste? A clear case of learned reasoned behaviour and the passing on of memes. Chimps wage war against other groups to forge territory and garner females to their group , killing males if they can in order to further their own genes. They also cooperate in hunting other species ( commonly monkeys) , some going ahead to wait in ambush while others drive the prey to them. Is this just instinct? I say no. Where they do differ to us is that they do not share their catch as we would do, they may give a mate some of the food but only when incessant begging drives them nuts. It is the realization that if we cooperate then reward our peers for helping bring about successful results, so we can expect their help again ( they in turn see the benefits in such cooperation ) that has led us to the upper hand we currently enjoy ( or think it so..talk the the viruses for a counter view!)

Innate drives are powerful things,as Conrad Lorenz stated , the reason a dog barks at a fence is the same reason his master built it in the first place.

You also assert that species all look alike. To whom?To you maybe but certainly not to them. Gouldian finches for example will choose mates with the same head colour to themselves if they can and so have better breeding success than if they mate with other colours. They also see the breast colouring ( purple ) in around 70% more of the ultraviolet spectrum than we do so it is false to judge their view from the one that our paltry vision range gives us. ( I will send you the published article I wrote on that particular subject if you wish!) All animals can recognize individuals, both their identity and sex, in their group just as we do in our own.

As I stated early on , I believe that the game is a subconscious one and so reasoning only comes into play once one takes a meta view and sees how one has been playing and then can , as you say , decide not to play. That is my point, one can voluntarily opt out and it is then that a lot of the exceptions to my argument begin to occur…simply because one is no longer a player. Look at Buddhist monks, hermits, ascetics and some openly gay people , they opt out of the “play” ( refer to Shakespeare here for his take on ” all the World’s a stage….) The point is that they are the “odd ones out “, they are not mainstream.

You state that oppression is not instinctive. I disagree, it is often the result of herd behaviour , following the meme of your group UNTIL one can have the reasoning experience ( meta view) and see the error in your behaviours . There are many examples of this from Saul of Tarsis to Bishop Spong of Newark NJ who says he looked down on black people because everyone in his group in the South did. It was when he met(a) educated Negro people andwas forced ( by reasoning) to concede that they were intellectually equal to whites after all. He also anointed gay priests ..to his cost!
To be fair, I included mention of the Tg community in order to give a bit more relevance to posting on this site ( don’t tell Amanda though so far we have got away with !) In consideration though , I do think that my contention does go some way in answering why the general community finds us a bit odd if not downright sick in the view of some extreme individuals. It is also true that most of us recognize that our activities are outside of the norm ( atypical) for our given gender , hopefully we evolve to a reasoned view that we are none the less acceptable but this is not instinctive, we have to work at it to gain this meta view.

It points to the old argument that those who deviate from the given ” norms ” are either mad or bad. For years gay people were thought to be mentally ill in the belief that anyone who chose that way of life knowing that they would face hostility ..MUST be mad! The difficulty in convincing some people and the efforts that many Tg people go to to assert that it is not a choice is indicative of my argument.

You also assert that some other societies accept Tg people , that is true but often it is with some reservation . No pun intended here but while many Amerindian tribes recognized the so called Berdache, and while some tribes welcomed their presence and revered them as sacred minds , others ridiculed them and used them for sex while women were unavailable to the young men. In a largely warrior culture , it is also useful to isolate and marginalize individuals who are not directly suited to the defence of the tribal lands and ways. They were made to do the work of women and so were apart from the men and their values . Blanket acceptance of TG culture is by no means a common thing in other human groups.

I believe that humans are instinctively xenophobic ( please explaiaaaan) and being so has been an advantage to us while we lived in close knit communities where we knew everyone in the group.The stranger was dangerous as he was an unknown. Now that we are out of control and have opened up the world to the” global village” we are forced to include others as of equal value but you realize how far we are from the ideal. As you point out, we are quick to judge and oppress others when we feel threatened ( see the present societal attitude to the poor bastards who are forced to come in boats to seek survival in Australia . ” If they want to be treated decently they came to the wrong country!!!”)

I guess what I think is that we do things in different stages of our life that we “feel ” are right and proper = normal, without knowing why we do so. But what is behind that feeling? Why do we have the feeling? It is the “shadow” that Jung spoke of, deep drives that we know only once we no longer feel them. The game goes on with or without our knowledge ( as the Taoists put it ” If you know, then things are just as they are..If you don’t know, then things are just as they are” .
It is our “reason” that blinds us to our real natures as we don’t like to think of ourselves as mammals , no , we are above that sort of thing ..meanwhile we eat , shit , fear, breed, nurture, fight, love blah blah…just like the rest of them.