by "transitioning children" you mean transexual children? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Yes, conformity in that sense can have very negative effects on mental health. To be honest that is not something I considered.

I have strongly held convictions that life is tough and that people should "get tough". I realise that this is a problematic view, as you have just highlighted.

Having observed my wife give birth several decades ago sort of killed my toxic masculinity. We both have demanding jobs. Neither of us speaks for the other without the other's agreement. We are both "male" and "female" at different turns, given the roles associated to them as opposites.

James Brown has agreed to support my point of view:

"Help me somebody."

Why is “toxic femininity” not a currently operable phrase?

Is it is all those centuries of ascribing the feminine as the source of evil?

A body gets tired.

...transexual children... — BigThoughtDropper

Yep.

Teaching resilience is good; so being in challenging situations is important for growth. But not to the point of suicide.

Because being too feminine doesn't kill people.

I don't ignore biology, I just don't deflate the role of culture and socialization in Human cognition & behavior on that account as, for instance, as sociobiologists or evolutionary psychologists have a tendancy to do. — 180 Proof

I am a big fan of Stephen J. Gould, who was a strong critic of sociobiology, so I agree with you. Perhaps I was being overeager to push biological influences since so many people want to dismiss them to promote political positions these days.

although masculinity can break down as a useful concept when we think of it a moral compass, might it not have a positive role to play in our sense of self, in the same way that women find femininity a positive attribute? — BigThoughtDropper

I don't think of masculinity or femininity as having much to do with moral compasses. Men and women of a stripes can be equally moral and immoral. Having a strong "ethical gyroscope" is probably a combination of a genetic tendency (e.g., to be internally or externally directed) and instruction and training, gregariousness, and so on. I'm more of an introvert, inner-directed, and a loner. Those features go well with masculinity--and so do extroversion, other directedness, and gregariousness.

Sex and gender roles absolutely do have a positive role to play in our sense of self. Being masculine (according to the general definition) is a positive attribute for men, definitely. Masculinity is an essential element in my selfhood. While I dress in masculine clothing (vestis virum reddit, as the Romans said--clothes make the man) my work has been in white collar areas which tend to be dominated by women -- social service, education, etc. I'm glad I had an education which enabled me to perform this work, but at times I envied more technicallly, mechanically oriented workers.

There is another angle to the business of being a man (or woman) --embodiment -- the form of the body into which we are born. I was born with very poor vision. I just didn't see the world the same way most people did (do), and this part of my embodiment precluded a number of activities important to young men: driving, hunting, sports, military, and the like. Sexual orientation is another part of embodiment. Some gay men identify very strongly with feminine roles or personalities. I do/did not. I tended to identify with male roles and personalities.

Another issue complicating the subject is "mother". Females have a very large role in raising boys and both males and females are naturally going to identify with their mothers (as well as their fathers) and are going to take on some of the feminine behavioral and cognitive/emotional features of their mothers. Full-time 100% masculine behavior, cognition and emotion is hard to imagine, and IF it exists it is probably hell to live with for self and others.

To have a very strong idea of being a woman, and tying that with your identity, is not the least bit controversial or troubling for, dare I say it, the majority of women. I could give examples but I think everyone will get what I mean. Femininity is something women embrace as giving them a sense of self.

Therefore, in much the same way I have embraced the societal tropes of being a man (consciously without the toxic stuff). In that same way I find it also gives me a nice sense of self. I even like to think, to bring it back the central issue of the virtues of manhood, that my own brand of masculinity can be a force for good. — BigThoughtDropper

There is a lot in embracing femininity that is about a reclaiming of potency. While there is potential for toxicity in this, as much as with masculinity, I think both men and women need a little leeway to find our feet here. Women can put as much social pressure on each other to conform to toxic versions of femininity as men do to toxic masculinity. It’s just less observable/measurable, and much of feminine potency been re-appropriated by men as either sexual permissiveness or man-hating.

