So how should women be treated differently? On this site too? — unenlightened

I don't know about this site, but when a pregnant woman walks in and all the seats are taken do you get up to give the pregnant woman your seat? Men can't get pregnant so...?

Treating people differently does not necessarily mean that you are treating them unequally.

Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary, but it does not seem to me from what I have read so far, that this sort of gender neutrality in education has resulted in much trauma or confusion about gender identity. Whereas, the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous. To be specific, I would suggest that the conflict exemplified in the links above puts pressure onto children to conform to or else to rebel against gender stereotypes that may result in an increase in identification as transgender and so on. — unenlightened

It's not gender neutrality that is the problem (at least from what we've seen so far). It is gender flipping that is the problem. When parents raise their kids as the opposite gender/sex, which is not a gender/sex neutral environment, then we have problems where the kids grow up to be adults that are now confused about their gender/sex (trans).

I don't know about this site, but when a pregnant woman walks in and all the seats are taken do you get up to give the pregnant woman your seat? Men can't get pregnant so...? — Harry Hindu

I'd be grateful if you'd just butt out, Harry, I'm afraid you're not up to this. Where a difference makes a difference, it is foolish to pretend it makes no difference. Thus having darker skin makes one less able to synthesise vitamin D using sunlight. This is one of the few physical effects of skin colour and a perfectly uncontroversial ground for discrimination - give the black guy more fish. Likewise, where there is a real sexual difference, discrimination on the basis of sex is uncontroversial. So if you want to know whether someone is pregnant, it makes sense to consider their sex. On the other hand, if you want to know whether someone needs to sit down, I recommend looking to see if they seem frail or tired, and then maybe asking them.

As to your second comment, you're just trying to change the subject and poison the well.

:rofl: You have a point. I guess statistics doesn’t mean much to you.

I guess statistics doesn’t mean much to you. — TheMadFool

It's a field where statistics need to be read very carefully, because in matters human, humans are affected by statistics. We have, for example: Statistics to the effect that men are stronger -> expectations that men are stronger -> men are disproportionately encouraged/allowed to take up positions requiring strength -> men exercise more -> men are stronger.

This is not to deny that there is any physiological effect of sex on strength statistically, but to warn that its significance is exaggerated, because of cultural feedback, and the exaggeration tends to become exaggerated, so as to become a barrier to some.

It is only in my grandmother's days that women did not have the vote because they were well known to be irrational, unintelligent and inclined to hysteria, at least until given a hysterectomy. And no doubt the statistics proved it.

They're not, they're making policy for psychological practice, i.e. for psychologists, which is what they're supposed to do. Why can't you let them have their cake and you eat yours? Why the defensiveness? — Baden

The APA isn't a self contained group, interested in staying only in its own lane. They wish to exert political influence.

Well, seeing as their report is supported by 400 scientific references, they have a legitimate right to exert some influence based on its findings imo. That influence is not likely to be decisive given the overall conservative nature of US politics.

Getting back to the Swedish example, which is more interesting to me because it shows what actually happens when theory is put into practice as opposed to what opponents of all things liberal fear will happen, there has been a study (unfortunately not free to access) concerning the results of such policies. Here's a summary of the conclusion:

"While the conclusion suggests we’re genetically prone to immediately ascribe gender categories to others, it also suggests socialized differences can be mitigated. Compared to children from traditional preschools, children from gender-neutral schools were more likely to play with unknown children of another gender — an important finding since, “young children who favor same-gender playmates develop more extreme gender-typed interests and behaviors over time,” the study authors write, citing previous research. The children from gender-neutral schools also held fewer gender stereotypes (e.g., dolls are for girls)."

https://theswaddle.com/the-results-of-extreme-gender-neutral-education/

So problematizing gender categories and acting on that through education policy results, it seems, not in boys and girls not recognizing each other as different, but in:

1) More openness to other genders
2) Fewer gender stereotypes

So, getting back to the OP's hypotheses:

1) To the extent that gender differences are biologically rather than culturally conditioned, gender neutrality in education and wider society will have no effect on personality or identity.

Seems to be borne out by this study re identity at least.

2) To the extent that such differences are culturally conditioned, they are distorting constraints on human freedom, barriers to equality, and potential causes of psychological conflict and trauma.

More controversial. But if one accepts relatively less openness to other genders and more gender stereotypes to be distorting constraints on freedom, to be anti-egalitarian and undesirable psychologically, which seems a not immoderate interpretation, then also borne out.

So, if the fears that gender-neutral schools are a damagingly disruptive form of socialization that perverts our children's genetically programmed understanding of sex differences are wrong, and this form of education merely serves to undermine socialized stereotypes that are a hangover from a less enlightened past, should we not all get on board?

So, if the fears that gender-neutral schools are a damagingly disruptive form of socialization that perverts our children's genetically programmed understanding of sex differences are wrong, and this form of education merely serves to undermine socialized stereotypes that are a hangover from a less enlightened past, should we not all get on board? — Baden

It seems that everyone turns to Sweden to prove whatever liberal proposition they need to, which leads me to believe that it's pretty hard to fuck anything up in Sweden. They live in a homogeneous utopia, where everyone is responsible and hard working and washes and dries their own plates. I think they could remove the locks from their prisons and no one would leave, proving once and for all that locks aren't needed to keep people in.

My issue is that I don't see a problem with boys being boys and girls being girls, so I don't really care to change things. If my boy wanted to play with dolls, and assuming my beating the hell out of him daily didn't adequately deter him (a joke), I'd be fine with it. In truth, I don't care, and I'd love and support my kids just the same, but I don't see any issue with me buying him fire trucks, punching gloves that make explosion sounds, and Nerf guns and not giving him tea sets and dolls. He seems to get along with boys and girls just fine today.

Since we're speaking about politics, we also have to be sensitive to other people's views, even if we think they're scientifically unsupportable. Societal harmony is a goal I'd think, and I don't think that would be achieved by informing all those with religious leanings who find designated male/female roles highly significant that they are to abandon those views and come in tune with the times. As I've said, the issue isn't pressing and the harms not so significant that it requires a marching out of experts to right the ways of the primitive traditionalists once and for all. Why wage this culture war? What do you expect to gain other than polarization? Can you not just let the stupid be stupid? You'll be afforded ample opportunity to smugly declare their stupidity if that's what you need. They're not listening to you anyway.

Why wage this culture war? What do you expect to gain other than polarization? Can you not just let the stupid be stupid? You'll be afforded ample opportunity to smugly declare their stupidity if that's what you need. They're not listening to you anyway. — Hanover

Are you saying rather than change things for the better, we should do the stupid thing because the stupid people won't listen to us anyway? Seems you sorely lack the—how you say?—American can-do attitude. :victory:

I don't see it as an issue of stupidity anyway, but as a lack of openness, which with time can change. Gay marriage was deemed inconceivable just a generation ago and those advocating it were accused of all the things you accused me (or liberals? or academics?) of above. Anyway, I'm not personally an advocate of gender-neutral schools as yet, but I'm curious about the effects and open to being convinced, and I definitely don't find them as frightening an idea as some do. (So, you can still ask me to come babysit without fear I'll turn your son gay by forcing him to play Barbies. :up: )

Beyond this specific argument, in any case, looms the issue of how culture, even namby-pamby culture, imprints sexual identity and where do we go to get an objective a view as possible on what's desirable in that field? The psychologist? The biologist? The philosopher? There's no point looking for a solution to the culture itself to see what it's already doing because that's what's being problematized. If we're sling-shotting back to our kids a diseased sense of relative sexual identity based on mostly post-pubescent sex differences in a blind self-fulfilling way then something should change. If we've got it right, then it shouldn't. How do we tell the difference? You tell me.

Are you saying rather than change things for the better, we should do the stupid thing because the stupid people won't listen to us anyway? Seems you sorely lack the—how you say?—American can-do attitude. :victory: — Baden

It's a good tactic, but being on my A game today, I won't fall for the tactic of changing my mind for fear of being called unAmerican.

I have no doubt we could force everyone to believe as the liberals, the conservatives, the Jews, the Christians, or even the Muslims. My objection is fairly consistent here, and that is the government really needs to butt out of such things, and maybe pay attention to the fact that Johnny can't read or add. Let's leave to the Baden household how to raise his rugrats and the Hanover house how to raise his. I trust some, probably most, of our educators to educate, but I'm not so trusting in their ability (or really their right) to indoctrinate. You seem very open to the idea that public education ought to be in charge of enforcing government ideology and morality, and I have a bit more of a problem with that. I cringe equally at the idea of my kids being morally advised by Obama as I do Trump.

Beyond this specific argument, in any case, looms the issue of how culture, even namby-pamby culture, imprints sexual identity and where do we go to get an objective a view as possible on what's desirable in that field? The psychologist? The biologist? The philosopher? — Baden

The question isn't where we ought get our direction on how kids ought be raised, but who ought be deciding how one should raise one's kids. What I ought to eat for breakfast is a question all sorts of people might best answer for me, but I ought be the one who ultimately decides, even if you think I'm wrong. As long as I'm not clearly causing damage and my decisions not overwhelmingly dangerous, I get to decide how to raise my children. I am quite certain I am a better parent than most, and if my parenting decisions could be imposed on many young families, their children would be propelled to far greater success than they would relying upon the backwards working class values of their parents. I submit that it's far better however to allow others to do as they may, despite the idiocy of their not adhering to the Hanoverian principles of parenting. In fact, I daresay the world would be better off had you been raised by my principles. We'd be spared so much nonsense, and your income would be far greater..

