Two Tribes?

[geordief]

I think I have heard the young infants, when presented with a choice of toys will (presumably w/o cues) tend to choose cars etc rather than dolls  depending  on the genetalia they have.

 

Have I described these experiments correctly and ,if so  what might that tell us?

 

(Do we choose our group at the outset of our lives or do parents who try to prevent early gender assignments have a point ?)

 

Apologies that I do not have any references as this is just something I picked up on the TV.

[Peterkin]

40 minutes ago, geordief said:

I think I have heard the young infants, when presented with a choice of toys will (presumably w/o cues) tend to choose cars etc rather than dolls  depending  on the genetalia they have.

What age do you mean by young infants?

Babies reach for things that are shiny, jingly or brightly coloured, until their eyesight gains 3-D focus, at 5-8 months. At that stage, they enjoy looking at things that move and hugging things that soft and furry. At 8-12 months, they begin to prefer toys that present a challenge - things they can manipulate and figure out.

Gender-appropriate preference doesn't necessarily correlate with external genitalia, and doesn't begin to present until 3 years of age. At that time, it expresses not a choice of toys, but a choice of roles. That is, the child has grasped how its culture views male and female roles, how they dress and what traits they are expected to exhibit. It will then imitate the appearance and behaviour of the adult role model whose gender most nearly approximates its own inclination

52 minutes ago, geordief said:

Apologies that I do not have any references as this is just something I picked up on the TV.

There's TV and TV. Here is an easy article: https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx

[iNow]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Apologies that I do not have any references

Without confirmation, isn’t this a waste of time?

”Hey guys… what’s the best explanation for this behavior which might not even be a real behavior?”

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Without confirmation, isn’t this a waste of time?

”Hey guys… what’s the best explanation for this behavior which might not even be a real behavior?”

Sorry to waste your time.

I was hoping this might ring a bell with (knowledgeable)  others here .

As it happens an extremely  short google search brings up this bbc video which I may well have  heard in passing and misinterpreted

 

It actually focuses on the parents rather than the children and their unconscious biases 

 

https://youtu.be/nWu44AqF0iI

 

And makes a contrary point to the one I imagined.

 

I still cannot say whether there have been experiments to show young infants choosing their own roles via choice of toys or otherwise -but quite possibly  not.

 

[iNow]

Research suggests parental cues are essentially the entire reason young humans have any gender based differences or preferences, even in early infancy. 
 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7002030/

Gender socialization influences children at early ages, shaping their developing identities. The toys provided by parents deliver some of the earliest gender-based messages by encouraging children to engage in activities associated with, for example, dolls and trucks. In the current study, we measured the influence of parental socialization by assessing 5- and 12 ½-month-old infants’ exposure to dolls and trucks and by experimentally manipulating parents’ encouragement to play with these toys. We found that infants displayed gender-typical toy preferences at 12 ½, but not 5 months, a pattern characteristic of previous studies. However, brief encouragement by a parent to play with toys from each category was ineffective in altering infants’ preferences. Rather, the types of toys present in the home predicted preferences, suggesting that at-home exposure to toys may be influential in the development of toy preferences. These findings reveal that socialization processes may indeed play a role in the formation of early gender-typical toy preferences and highlight the importance of equal toy exposure during infancy to ensure optimal development.

…

even as early as 4 and 5 months, parents make toys available to their female infants that they do not make available to their male infants (i.e., dolls and pink toys), and that the availability of these toys, or lack thereof, maps onto later toy preferences. It is important to note that infants are agender (i.e. without gender); children do not demonstrate that they recognize their gender until around 24 months of age (Stennes et al. 2005) nor do they verbally self-identify their gender until around the age of 2 ½ years (Kohlberg 1966). Yet, our study provides evidence that present-day parents construct a gendered world for even their very young, agender infants, in this case via exposure to toys, despite the gender-neutral parenting approach that has been espoused by gender-conscious parents. We show that brief, overt attempts to influence infants’ preferences are ineffective. Rather, the availability of toys in the home predicts the amount of play with toys, which in turn predicts children’s preferences.

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, geordief said:

I still cannot say whether there have been experiments to show young infants choosing their own roles via choice of toys or otherwise -but quite possibly  not.

I already explained the differences of behaviour at various ages. Infants have no social or gender roles; their preferences - assuming a healthy, nurturing environment - are sensory, not psychological. Social roles do not become a factor until childhood, typically between the ages 3 and 5 years. And at that point, it's not the toys that show decisive gender preference, so much as the presentation of self: choice of clothing and demeanour - which adult role model they imitate.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Social roles do not become a factor until childhood, typically between the ages 3 and 5 years.

