Masculinity

[TerraPrime]

35 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

He gave a trivially correct answer to your query. It doesn't matter if 100% of men have penises or 99% do (actually closer to 99.9%).
 

"99.9% of men have penis" is begging the question. You're employing the state of having a penis as a definition of man, which is the central query here. At face value, this 99.9% figure you pulled out of your ass already discounts transgender men, since they are more than likely beyond 0.1% of the human population.

 

Let's be generous and assume that only 95% of men have penises and 95% of women don't. It you have a hundred men and a hundred women. Then the men will have on average 95 penises and the women 5. There's a standard deviation of 2.18 penises in each group, while different between them is 90.

 

This is a wanton abuse of statistics.

If you gather 100 men, then all 100 men will have penis, because you previously defined it as a trait. If you allow that some men don't have penises, then you've already conceded the central point of penis possession being a definitive trait for malehood. I think what you meant to say is that if we gather 200 individuals, 95 will have penis, and the other 105 will not. The 95 who does have a penis are men (what about transgender woman?), and of the remaining 105, 95 are women. That still doesn't say what happen to the remaining 10 people's classification, because you're just treading water here using penis possession as a definitive trait for maleness.

 

I also think that conflating maleness with masculinity is not useful.We're just re-visiting a settled issue of biological sex versus gender roles.

[ElizabethB.]

I have never read a less exciting thread about masculinity and penises. 

(Love both, btw.)

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

31 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

"99.9% of men have penis" is begging the question. You're employing the state of having a penis as a definition of man, which is the central query here. At face value, this 99.9% figure you pulled out of your ass already discounts transgender men, since they are more than likely beyond 0.1% of the human population.

 

 

 

 

This is a wanton abuse of statistics.

If you gather 100 men, then all 100 men will have penis, because you previously defined it as a trait. If you allow that some men don't have penises, then you've already conceded the central point of penis possession being a definitive trait for malehood. I think what you meant to say is that if we gather 200 individuals, 95 will have penis, and the other 105 will not. The 95 who does have a penis are men (what about transgender woman?), and of the remaining 105, 95 are women. That still doesn't say what happen to the remaining 10 people's classification, because you're just treading water here using penis possession as a definitive trait for maleness.

 

I also think that conflating maleness with masculinity is not useful.We're just re-visiting a settled issue of biological sex versus gender roles.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-size-of-the-transgender-population/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/06/how-big-is-the-transgender-population.html

The percentage of transgender in America is probably somewhere between .1% and .5%. Closer to .1% than 1%.

Solo implied that any overlap in distributions rendered the entire concept of the two categories invalid, so I responded. It's not a question of whether having a penis defines maleness or lack thereof, but whether or not it's a trait that the vast majority of males possess and females don't.

I know biological sex and gender aren't the same. but the fact is that they are very highly correlated.

[Lyanna Stark]

12 hours ago, ElizabethB. said:

I have never read a less exciting thread about masculinity and penises. 

(Love both, btw.)

Perhaps you should try the dating thread for this sort of commentary instead?

12 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-size-of-the-transgender-population/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/06/how-big-is-the-transgender-population.html

The percentage of transgender in America is probably somewhere between .1% and .5%. Closer to .1% than 1%.

Solo implied that any overlap in distributions rendered the entire concept of the two categories invalid, so I responded. It's not a question of whether having a penis defines maleness or lack thereof, but whether or not it's a trait that the vast majority of males possess and females don't.

I know biological sex and gender aren't the same. but the fact is that they are very highly correlated.

The issue with counting trans* people is an interesting one, since trans people have been extremely invisible for well, ever, up until around now. I imagine that getting a good estimate will be extremely difficult, since you'll end up with a lot of people not wanting to identify as trans for a number of reasons, not the least it being a serious risk to one's health and life. From the article you linked:

 

Quote

Discrimination doesn’t just produce a reluctance to be counted; it can also create an institutional reluctance to count transgender people. Some survey writers are concerned that questions about gender identity won’t be received well by respondents.

So you have both people's reluctance to be counted as trans* and you have problems with surveys themselves. To me, that looks like a too large error source to make good predictions, only that at a guess, and given time, we'll probably see an increase in the number of trans* people.

