Your body

[Adios]

Nigel, if I may turn debate into discussion...

While the social roles of what it "means" to be a man or a woman are flexible, there is still a practical and pragmatic "meaning" to be either male or female.

Specifically, the genitals, and the different hormonal surges associated.

I do feel that if, as Kai suggests, "mind" is an emergent process of "brain", and "brain" is affected by the chemicals the body produces, and if differently gendered bodies tend to produce different chemicals, then different genders tend to produce different kinds of minds.

Arbitrary social roles aside, would you say that biology can indeed affect the mind?

What gender constructs of that nature do is tell us that we have to change our bodies to match our imaginary gender construct, if the imaginary socially-imposed, inherently sexist gender construct doesn't match the gender role expected of our body's sex. Fuck them. In the face. To death.

Nigel wrote the above and I completely agree. Let's reverse it as I think LMNO suggested and look at it from What the nature of the gender construct tells us to do. Is this a false statement or is there some merit to it. Is it just a perception based on the things Nigel has posited in the OP?
In more primitive time the stronger (male) was the hunter and protector while the weaker (woman) stayed home. In todays society this no longer applies. I wonder in how many cases the perceptions came from a need of survival.

Well, I think that there were likely many causes involved with the definition of gender roles. Some tribal societies exist where survival is still a major issue... and the women are much more closely considered equals, rather than 'weaker' (No I'm not making noble savage argument). I think the earliest examples of gender identification can be seen in some other species. The male is loud, shiny and seems built to get attention, the female is much less loud, shiny and doesn't get attention... cause she has Teh Babies. From an evolutionary standpoint, loud, brave (foolhardy?) males were, at one time, probably more likely to pass on genetics (or for their passed on genetics to survive). As times changed, police replaced the MANLY need to keep the rapists and murderers off, society took care of the Lions and Tigers and Bears... so the Man protected his DNA stock with Resources and MONIES. In these Strange Times, even that is no longer a necessity. It seems that some men can't adjust to the idea that we don't NEED to protect the women anymore, while others seem to embrace the concept completely.

Evolutionary struggle, perhaps?

[Kai]

Social internalization and expectations, I think.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A person is not their origin. ~A close friend of mine

Example: Is your purpose in life to carry on your parents genes to your offspring? If you look at the physical biological reason of your birth, that is the meaning and purpose you come up with.

How many people REALLY BELIEVE that is their meaning and purpose in life?

In the same way, being via chance born with two X chromosomes does not dictate your meaning and purpose in life be related to the biological OR social definition of "woman".

Truth.

Most people are a lot more complex than that.

And on the other hand, if what I long to do is bear babies, cook, keep a neat home, and tend to my man, it may be partially compelled by biological imperative, but it's still my choice to make, and a valid one.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Social internalization and expectations, I think.

Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.

[Adios]

Social internalization and expectations, I think.

Ah, the Monkey see ~ monkey do theory.

On the other hand isn't the physical make up of the human bean changing a little? Evolution is a very slow process filled with growing pains.

[AFK]

I'll admit that to some degree I have the "I'm a man so I need to protect my woman" programming.  Though I don't tend to look at it from a perspective where she's weak or anything.  Hell, my wife would kick some serious ass if she needed to.  But it was a learned idea from my parents.  My dad earned the money my Mom stayed home and raised me.  My Mom came from a family that was like the Waltons.  A big farm clan.  My gramps was ex-military and the proud and noble patriarch of the family.  So I was constantly surrounded by that kind of idea.  Of course I came to grow my own set of ideals and ideas about gender roles and such, but I still have the innate desire to be the protector of my girls.  

[zen_magick]

I think that choice plays a large part as well.  I could choose to be a straight, white male and live a vanilla lifestyle (I was at one point) with in the confines of the binary boxes.  Or I can be me, a fun loving fruit who wants to experience as much as I can in this lifetime.  I realize that some want genetics to explain it all, I like the mystery myself.

[Adios]

I'll admit that to some degree I have the "I'm a man so I need to protect my woman" programming.  Though I don't tend to look at it from a perspective where she's weak or anything.  Hell, my wife would kick some serious ass if she needed to.  But it was a learned idea from my parents.  My dad earned the money my Mom stayed home and raised me.  My Mom came from a family that was like the Waltons.  A big farm clan.  My gramps was ex-military and the proud and noble patriarch of the family.  So I was constantly surrounded by that kind of idea.  Of course I came to grow my own set of ideals and ideas about gender roles and such, but I still have the innate desire to be the protector of my girls.  

Ever see a mom protecting her young? Now THAT is frightening!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Social internalization and expectations, I think.

Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.

I'm feeling really frustrated right now, by the way that many people are persistently splitting this into a biology/social programming dichotomy.