This is contrary to the evidence already shared in the post immediately prior to this one from you I’ve quoted 

It happens far sooner 

[Peterkin]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is contrary to the evidence already shared in the post immediately prior to this one from you I’ve quoted 

It happens far sooner 

True, it's always a factor. Something happens to the parents, even before the baby's born - some of them have very emphatic preference. And their attitude influences the child's self identification -- until it discovers its innate identity. By then, the child may be reluctant to contradict the parent's assumptions and expectations.

[MigL]

So parents who have a child of a specific biological sex, and then re-enforce the opposing gender identity on that child, should be held criminally responsible for any emotional hardships ( up to including suicide ) suffered by that child throughout its life ?

Or should we just give them hormone blockers and sex reassignment surgery, and ignore the root cause ?

[geordief]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

until it discovers its innate identity

How are you defining  "its innate identity"? The gender that infants recognize in themselves at  around 2 years as per iNow's quoted link?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

The gender that infants recognize in themselves at  around 2 years as per iNow's quoted link?

Infancy, by convention, and at the 1st birthday. At two years, a toddler can consistently use the words they learn as they acquire language. By 3, they have a concept of what a girl is and what a boy is, though they may not have questioned the label they came with. So it's unclear whether that expression of identity is self-generated, until they begin to express it in other ways. When and how that happens is not so easy to be certain about. Nearly all 3-6 year olds play dress-up if they get the chance, try on different personae and appearances, partly as play, partly as exploration. You begin to see gender identity emerge when the the child insists on wearing a role-designated colours, items of clothing or hair style in public. When she or he cries if they're not allowed to wear the tiara or baseball cap to school.

The odd thing is, children who are comfortable in and with their assigned role get over this phase - usually by the time they start school - and happy to dress in any way approved of by their peers, or appeal to their own aesthetic sense, including styles that are gender neutral or effeminate or tomboyish. All things at home being equal, that is. I mean, if an adult of older sibling doesn't criticize or ridicule or bully them into conformity. However, children assigned the wrong sex at birth may be distressed when they feel they're being forced into that role: they want to be called by a different name, refuse to wear unisex clothing, destroy their role-defining toys, exaggerate their imitations of the adult of the sex they themselves identify with and reject the one they're expected to imitate. (Even then, it may be a passing fancy engendered by a movie or story-book. Most little girls go through a princess phase, even nobody in their real world dresses in purple tulle; both boys and girls might have a space-suit or police uniform period, though I understand boys are more likely to be a robot or a dog, while girls are more likely to be a pony.)

Quite a lot depends on environment and socialization. If the atmosphere is easy-going and accepting, children go through their developmental phases at their own rate - which varies, of course - and eventually decide who they are without many ructions. Siblings and playmates of both sexes can play with the same toys, share games and sports, pretend, mimic and perform various roles, experiment and exchange information. It doesn't need to be hostile camps. 

When it is, that's usually the parents' fault: offloading their own psycho-religio-social baggage onto those frail vessels.          

Edited February 4, 2023 by Peterkin

[iNow]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

So parents who have a child of a specific biological sex, and then re-enforce the opposing gender identity on that child, should be held criminally responsible for any emotional hardships ( up to including suicide ) suffered by that child throughout its life ?

What crime exactly would you have them charged with?

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Or should we just give them hormone blockers and sex reassignment surgery, and ignore the root cause ?

If they’re not your kids, what business is it of yours?

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

it's unclear whether that expression of identity is self-generated

Those links we put into our posts aren’t just there for decoration, you know. It’s actually not. 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

When it is, that's usually the parents' fault: offloading their own psycho-religio-social baggage onto those frail vessels.          

This is the far more parsimonious explanation for homophobic tendencies than is “it’s an evolved trait” as some here seem to steadfastly think. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by iNow

[mistermack]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

If they’re not your kids, what business is it of yours?

Child abuse is everyones business.

 

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is the far more parsimonious explanation for homophobic tendencies than is “it’s an evolved trait” as some here seem to steadfastly think.

The evolved trait isn't homophobic tendency. It's a tendency to pick on others. Many apes and monkeys have a very strict pecking order in their clans. They are picked on from above, and pick on those below. Being gay is just an invitation to some to peck down, and by forcing someone down in the order, you can raise yourself up a notch. And climbing up the pecking order gives a real boost to your survival prospects. That's the real evolved trait.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Child abuse is everyones business.

