See also the story of David Reimer who suffered a botched circumcision that left him castrated. They tried to give him a fake vagina as a teen but he rebelled and grew up to be a manly. Sadly, he killed himself.
Boys used to wear pink in the West because it was the boy version of the adult military red. And girls wore blue. Today, it's reversed, and it suggests that boys like "Amanda" choose the preferences of other contemporary boys that they identify with. I.e., the preference is cultural but not arbitrary.
Pink has historically been, and still is a masculine colour in Japan. "Cherry Blossom Colour" hakama (pants) were traditionally worn by Samarai in the Heian period, to symbolise bravery, strength, courage, and elegance. And biker gangs have used it as the colour to say "I'm bad."
Really compelling case for the endocrine contribution to toy prefernce patterns. The DSD study design is particulary clever since it isolates rearing from biology pretty cleanly. That 1:3 to 1:5 nature-to-nurture ratio dunno if that holds up across culutres though, or if its specific to western toy markets.
Personally, I find sex to still be quite arbitrary in terms of play, presentation, and so on. Even if we could extrapolate mass disparities between the men and women in terms of the aforementioned behaviors, an explanation would still be required to specifically explain how these qualities interact causally. More precisely, even if that could be explained, there would need to be discussion over why sex exists as a Platonic object and why there is attributional priority given to specific characteristics, but not others. Additionally, what I thought was interesting was the notion that mating competition and parental investment is related to play behavior. Though, even if this is the case, I think it would need to be argued why these have much value. It very well could be the case that even if there's some relationship between those, reasoning could still be arbitrary if it is contingent upon pre-logical heuristics.
" why sex exists as a Platonic object and why there is attributional priority given to specific characteristics"
Because that's how you make babies, that's why we care about it so much. There are baby givers and baby makers, and whichever type you are, you require the other type to procreate.
That's why sex is so focal for everyone, and in fact why it is so focal for trans people. Trans people care so much about it that they're motivated to (try to) change it.
See also the story of David Reimer who suffered a botched circumcision that left him castrated. They tried to give him a fake vagina as a teen but he rebelled and grew up to be a manly. Sadly, he killed himself.
Boys used to wear pink in the West because it was the boy version of the adult military red. And girls wore blue. Today, it's reversed, and it suggests that boys like "Amanda" choose the preferences of other contemporary boys that they identify with. I.e., the preference is cultural but not arbitrary.
Yes, I heard that blue was formerly for girls (the conventional colour of the Virgin Mary).
Pink has historically been, and still is a masculine colour in Japan. "Cherry Blossom Colour" hakama (pants) were traditionally worn by Samarai in the Heian period, to symbolise bravery, strength, courage, and elegance. And biker gangs have used it as the colour to say "I'm bad."
Interesting — didn't know that.
—NC
Really compelling case for the endocrine contribution to toy prefernce patterns. The DSD study design is particulary clever since it isolates rearing from biology pretty cleanly. That 1:3 to 1:5 nature-to-nurture ratio dunno if that holds up across culutres though, or if its specific to western toy markets.
Yes, it's a very clever study.
—NC
Personally, I find sex to still be quite arbitrary in terms of play, presentation, and so on. Even if we could extrapolate mass disparities between the men and women in terms of the aforementioned behaviors, an explanation would still be required to specifically explain how these qualities interact causally. More precisely, even if that could be explained, there would need to be discussion over why sex exists as a Platonic object and why there is attributional priority given to specific characteristics, but not others. Additionally, what I thought was interesting was the notion that mating competition and parental investment is related to play behavior. Though, even if this is the case, I think it would need to be argued why these have much value. It very well could be the case that even if there's some relationship between those, reasoning could still be arbitrary if it is contingent upon pre-logical heuristics.
Definitely an interesting subject, though.
" why sex exists as a Platonic object and why there is attributional priority given to specific characteristics"
Because that's how you make babies, that's why we care about it so much. There are baby givers and baby makers, and whichever type you are, you require the other type to procreate.
That's why sex is so focal for everyone, and in fact why it is so focal for trans people. Trans people care so much about it that they're motivated to (try to) change it.
What a strange article.
Has the author actually read much on the subject?
It reads like a 17-year-old high school essay.