First of all, I agree parenting is up to the parent within legal limits. And advice is just that, advisory. Never said anything to the contrary.

You seem very open to the idea that public education ought to be in charge of enforcing government ideology and morality, and I have a bit more of a problem with that. — Hanover

This is a misrepresentation of the debate we're having. Education is ideological one way or the other. Separating boys and girls is as ideological as mixing them; gender non-neutral schools are as ideological as gender-neutral schools. Getting kids to sing the national anthem at school is enforcing an ideology. Banning it in every school would be enforcing a different one. If your contention is that the prevailing ideology is not an ideology because you're blind to it then you're a classic victim of ideology. So, the debate we're having is about education policy, which changes all the time, and characterizing it as a novel attempt to put the government in charge of ideology and morality is just an attempt to wiggle out of the responsibility to actually think about the issues at hand.

There are regular doubts raised about the validity of social sciences, psychology included. A good deal of what passes in the social / behavioral sciences for science is, in fact, doubtable. Psychologists are good at measuring cognitive performance, for instance. They can tell you just how, and to what extent, a traumatic brain injury or disease has impaired mental functioning. Tests and measurements in cognitive functioning (learning, memory, problem solving, etc.) have good validity and reliability measures.

The assessment of personality is a much less solid area of psychology--despite its being the most interesting, or maybe because it is the most interesting. Measuring personality traits is dicey, and the validity and reliability of personality tests is not all that great.

Then when it comes to theorizing about personality, and proposing what a psychologist or psychotherapist should work toward, psychologists can not be unbiased, and nobody else can either. "What are desirable and undesirable human traits?" can not be a neutral question. Psychologists have both an official and unofficial policing function. Sometimes the policing function is specific (psychologists working in forensic settings) but most often the policing function has to do with policing the boundaries between what a psychologist or therapist thinks are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, as he or she experiences it in the social context. The authors of the APA document would not be free of any of these limitations.

"Psychology" is an professional practice; it is also a business. The profession has needs: maintaining some sort of consistency across hundreds of thousands of practitioners is one need. Maintaining the need for psychologists is also a need. The more deviant conditions that can be identified, the better. Consequently the DSM gets bigger and bigger with every revision.

Professionals--with 1 or 2 expensive post-baccalaureate degrees, and either membership in or aspirations to join the upper middle class--come with class biases too, which may be quite discordant with working class biases.

The upshot: Take the recommendations with numerous grains of salt.

Let's leave to the Baden household how to raise his rugrats and the Hanover house how to raise his. — Hanover

That sounds good to me. But is it not also possible to discuss together why you each think your way is the best?

You seem very open to the idea that public education ought to be in charge of enforcing government ideology and morality, and I have a bit more of a problem with that. — Hanover

Well public education has to lean one way or another. It cannot be trying to be gender neutral and support gender stereotypes, and my guess is that you want it to go on with the way it is, which is enforcing government ideology, more or less by definition. If I was playing hard ball, I would suggest that gender neutrality as described is rather refraining from imposing an ideology of what character is appropriate to each sex.

I would suggest that gender neutrality as described is rather refraining from imposing an ideology of what character is appropriate to each sex. — unenlightened

They who claim to be gender neutral are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others.

But is it not also possible to discuss together why you each think your way is the best? — unenlightened

If we really are leaving it to the Badenses and Hanovers to raise their children as they see fit, then there is no reason to discuss which one is the best. If the Badenses end up beating their children, and the Hanovers regularly send their children to bed without supper, we'll just have to let the blood spatter and malnutrition fall where it may.

They who claim to be gender neutral are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others. — Bitter Crank

Oh no they're not! Those who claim that They who claim to be gender neutral are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others, are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others.

A lot of chaff among the wheat here. The below is my focus which basically amounts to asking on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand in order to determine where education policy should go?

If we're sling-shotting back to our kids a diseased sense of relative sexual identity based on mostly post-pubescent sex differences in a blind self-fulfilling way then something should change. If we've got it right, then it shouldn't. How do we tell the difference? You tell me. — Baden

@Hanover ? @Bitter Crank ?

Another way of asking this is: How do we get to a point where we can conceive of not inflicting, to the extent that we find them wanting, our cultural identities re gender on our kids?

They who claim to be gender neutral are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others. — Bitter Crank

Do people claim to be gender neutral?

I thought they aspired to be gender neutral.

Just as people of goodwill aspire to be non-racist, while recognising that they probably still have some elements of racism in their persona because it is so natural in the human condition.

To the extent that things like racism or gender-neutrality are seen as moral issues (and I see them that way), surely any thoughtful person that considers them a worthy goal will express them as an aspiration and encourage others to aspire towards it too. Only a fool will claim 'I am perfect, so try to be like me!'

on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand — Baden

Upon whatever plinth we are precariously perched, I propose we are probably preaching to the persnickety practitioners of professional nit picking. I want the whole pillar.