STOP: YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT

It seems like when someone mentions that biology plays a role in gender, someone steps up to talk about social gender roles, and vice versa, as if they somehow contradict each other.

They don't. That's it. Biology plays a role in gender, AND social gender roles are made up. They're superimposed over what we think we know about biological roles. This is where we end up with the idea of the "feminine" man and the "masculine" woman. Rather than be content to accept that there is a spectrum of behavior for both genders, we insist on imposing the label of "male" to some behaviors and "female" to others, and then take it a step further and claim that these social gender labels supersede biological gender, effectively socially CREATING gender dysphoria.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that choice plays a large part as well.  I could choose to be a straight, white male and live a vanilla lifestyle (I was at one point) with in the confines of the binary boxes.  Or I can be me, a fun loving fruit who wants to experience as much as I can in this lifetime.  I realize that some want genetics to explain it all, I like the mystery myself.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Social internalization and expectations, I think.

Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.

I'm feeling really frustrated right now, by the way that many people are persistently splitting this into a biology/social programming dichotomy.

STOP: YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT

It seems like when someone mentions that biology plays a role in gender, someone steps up to talk about social gender roles, and vice versa, as if they somehow contradict each other.

They don't. That's it. Biology plays a role in gender, AND social gender roles are made up. They're superimposed over what we think we know about biological roles. This is where we end up with the idea of the "feminine" man and the "masculine" woman. Rather than be content to accept that there is a spectrum of behavior for both genders, we insist on imposing the label of "male" to some behaviors and "female" to others, and then take it a step further and claim that these social gender labels supersede biological gender, effectively socially CREATING gender dysphoria.

Err... thats what I thought I was saying.... sorry if it was not clear.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was mostly distressed by the way you appeared to be arguing with each other, but saying the same things.

[zen_magick]

I consider myself lucky, I'm in a relationship with my gf where she is definitely the man.  And believe me I don't mind moaning like a little bitch when she does me.   

Playing with different roles is a good way to learn about yourself, that's for sure!

[Aufenthatt]

Some of the things we see to be different about genders are nothing to do with any of the things most people consider.

The way men have to pay more money for car insurance because young males cause more damage in the sense of cost to repair than females.
Except they don't.

I grew up on a garage, when it came to crashes (serious crashes) I saw roughly the same amount of people male/female with heavy damage. If you assume that the males are driving recklessly then there would be more males as they would crash into everyone else equally, thus meaning I would have seen more guys.

This leads me to think that women are more likely to have people crash into them.
One thing that I never realised when I was small was that for minor things the girls dads would often come in to deal with the problem. Maybe that shows less confidence.
With the big crashes you get brought straight from the crash to the garage in the recovery truck, (its better than any bus) so you know exactly who was involved.

The girls did lots of minor things, suggesting a slower speed and worse spacial awareness (the second supported by my bemusement while watching girls play netball, why were they so crap?).
A large amount of crashes are from the rear of the car. Legally you are required to maintain adequate breaking distance from the car in front, but if the person in front misjudges the distance or isn't aware of you they can drive pretty erratically from your point of view.

There is such a thing as driving too slowly, worse than this is to keep changing speed, and while legally the person that hits you will always get the bullet, it may not be their fault.

I think that guys pay more because it is easier and more cost effective to blame the male than work out what is really fair.

[Adios]

Social internalization and expectations, I think.

Maybe... though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the hormones and DNA that mark them as Boy, might also end up confusing them in these Strange Times. I think social programming provides a strong basis for a lot of what we consider 'gender', but it seems like a mistake to me, to assume that our actions are based entirely on nurture and social expectations. Particularly since other animals seem to have some gender specific behavior as well.

I'm feeling really frustrated right now, by the way that many people are persistently splitting this into a biology/social programming dichotomy.

STOP: YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT

It seems like when someone mentions that biology plays a role in gender, someone steps up to talk about social gender roles, and vice versa, as if they somehow contradict each other.

They don't. That's it. Biology plays a role in gender, AND social gender roles are made up. They're superimposed over what we think we know about biological roles. This is where we end up with the idea of the "feminine" man and the "masculine" woman. Rather than be content to accept that there is a spectrum of behavior for both genders, we insist on imposing the label of "male" to some behaviors and "female" to others, and then take it a step further and claim that these social gender labels supersede biological gender, effectively socially CREATING gender dysphoria.

Didn't mean to frustrate you, just enjoying the discussion. It seems this is a normal offshoot of the OP and is the most interesting conversation I have seen on the board in a long time.

Now I must ask of one of our better scientific minds. We all have DNA strings. These seem mysterious to me but very complicated. Isn't expecting the DNA strings to pop out perfect every time a long stretch?