Regarding the later bolded sentence, this is of course correct today, but relies on a couple of assumptions:

a. That gender is binary. You are either male, or female, and absolutely need to fit, even if you need to use a crowbar to do so, into these two categories.

b. That intersex people do not exist, or that those who fit somewhere on the intersex scale should also be crowbared into fitting in the categories "male" or "female".

This means you have both people where physical sex doesn't match gender (or doesn't fit the existing scale), and where the physical sex itself doesn't fit the binary model.

If we assume both a. and b. do not overlap completely, then we are looking at a difficult to define group which lies partly or completely outside the binary system of looking at sex and gender.

With the system we use today and the society we have today, yes they are highly correlated. But then according to Putin, Russia also has no gays. Of course, Russia is somewhat extreme, but you get my point. Your starting assumptions and definitions will often have a huge impact on the result you get. Change the definitions, change the assumptions and things will look different. Of course, that is extremely difficult, since it means changing things that are fundamentally enshrined in our society and culture.

 

 

EDIT: Yes, the quoting system is totally fucked. I managed to temporarily unfuck it in Firefox, but Chrome is 100% unusable.

[Lyanna Stark]

15 hours ago, sologdin said:

more fundamentally, though, is that neither of you have addressed my basic thesis that y'all have abstracted an alleged 'sex,' here, 'male,' from the mere presence, at times, of external genitalia. the assumption of 99% does not strike me as anything other than a convenient hyperbole unrelated to the real. is there anything that warrants the imposition of an abstract maleness upon persons with this preferred external genitalia? because, if not, then really y'all just want to talk about phallus possessors.

Which brings us to the Wang of Mighty Lovin, doesn't it? The myth of the ever super-sexual man and the Magical Capabilities contained in the purple love spear etc.

Culturally, this really does exist tho, since we see that anyone who's brave "got balls", and people boasting of who's the better person online is comparing "e-peen". What is more fascinating is how people miss that this is happening, all the time! Bravery and accomplishment are, in fact, a penis in Western Society.

And with that, we are back full circle at "what is masculinity". Kinda.

 

[ElizabethB.]

1 hour ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Perhaps you should try the dating thread for this sort of commentary instead?

 

Are you serious? 

You want me to write on the dating thread that I have never read a less exciting thread about masculinity and penises? 

That's nasty. 

You could at least promise me 72 virgins for it. 

Would still not do it though. 

[Wise Fool]

23 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

I assume you mean by this heterosexual sexuality? What about gay men? Or asexual men? Or bisexual men? Furries? Plankies?

In short: sexual orientation or even inclination to have an active sex life, is that an indicator of one's masculinity?

 

No, sexual orientation or having a sex life is not an indicator of one's masculinity. I mean I consider Jesus to be pretty masculine, and apparently he had even less sex than I do.

[Weeping Sore]

21 hours ago, sologdin said:

more fundamentally, though, is that neither of you have addressed my basic thesis that y'all have abstracted an alleged 'sex,' here, 'male,' from the mere presence, at times, of external genitalia. the assumption of 99% does not strike me as anything other than a convenient hyperbole unrelated to the real. is there anything that warrants the imposition of an abstract maleness upon persons with this preferred external genitalia? because, if not, then really y'all just want to talk about phallus possessors.

I agree possessing a phallus is a red herring. What about women who wear necklaces of severed phalluses around their neck as evidence of their conquests?

[ElizabethB.]

44 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

I agree possessing a phallus is a red herring. What about women who wear necklaces of severed phalluses around their neck as evidence of their conquests?

All bets are off!

Someone is toying with the castration anxiety! 

Freud, Freud, defend the mechanisms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 hours ago, Wise Fool said:

No, sexual orientation or having a sex life is not an indicator of one's masculinity. I mean I consider Jesus to be pretty masculine, and apparently he had even less sex than I do.

Two things.

First, from a strictly historical perspective, there is little reason to believe, and even less evidence to support, the idea that Jesus was celibate. None of the gospels say that he was. Jesus' celibacy is very much an after-the-fact, religiously-motivated gloss on Jesus' character. 

Second, aren't you just working backwards from your desired outcomes? Unless you're trying to use deductive reasoning to figure out what is "masculine" and not, shouldn't you be starting from your "first principles" of masculinity and then evaluating your subjects according to those characteristics? In other words, shouldn't we try to figure out whether Jesus was "masculine" or not by applying your understanding of the qualities of masculinity to him, rather than simply asserting that he's masculine and then trying to deduce what qualities either made him so, or at least what qualities did not make him not masculine. 