Oh no they're not! — unenlightened

OK, OK, but people do rather regularly lie to themselves and others.

As that famous progressive Republican Senator, Hiram Johnson, said about identity wars, "The first victim of the gender war is truth."

Gender neutrality has more to do with avoiding certain kinds of binary and isolation. It's not a supposition that people don't have gender or preferences in their behaviour, likes, etc. All it's really doing is decoupling the idea certain behaviours or preferences are the exclusive nature of one gender or another.

It doesn't actually mean people have "neutral" gender and no personal preferences which fit with some stereotypical accounts/myths of gender.

All it's really doing is decoupling the idea certain behaviours or preferences are the exclusive nature of one gender or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well put, but I am not enthusiastic about this decoupling.

Hey, I'm 72. At some point one has to decide which cutting edges to sit on, and which cutting edges to avoid. Decoupling sex and gender roles is too edgy at this point. Once upon a time the idea was more attractive than it is to me now. In the first flush of gay liberation -- early 1970s -- this sort of thinking was de regueur. Many flushes later, 40 years worth, I'm tired of the topic

How will all this come out in the wash? Most individuals are going to track standard heterosexual gender/sex role stereotypes and live happily ever after. Some people, some of them homosexuals, are likely to trip over stereotypes until they can sort out the variables. Most gay men are going to do what most gay men do now -- adjust standard heterosexual male stereotypes to homosexuality and live happily ever after. (I don't speak for dykes--waaay too risky.)

There aren't really any stereotypes though, just people being themselves (or not, as the case might sometimes be). Decoupling doesn't really mean anything in terms of how people behave, apart from avoiding essentialist associations between a gender and some sort of preference or behaviour. In terms of a behaviour or liking something, there is no impact. All that is taken away is: "Men are like X, Women like Y." No-ones actual preferences are at stake.

The stereotypes are self-sustaining myth. People make the mistake of confusing their preferences for a notion/rule of where they belong. They walk away under the illusion to be of a preference means they must of a gender prescribed in a stereotype.

In the process, it forms an illusion that someone's preferences are being attack. Much as we've seen in this thread, where gender neutrality is mistaken for some notion of everyone being genderless and not having any sort of individual preference.

apart from avoiding essentialist associations between a gender and some sort of preference or behaviour... — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am much more of an essentialist than a constructionist, so essentialist associations are not something I would be anxious to avoid.

But, we are not so genetically programmed that there is no room for a range of behaviors to exist.

There aren't really any stereotypes though, just people being themselves (or not, as the case might sometimes be — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you mean, "there aren't any stereotypes"? Your statement is contrary to the facts. Lots of stereotypes exist, some positive, some negative, and they seem to be quite influential.

Psychology can't be trusted to the extent required to make a good judgment. To be fair the subject is a difficult one.

The aim of gender neutrality is a noble one. Stereotypes aren't rational but are all gender-based roles irrational stereotypes? I don't think so. What does psychology, if it's the basis for the movement, have to say about it? Isn't it psychology and neuroscience that showed us men and women brains operate differently.

Another pointless non-response based on venting your own prejudice.

Give me a break, Baden. You are the one who is prejudiced. I only want the truth. Sometimes you have to tell people that they are wrong (and that tends to hurt their feelings) about their assumptions to get at the truth. Since when is pointing out someone's inconsistencies an display of prejudice?

There is nothing prejudiced about it. The gist of the post is live how you want and leave others alone. How is that prejudiced, especially when Hanover is saying the same thing and you aren't getting upset about that (hypocrisy)? I even pointed out that the human race is one culture. How is that prejudice? Wipe the bullshit from your eyes.

Why don't you point out the problem areas of my post instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks? Of course that's much easier than actually having to address your inconsistencies that I pointed out. I'd love to see you address the first question in my post. That is a legitimate question, no?

I'd love to see you address the first question in my post. That is a legitimate question, no? — Harry Hindu

No, because you've missed the context of my conversation with Hanover on what's being problematized and in which culture.

And the rest of your post is an irrelevant rant.

So if you want to respond on the basis of what I wrote, e.g.

I'm not personally an advocate of gender-neutral schools as yet, but I'm curious about the effects and open to being convinced, and I definitely don't find them as frightening an idea as some do. — Baden

The below is my focus which basically amounts to asking on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand in order to determine where education policy should go?

If we're sling-shotting back to our kids a diseased sense of relative sexual identity based on mostly post-pubescent sex differences in a blind self-fulfilling way then something should change. If we've got it right, then it shouldn't. How do we tell the difference? You tell me.
— Baden — Baden

Go ahead.