From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:32:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.052506.26553@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.000702.1230@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.232242.2352@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov18.020553.24544@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>[Some time before I got to it, someone [Janice?] else was deleted.]
>>>>
>>>>In article <1992Nov17.191024.22626@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>-
>>>>>-In article <1992Nov16.185735.25510@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>>>>->Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:

[mega-quotes resulting in flame taken to e-mail and deleted here.]

>>What's there to explain?  Social conditioning is hardly fool-proof.  The human
>>mind is far more capable of self-alteration [in a hurry even] than the body.
>>You have not explained how 100% biology would work, either.  
>
>This is because I have never claimed 100% biology, why should I try to
>explain something I do not believe to be true, and have no reason to believe?
>I do believe that it is a real non-social factor however.
>
>>                                                          But it looks like
>>neither of us wants to take a 100% stance, so this means nothing.
>
>I did believe your initial statements to be a 100% social conditioning
>argument. Was it? 
>
>>>>>I have problems reconciling the concept of a "women in a man's body" 
>>>>>(or vice versa) with the concept of sexual identity 100% assigned by 
>>>>>social conditioning.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously either:
>>>>a.  sexual identity is not 100% assigned by social conditioning, or
>>>
>>>Can we accept this as a given then?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>>b.  the social conditioning received by Wendy assigned a sexual identity not
>>>>consistent with her physical body.
>>>
>>>This should not be possible, social conditioning is all pervasive. Unless
>>>Wendy grew up in another country or wayyyy back in the hills. Perhaps
>>>Wendy can shed some light on this.
>>
>>I believe Wendy made it clear that she was raised as a feminist by a single
>>woman.  I suppose now you're going to claim it's her mother's fault?  :-)

Sorry for the flippant answer, preceded by a not-so-clear serious one.
I know I've deleted a lot of stuff, but I think there's still enough context,
and people can still follow this if they care to.

While social conditioning is, by definition, all-pervasive, it is hardly
'perfect'.  'Perfect' in the sense of creating exactly what was intended.  If
it were, one would have to contend that all criminals were biologically
'defective' which is hardly a reasonable statement.

Basically, social conditioning [or biology, for that matter] is not really well
understood, nor is it employed as well as it could be.  They are not understood
for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are both very
complex.  Neither can be employed to their extreme because of the requisite
loss of personal liberties.

At any rate, it seems conceivable, to me, that such a complex system is likely
to occasionally result in such extreme outcomes as a cross-gender.  Note also
that neither biology nor conditioning are constant.  Conditioning can change
extremely quickly; biology takes longer, but is hardly immune.  Given the
current state of affairs related to gender, it is not a surprise to me that at
least one of the following is happening:

more people are 'coming out' about gender difficulties
more people are having gender difficulties

[more quotes ending in flammage gone.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu