This is a mine field with respect to terminology and it is very easy to attack someone elses use of words without trying to clarify one's own position.

First off, sexual preferences (gay, straight, homosexual, lesbian) are neither a gender identification nor a physical sexual feature of the body. These individuals identify gender wise (usually) with their bodily physical sexual characteristic, there is just a sexual behavioral preference.

I do not wish to imply sexual preferences or gender identity are entirely a matter of conscious choice but instead they have to do with deep seated subconscious emotional drives and preferences.

I used the term "psychological state" as a factor in both gender identity and sexual behavioral preference and that was attacked but I have yet to see a viable alternative.

Without getting into a mind body discussion about sexual preferences and gender identity being entirely determined by neural circuits, hormones and neuro transmitters (as opposed to visible physical sexual characteristics) I still use "psychological" until someone offers a better terminology.

These are abnormalities, not the norm. The same can be said about being gay or trans. We can always find exceptions to the norm in pretty much everything, but this doesn't take away from the fact that there are norms and that we owe our specie's continued existence to the norm. These conditions don't mean that they should be categorized as a separate sex or gender. They are simply mutations that crop up as a result of faulty gene copying and one's upbringing. We don't categorize other people as normal based on them missing toes or fingers, being born conjoined, or any other abnormality that one can be born with, and we even attempt to fix people born with abnormalities. What makes one's sex/gender abnormality different? — Harry Hindu

Actually, we owe our species' survival (and current existence) to random mutations. That's how evolution via natural selection works.

We don't categorize other people as normal based on them missing toes or fingers, being born conjoined, or any other abnormality that one can be born with, and we even attempt to fix people born with abnormalities. What makes one's sex/gender abnormality different?

The problem is with the ambiguous terms "normal" and "abnormal". The definition of "abnormal" here is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying".

So it's important not to equivocate and argue that if something isn't normal in the sense of not being common then it's abnormal in the sense of being undesirable or worrying. Unfortunately it's a fallacy that many commit, trying to argue that because most people are cisgender and heterosexual then it is wrong to be anything else.

First off, sexual preferences (gay, straight, homosexual, lesbian) are neither a gender identification nor a physical sexual feature of the body. These individuals identify gender wise (usually) with their bodily physical sexual characteristic, there is just a sexual behavioral preference.

First of all, this is wrong, and you need to attach to a link, because it looks like you're making this up. Sexuality is not just a gender identification and, while not a "feature", it is definitely tied to the body and its genetics.

I do not wish to imply sexual preferences or gender identity are entirely a matter of conscious choice but instead they have to do with deep seated subconscious emotional drives and preferences.

Again, you're making this up. Where do you get this stuff? You exclude the body again, which goes against current scientific and medical consensus.

I used the term "psychological state" as a factor in both gender identity and sexual behavioral preference and that was attacked but I have yet to see a viable alternative.

No, it wasn't attacked; it was shown to be wrong, and the medical and scientific community considers it to be wrong. And I offered a correct alternative: sexuality is always tied to the body, so it is not just a psychological state, but always both a physiological and psychological aspect of the self.

I still use "psychological" until someone offers a better terminology

I just did.

No, I've said many times since I've made it clear that sexuality is both psychological and physiological. — John Harris

Gender isn't a psychological "state.

But what you haven't said at all, despite many polite requests, is what you mean by 'psychological'.

But this is on the understanding that changes of brain state at a certain level of subtlety below gross trauma are called 'psychological'.

This isn't true at all. Where exactly did you learn this? — John Harris

I learned it while at university studying psychology. Where did you learn the opposite?

No, I've said many times since I've made it clear that sexuality is both psychological and physiological.
— John Harris

Gender isn't a psychological "state.


But what you haven't said at all, despite many polite requests, is what you mean by 'psychological'.

Sure I have, in my bold quote below Now it's your turn to do so.:

And it is proper to include physical changes or effect-causing elements in the brain as part of physiology, since that is different than discussing psychological thought. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

But this is on the understanding that changes of brain state at a certain level of subtlety below gross trauma are called 'psychological'.

This isn't true at all. Where exactly did you learn this?
— John Harris

I learned it while at university studying psychology. Where did you learn the opposite?

No, I don't think so. But feel free to provide a link to back it up. I learned at university studying biology, and there are many levels below gross trauma that are physiological and not labeled just psychological

The word for physical structure is anatomy. Gays and straights have the same anatomy. If there's a difference in how a certain stimulus is processed in homosexuals, that would have to have a physiological component.

If the question is: does it originate in the psyche, genetics, or environment... I don't think anybody knows. Maybe it's part of everybody's potential and it's just latent in straights.

Since when does "psychological state" not include the underlying brain, mind, anatomy, neural circuity, neurotransmitters and hormones (physiology) that gives rise to it?
An appropriate scientific or medical reference would be welcome.
Since when does psychology not include the brain and mind?
The real issue here is whether such behaviors and gender roles are a matter of choice or not. I am perfectly happy to concede I do not regard them as free choices one makes voluntarily or that can be changed through therapy or counseling.