[MercenaryChef]

I bet jesus had all kinds of sex. 

[TerraPrime]

He didn't learn the turn-water-to-wine trick just to get free booze, yo.

[sologdin]

On 2/1/2016 at 3:02 PM, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-size-of-the-transgender-population/

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/06/how-big-is-the-transgender-population.html

The percentage of transgender in America is probably somewhere between .1% and .5%. Closer to .1% than 1%.

Solo implied that any overlap in distributions rendered the entire concept of the two categories invalid, so I responded. It's not a question of whether having a penis defines maleness or lack thereof, but whether or not it's a trait that the vast majority of males possess and females don't.

I know biological sex and gender aren't the same. but the fact is that they are very highly correlated.

assumes the conclusion, yo.  i am not problematizing the conflation of alleged biological sex and gender ideology, but rather the existence of biological sex as such.  all i've seen is a set of ideological abstractions grafted as prostheses on to a set of more or less impertinent physiological markers, which markers, as signifiers of the alleged 'sex,' are not even present on every alleged exemplar of same.  FFS.  my six year old can see through this.

[Lily Valley]

9 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

I agree possessing a phallus is a red herring. What about women who wear necklaces of severed phalluses around their neck as evidence of their conquests?

That would break my damn neck.  No THANK you.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

2 hours ago, sologdin said:

assumes the conclusion, yo.  i am not problematizing the conflation of alleged biological sex and gender ideology, but rather the existence of biological sex as such.  all i've seen is a set of ideological abstractions grafted as prostheses on to a set of more or less impertinent physiological markers, which markers, as signifiers of the alleged 'sex,' are not even present on every alleged exemplar of same.  FFS.  my six year old can see through this.

I was just pointing out that Peterbound's snide response wasn't technically false.

Since you want to question the existence of biological sex rather than just point out that the binary doesn't apply to everyone, then I'm not interested in discussing the topic with you. You're being contrary for the sake of being contrary. FFS you have children- that should indicate some practical evidence towards the validity of existence of such.

[karaddin]

The x and y chromosomes weren't called sex chromosomes to start with and weren't presumed to be a definitive marker of sex the way people love to treat them as gospel these days when they were first discovered. It was actually an idea that was not favored by the initial researchers, but someone else leaped to that and managed to get it to catch on despite its inaccuracy and now we have a century of inertia in public belief around them to overcome.

[Wise Fool]

14 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Two things.

First, from a strictly historical perspective, there is little reason to believe, and even less evidence to support, the idea that Jesus was celibate. None of the gospels say that he was. Jesus' celibacy is very much an after-the-fact, religiously-motivated gloss on Jesus' character. 

Second, aren't you just working backwards from your desired outcomes? Unless you're trying to use deductive reasoning to figure out what is "masculine" and not, shouldn't you be starting from your "first principles" of masculinity and then evaluating your subjects according to those characteristics? In other words, shouldn't we try to figure out whether Jesus was "masculine" or not by applying your understanding of the qualities of masculinity to him, rather than simply asserting that he's masculine and then trying to deduce what qualities either made him so, or at least what qualities did not make him not masculine. 

There is little reason for me to believe the idea that Jesus had as much or more sex than I do. So. That's one offhand comment addressed. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "desired outcomes." I'm not presently trying to use deductive reasoning for any purpose, let alone figuring out what is masculine, and I don't believe in "first principles" as applying to this conversation in any way. I just don't think this way. So yes, I believe I "should" just assert that I think Jesus was pretty masculine because I do, and I don't need that to be deduced or proven as it is, in fact, an offhand remark and statement of opinion.

[Buckwheat]

10 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

He didn't learn the turn-water-to-wine trick just to get free booze, yo.

But spiking people's water is not a very Christian thing to do.

[Red Tiger]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

The x and y chromosomes weren't called sex chromosomes to start with and weren't presumed to be a definitive marker of sex the way people love to treat them as gospel these days when they were first discovered. It was actually an idea that was not favored by the initial researchers, but someone else leaped to that and managed to get it to catch on despite its inaccuracy and now we have a century of inertia in public belief around them to overcome.

Do you have something to verify this?

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Red Tiger said:

Do you have something to verify this?

It's months since I was reading up on it so not ready to hand. I'll see if I can find it again.