"That leads to the question, are effeminate men (observed behavior) exhibiting some natural "trans" attribute or are they adopting what they observe as femininity to support their self-image." I think, fundamentally, all behaviour is learned. All we're really talking about is the amount of external pressure. Start influencing somebody ea…
"That leads to the question, are effeminate men (observed behavior) exhibiting some natural "trans" attribute or are they adopting what they observe as femininity to support their self-image."
I think, fundamentally, all behaviour is learned. All we're really talking about is the amount of external pressure. Start influencing somebody early enough, or apply a strong enough hand, and you can make people behave any way you want. Human behaviour is, above all else, adaptive.
The variances in innate behaviour in humans are quite small. For example, men are more aggressive than women. But it's only at the ends of the bell curves where that differences is notable. For the most part, differences in aggressive behaviour are better explained by socialisation and the fact that real world aggression is likely to lead to real world violence which women, for obvious reasons, are more motivated to avoid. Studies done on online behaviour show an even smaller difference between male and female aggression.
I used to be baffled by the exaggerated feminine behaviour seen in some gay men, but I think it's more accurately framed as codified *gay* behaviour. I think it's a learned behaviour that acts as a signal to other gay men as well as a signifier of group membership. See also: "talking black" or sagging pants for some black people, the defensive "no-homo" masculinity of some straight men or the banal, "everything happens for a reason" enlightenment of pseudo spiritual people.
There's nothing innate about these behaviours (as Chris points out below, the "flaming" gay behaviour seems to be giving way to the "gym bro" gay stereotype). At least not in any significant sense. But they're widespread within certain sub-sub cultures.
"For example, men are more aggressive than women. "
Not true. And women are not more social than men.
Actual double-blind testing shows both of these to be stereotypes.
The only sex difference that survives testing is reaction to competition. Men will outperform themselves under competitive circumstances; women will perform the same in both.
"Not true. And women are not more social than men."
I mean, there's pretty extensive research that says it is true. Just not to the degree most people think. In fact, I've never seen a paper that claims it's not true. But I guess there's a paper for everything nowadays. All that said, it would be pretty remarkable if humans were pretty much the only mammal special that didn't display heightened aggression in males due to testosterone.
I can't back this up with references because I got it from a university class that I took four times (I was a professional notetaker) and the professor was not the kind who would say things for shock value. Others were.
Obviously, women don't use their fists as much as men; any actuary can tell you that where men use guns, women use poison. So I don't know if the studies he was citing included verbal as well as physical aggression but in the decades since I have seen little in my life to doubt it. Women can be vicious. Certainly I've seen a lot of feminists who were shockingly aggressive.
"That leads to the question, are effeminate men (observed behavior) exhibiting some natural "trans" attribute or are they adopting what they observe as femininity to support their self-image."
I think, fundamentally, all behaviour is learned. All we're really talking about is the amount of external pressure. Start influencing somebody early enough, or apply a strong enough hand, and you can make people behave any way you want. Human behaviour is, above all else, adaptive.
The variances in innate behaviour in humans are quite small. For example, men are more aggressive than women. But it's only at the ends of the bell curves where that differences is notable. For the most part, differences in aggressive behaviour are better explained by socialisation and the fact that real world aggression is likely to lead to real world violence which women, for obvious reasons, are more motivated to avoid. Studies done on online behaviour show an even smaller difference between male and female aggression.
I used to be baffled by the exaggerated feminine behaviour seen in some gay men, but I think it's more accurately framed as codified *gay* behaviour. I think it's a learned behaviour that acts as a signal to other gay men as well as a signifier of group membership. See also: "talking black" or sagging pants for some black people, the defensive "no-homo" masculinity of some straight men or the banal, "everything happens for a reason" enlightenment of pseudo spiritual people.
There's nothing innate about these behaviours (as Chris points out below, the "flaming" gay behaviour seems to be giving way to the "gym bro" gay stereotype). At least not in any significant sense. But they're widespread within certain sub-sub cultures.
Common experience: walking down the sidewalk with a gay friend. He is speaking at normal volume and with no "gay accent."
Pass some people walking the other way and he gets louder and puts on the "queer" voice.
That always made me mad.
"For example, men are more aggressive than women. "
Not true. And women are not more social than men.
Actual double-blind testing shows both of these to be stereotypes.
The only sex difference that survives testing is reaction to competition. Men will outperform themselves under competitive circumstances; women will perform the same in both.
That's it.
"Not true. And women are not more social than men."
I mean, there's pretty extensive research that says it is true. Just not to the degree most people think. In fact, I've never seen a paper that claims it's not true. But I guess there's a paper for everything nowadays. All that said, it would be pretty remarkable if humans were pretty much the only mammal special that didn't display heightened aggression in males due to testosterone.
I can't back this up with references because I got it from a university class that I took four times (I was a professional notetaker) and the professor was not the kind who would say things for shock value. Others were.
Obviously, women don't use their fists as much as men; any actuary can tell you that where men use guns, women use poison. So I don't know if the studies he was citing included verbal as well as physical aggression but in the decades since I have seen little in my life to doubt it. Women can be vicious. Certainly I've seen a lot of feminists who were shockingly aggressive.