With caution and trepidation (heated reactions out there) may I mildly suggest that 58 gender options is bullshit. — Bitter Crank

I do not mean to advocate for this many gender options (and there seems to be some conflation of gender identity and sexual preference or behavior in the list). I just posted it to show where social media and political correctness have brought us. I think probably a much smaller number of categories would suffice for gender identity. I am not sure 59 categories would suffice for sexual behaviors especially if one started specifying various fetishes, BDSM and such. I think both gender identity and sexual preferences are not free conscious choices but rather have much deeper subconscious correlates (physiologic) and motivations/emotions (psychologic) if one wishes to pretend they are separate categories.

Let's move on from sexuality to the topic of gender. Perhaps the easiest way to get a handle on this is to consider gender roles.

Socially constructed gender roles are considered to be hierarchical, and are characterized as a male-advantaged gender hierarchy by social constructionists.[24] The term patriarchy, according to researcher Andrew Cherlin, defines "a social order based on the domination of women by men, especially in agricultural societies".

wiki

It's a long article, and worth a look, but just from this almost definitional fragment, one can see the beginnings of an oppositional morality, such that because men are dominant, women ought to be submissive. Thus the male virtues are vices in females, and vice versa. This can only be a broad generalisation, and societies are not homogeneous. Still for a woman to be called manly or a man to be called effeminate tend to be seen as insults.

Here'a another fragment:

In another study of gender stereotypes it was found that parents' stereotypes interact with the sex of their child to directly influence the parents' beliefs about the child's abilities. In turn, parents' beliefs about their child directly influence their child's self-perceptions, and both the parents' stereotypes and the child's self-perceptions influence the child's performance.[111]
Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group.[112] In the case of gender it is the implicit belief in gender stereotype that women perform worse than men in mathematics, which is proposed to lead to lower performance by women.[113]
A recent review article of stereotype threat research related to the relationship between gender and mathematical abilities concluded 'that although stereotype threat may affect some women, the existing state of knowledge does not support the current level of enthusiasm for this [as a] mechanism underlying the gender gap in mathematics'.[114]
In another study, Deaux and her colleagues found that most people think women are more nurturant, but less self-assertive than men. and that this belief is indicated universally, but that this awareness is related to women's role. To put it another way, women do not have an inherently nurturant personality, rather that a nurturing personality is acquired by whoever happens to be doing the housework. — wiki

It would be interesting to see how this nurturing persona plays out in shepherds and the like, as well as straightforward domesticity.

The generic term for masculine virtue is 'virility'. "Virility (from the Latin virilitas, manhood or virility, derived from Latin vir, man) refers to any of a wide range of masculine characteristics viewed positively. Virile means "marked by strength or force". (wiki again)

The feminine equivalent is 'fertility' which virtue she shares with a good piece of real-estate.

@Bitter Crank Can you say something from your experience about the roles of 'butch and 'fem', which I understand are sort of mirror gender roles in the homosexual community? Or am I hopelessly out of date?

Gender roles, gender identity, sexual behaviors and secondary sexual features, get confusing pretty quickly?

Gender is a question of desire, which can be literalized. A Transsexual is not limited by a desire.

I am not sure what that means?

Since when does psychology not include the brain and mind?

I never said it didn't.

The real issue here is whether such behaviors and gender roles are a matter of choice or not.

The real issue here is you are excluding the rest of the body as factors in gender, and that is wrong.

Gender is a question of desire, which can be literalized. A Transsexual is not limited by a desire.

No, gender is also a question of being, body, and self-awareness.

I think both gender identity and sexual preferences are not free conscious choices but rather have much deeper subconscious correlates (physiologic) and motivations/emotions (psychologic) if one wishes to pretend they are separate categories.

Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender.

Gender is basically a template for fashion and behavior at a high level that correlates highly with biological sex. Not everybody fits the templates well, which leads to 1 of 3 reactions:
1) OK no problem
2) Let's get rid of the templates
3) Let's make a whole lot more templates

I think 3 is the least feasible.

Bitter Crank Can you say something from your experience about the roles of 'butch and 'fem', which I understand are sort of mirror gender roles in the homosexual community? Or am I hopelessly out of date? — unenlightened

Some homosexual boys and men display stereotypical masculine affect, style, and public behavior. They are "virile", they are macho, the are mechanics, soldiers, executives, etc. (or... butch). Some homosexual boys and men display less or much less stereotypical masculine affect, style, and public behavior. What they display ranges from toned-down masculine affect, style, and behavior to definitely feminine affect, style and public behavior (or... fem). Their occupational roles generally skew somewhat toward more stereotypical female jobs.

"Butch" and "fem" may or may not transfer very well to private sexual behavior. Sometimes the public presentation carries over to the private presentation, and sometimes it is reversed. (And there are all sorts of gradations).

Some guys who are divas at the bar turn out to be pile drivers in bed, and some guys who are toughs on the street turn out to be pussies in bed. (But not always: sometimes the diva and the tough don't switch to opposites.)