I think that your brand of humanity can be a force for good, whether you identify with masculinity or femininity, both or neither. I can relate to your situation of having a physique that enables me to conform with societal tropes, and an awareness of non-conforming in other aspects that gives me freedom to consciously dismiss the toxic stuff. Others are not so lucky.

It is where women and men struggle or fail to conform to societal expectations of gender identity that the real controversy and trouble arises. Non-conformers are ignored or excluded - not just from a particular gender identity, but from any identity. If I don’t have cleavage, I shouldn’t have to compensate for it by showing more skin to be acknowledged - by men or other women. Likewise, if a man doesn’t seem physically strong, he shouldn’t have to compensate for it with aggressive or arrogant behaviour to get noticed.

I think each of us is conforming and non-conforming in diverse ways. In this way we are finding ways to connect or be seen, and also coping with feelings of isolation or exclusion. It is this diversity that is missing from our societal tropes, concealing opportunities for compassion and understanding.

just didn't see the world the same way most people did (do), and this part of my embodiment precluded a number of activities important to young men: driving, hunting, sports, military, and the like. — Bitter Crank

My sight and physical strength are good, but for whatever reason, I have also never been hunting, diving, fishing, have never taken an interest in any sport or the military, owned any weapons or watched cars racing. I have never had any interests in things people sometimes dub male pursuits. I don't listen to or enjoy rock 'n' roll or rarely watch science fiction or action movies. I have friends but no buddies I go out with for 'drinks' and my idea of horror is getting stuck with a group of men as I almost never have any interests in common. I also struggle to see or fully understand this world of male and female separation.

Did your parents require some kind of sign of identity in this regard?

Stephen J. Gould had a great influence on me, though dialectically, so did E.O. Wilson, and both more than Richard Dawkin and Daniel Dennett (although I respect each gentleman's early contributions to their respective fields).

Stephen J. Gould had a great influence on me — 180 Proof

A lot of my understanding of how science, epistemology, and truth work I got from Gould. I learned that bottom up science is what works - put in your efforts getting specifics, then you can generalize. Details, variation within populations, avoiding misleading data and statistics. Respect for solid, competent science even if the results are not consistent with our current understanding. Chocolate bars that weigh nothing and cost $0.85.

I also learned a lot about good writing.

Also - he was on the Simpsons.

I also learned a lot about good writing.

Also - he was on the Simpsons. — T Clark

:up:

Teaching resilience is good; so being in challenging situations is important for growth. But not to the point of suicide. — Banno

:chin:

48% of trans kids attempt suicide. It's 2.4% in the general population. Au stats. Telling trans kids to get over it an move on is child abuse.

As per a hadith (a saying of the prophet Mohammad), honorable men are those who treat women honorably. The basic idea is that the strong must respect the weak, as in the OP:

you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, — BigThoughtDropper

48% of trans kids attempt suicide. It's 2.4% in the general population. Au stats. Telling trans kids to get over it an move on is child abuse. — Banno

I don't want to downplay the real and extreme suffering involved whether its trans kids or any other demographic. Neither do I want to come off as an inconsiderate jerk but what if we approach this issue from a military strategist's perspective within a Darwinian context and learn to accept that no victory, in this case an evolutionary one, comes without some losses in "the struggle for survival". Apparently, humans are upsetting the natural order by defying the evolutionary maxim that life is about "survival of the fittest". Let those who can't handle the truth meet their end whatever form that might take. This simple strategy has led us to where we are it (a highly successful species by all accounts), it might be dangerous to abandon what is quite obviously a good gameplan for life in general and humans in particular.

That said, it's odd that evolution should've installed in us a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong, which, you yourself being an example, raises objections to the tactic of letting the weak and helpless die - you feel anguish when trans kids take their own lives.

This isn't something new though, right? People who are proponents of evolution have a tough time explaining how altruism and evolution hang together as a coherent story of life.