Many (most?) people accept the idea that sexual orientation is 'assigned' rather than 'chosen'. I suspect that the affect and style, maybe the public presentation of one's sexuality may also be more assigned rather than chosen. A lot of behaviors are like fetishes -- they seem to be present (in some form) from a very early age, and they seem to be more or less unyielding to change.

But... whatever affect, style, or public presentation men have, gay men and straight men have different sexual orientations, have consistently different object choices in sex partners (one same sex, the other opposite sex), and this pretty much stays the same for life.

Is that what you were looking for?

I do not mean to advocate for this many gender options — prothero

I didn't think you were advocating for the long list.

Many (most?) people accept the idea that sexual orientation is 'assigned' rather than 'chosen'. I suspect that the affect and style, maybe the public presentation of one's sexuality may also be more assigned rather than chosen. A lot of behaviors are like fetishes -- they seem to be present (in some form) from a very early age, and they seem to be more or less unyielding to change.

This is very well said.

Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender — John Harris

I am a little confused about how you are using the word "gender" here, which parts of the body determine gender in your view? Are you separating "gender identity" from "secondary sexual characteristics"?
I am also a little confused about why you feel the need to separate "physiologic" from "psychologic" as one seems to always accompany the other?

Many (most?) people accept the idea that sexual orientation is 'assigned' rather than 'chosen'. — Bitter Crank

I guess the question would be assigned by what? Not that anyone knows.

Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender
— John Harris
I am a little confused about how you are using the word "gender" here, which parts of the body determine gender in your view? Are you separating "gender identity" from "secondary sexual characteristics"?

I gave you no reason to be confused. How do you define it?

I am also a little confused about why you feel the need to separate "physiologic" from "psychologic" as one seems to always accompany the other?

That's an odd question to ask. If they're not separate in some way, why are they two different words instead of one?

As I indicated in my very first post the language is a problem. Some people would use gender as a description of your visible sex characteristics (vagina, penis, etc). The term "gender identification" on the other hand is often used to indicate whether one identifies "psychologically" as a male of female. Transexuals for instance identify with a "gender" that does not match their body. So when you imply the body determines gender, what do you mean? It is a fair question I would think.

I guess the question would be assigned by what? Not that anyone knows. — prothero

No, we don't know--but there are some clues about what might be happening in pre-natal development. For instance, gay men tend to have older brothers. The effect of bearing several prior males may change something in the pre-natal environment. Perhaps there is a hormonal difference in the womb at some point that makes a difference. Genes? Antibodies? Right -- no body knows for sure.

There are, in fact, a lot of factors that apparently influence pregnancy outcomes that are not understood, or not well understood.

I don't think mental states (feelings, thoughts, emotions) (psychologic) are really separate from brain states (anatomy, physiology). It just depends on which aspect you are emphasizing and which description you employ.. When I talk about psychologic states I assume there is a brain involved, don't you?.

The term "gender identification" on the other hand is often used to indicate whether one identifies "psychologically" as a male of female

Only by ignorant people. The AMA and association of psychiatrists all recognize gender as also being physiological (tied to the body). And thanks for showing you know the difference between psychological and physiological.

↪John Harris I don't think mental states (feelings, thoughts, emotions) (psychologic) are really separate from brain states (anatomy, physiology). It just depends on which aspect you are emphasizing and which description you employ.. When I talk about psychologic states I assume there is a brain involved, don't you?. ]

You're just ranting now. I never said the brain wasn't involved or that mental states weren't tied to brain states. And since you're just lying about what I said now, I wont' be reading any more of your posts on this thread.

That is just fine with me because I was just asking for clarification and I dont see the rant or the "lying" or the "ignorance" all terms you are employing, and without answering the inquiry.

"Butch" and "fem" may or may not transfer very well to private sexual behavior. Sometimes the public presentation carries over to the private presentation, and sometimes it is reversed. (And there are all sorts of gradations).

Some guys who are divas at the bar turn out to be pile drivers in bed, and some guys who are toughs on the street turn out to be pussies in bed. (But not always: sometimes the diva and the tough don't switch to opposites.) — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's interesting. As if the private and public personas may be the same or opposed. I suppose I was wondering to what extent it is a self-conscious performance of heterosexual norms, and to what extent it is 'involuntary' in he way that straights come to feel that they absolutely 'are' the roles they have been assigned. My very limited experience of the public persona is that it tends to be somewhat of an impoverished exaggerated cartoon of 'real' gender roles, but that may bey own confusion and failure to see a really different spectrum that does not entirely relate to straight gender roles in the first place? Or is it that the whole performance aspect is a hangover from the days when everything had to be hidden, and covertly signalled.

And then I'm trying to relate this in my own mind to Eldridge Cleaver's discussion of the intersection of race and gender in Soul on Ice, about the hyper-masculine black man and the ultra-feminine white woman. But that is probably too complicated and controversial for this thread.