I don't want to downplay the real and extreme suffering involved whether its trans kids or any other demographic. Neither do I want to come off as an inconsiderate jerk... — TheMadFool

I think it might have been better had you stopped there.

may — Banno

"might" for a counterfactual.

In a style guide I once read.

And hell, I did.

I'll take your word for it.

Spoken like a rooster :strong:

Cock-sure?

I think it might have been better had you stopped there. — Banno

Touché sir! Touché but the alternative to an honest discussion about such a sensitive issue amounts to burying one's head in the sand. Tough choices, sir, tough choices.

That said, it's odd that evolution should've installed in us a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong, which, you yourself being an example, raises objections to the tactic of letting the weak and helpless die - you feel anguish when trans kids take their own lives.

This isn't something new though, right? People who are proponents of evolution have a tough time explaining how altruism and evolution hang together as a coherent story of life. — TheMadFool

Did I not redeem myself?

Evolution.

Why let it determine your moral compass?

People who are proponents of evolution have a tough time explaining how altruism and evolution hang together as a coherent story of life. — TheMadFool

Untrue. That's something an apologist would argue. Altruism has significant survival advantages for tribal creatures like human beings.

Untrue. That's something an apologist would argue. Altruism has huge survival advantages for tribal creatures like human beings. Some people suggest that all altruism is self-interested altruism. — Tom Storm

Noted! However, if it (altruism), as you say, has "...huge survival advantages..." why are there only a handful of altruists around [I'm sure you know about the top 1% who own more than then bottom 90%]? Furthermore, why is altruism so damned difficult to adopt as one's philosophy?

Thanks for alerting me to the evolutionary advantages of altruism and continuing along the same trajectory, there's a good profit margin in terms of maintaining a good ecosystem, one conducive to the well-being of humans if our altruism extends beyond the human family to other living organisms.

Is it the case that altruism needn't be a universal requirement as in not everyone has to be one for the entire human race and the biosphere as well to accrue benefits? Looks like the altruist population need only number in a few hundreds/thousands to keep billions of selfish individuals living peacefully with each other. I might've answered my own question.

Another thing to consider maybe the trend in the number of altruists and their health - mental and physical - over time. Evolution is a dynamic process after all and if altruism is losing popularity, explaining it in terms of "...huge survival advantages..." amounts to a gross error for the simple reason that Darwinian processes may in fact be phasing out this particular feature (altruism) from the gene pool. Never thought of it that way but it does seem completely within the realm of possibility.

Evolution.

Why let it determine your moral compass? — Banno

Why not? Evolution is the best theory around and at the very least, it should be able to give us a satisfactory answer to questions about human issues. We are living things, right? :chin:

Naturalistic fallacy.

Note! However, if it (altruism), as you say, has "...huge survival advantages..." why are there only a handful of altruists around [I'm sure you know about the top 1% who own more than then bottom 90%]? Furthermore, why is altruism so damned difficult to adopt as one's philosophy? — TheMadFool

I didn't say society was perfect - hierarchies and power are seperate matters. Nevertheless I would suggest that many of those in the top 1% do have empathy for others and also generously support philanthropic causes. Where would hospitals and charities be without philanthropy? There's a long history of the wealthy sharing resources with the poor. As for the bottom 90%; many can and do work together and pool resources for a common good. It helps them to survive. There's also self-interested altruism and reciprocal altruism - useful survival approaches.

Evolution is a dynamic process after all and if altruism is losing popularity, explaining it in terms of "...huge survival advantages..." amounts to a gross error for the simple reason that Darwinian processes may in fact be phasing out this particular feature (altruism) from the gene pool. Never thought of it that way but it does seem completely within the realm of possibility. — TheMadFool

Is it a gross error? It's clear empathy and altruism is a strong force on the planet and the marked contrast between this and selfishness is the story of the human race. Will time and changing behaviours remove altruism from humans? Who can say?