What is abusive about accepting a child as they are, giving them support when they realize they’re homosexual, trans, or anything else deemed to be “unsavory” by the ignorant masses?

Your point here doesn’t make any sense. Hyperbole has gone awry if THAT now qualifies in your mind as “child abuse.”

Edited February 5, 2023 by iNow

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is the far more parsimonious explanation for homophobic tendencies

I wasn't intending anything of the sort. Though that may be part of some people's baggage, there is a lot of other stuff about gender role stereotyping: how fathers play with and talk to their boy babies and girl babies (mothers tend to treat both tenderly); the toys parents and grandparents offer each child, the behaviours they encourage (or reward) and discourage (or punish), the latitude they give each child in emotional expression; the way they dress and groom children; the way they present them to other adults. It's a very complex message a baby gets, long before it knows any words. 

 

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Those links we put into our posts aren’t just there for decoration,

Mine are.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's a tendency to pick on others.

We often compete for resources in an innate manner, but how we treat others is something learned. 

Just now, Peterkin said:

I wasn't intending anything of the sort.

I understand, but your position works both ways. Even if unintentionally, you described where homophobia comes from when you posted that. 

[MigL]

hold on a minute, INow ...

You previously agreed with others, and yourself stated, that gender identity is a learned trait at a very early age, and probably picked up from parents and siblings who may influence you at a very early age.

Yet now you clain

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

What is abusive about accepting a child as they are, giving them support when they realize they’re homosexual, trans, or anything else deemed to be “unsavory” by the ignorant masses?

that the child has innate gender identity and, what is abusive, is if the parents don't accept the child as they 'are'.
How exactly 'are' they without an environmental influence to their gender identity ?

Pick a side, and have some logical consistency in your arguments.
I realize you're passionate about the subject, but don't let that passion cloud your thinking.

[sethoflagos]

At a basic level, I saw both my children (1 of each) emerge into this world and there was no doubt as to their physical gender. Hormones had been in play in utero, so to imply that boys and girls are identical at birth seems absurd to me.

I was generally around weekends only while my children were young, but I clearly remember conversations I had with them when they were 3 years old.

Boy: I want some sweeties!

Me: Your mother will be back soon. Have some patience.

Boy: I want some patience now!

Compare and contrast:

Girl: Daddy, daddy, the ice cream van's here.

Me: You can't have one.

Girl: I didn't want one. I thought you might like one.

This I suggest is an entirely different level of sophistication in manipulation. I know it's a population sample of two but the difference is staggering which is why I remember it so clearly. 

Furthermore, my daughter very clearly saw my wife as a competitor for my affections and could be openly hostile to her about it. My son showed had no corresponding behaviour pattern. He just sat building aeroplanes out of lego.

For 'reasons' I'd actually 'like' behaviour to be more environmental then genetic in nature - it would certainly give more hope of change for the better in the future. But my own personal experience is that early psychological sexual differentiation appears to be strongly correlated with the presence or otherwise of a Y chromosome. It's an unfortunate fact that I've just had to come to terms with. 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

You previously agreed with others, and yourself stated, that gender identity is a learned trait at a very early age, and probably picked up from parents and siblings who may influence you at a very early age.

Yet now you clain

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

What is abusive about accepting a child as they are, giving them support when they realize they’re homosexual, trans, or anything else deemed to be “unsavory” by the ignorant masses?

that the child has innate gender identity

Fair. I wasn’t as precise as I could’ve been. 

We are not born hating others for who we love or find attractive. That is learned. It is cultural.

Who we as individuals find attractive can have both social and genetic contributors, but I come down on the side that it’s more nature than nurture involved there. It’s complex though and we need to be open to both.

More to the point: I also suggest that the very concept of gender itself is a social construct that’s somewhat arbitrary. We impose it on infants the moment they leave the womb based solely on their plumbing. That’s what gets imprinted on children by parents and tribal elders. That’s what’s fully nurture. 

“You have dangly bits. That means male and male means you just like female! Do not question the orthodoxy!!” It’s silliness. They’re human. You may as well be forcing them to be a Red Sox fan just bc they’re born with red hair. Super dumb.

This isn’t a perfect description of all my thoughts on this topic, but is a mostly accurate summary of what I’ve tried to communicate here. Other people need to stop caring so much about who I or you or our kids happen to find attractive and want to get jiggy with. It’s none of our damned business. Just walk away and shut up about it.

Does that help to clarify my points, or have I really missed the mark?

40 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

This I suggest is an entirely different level of sophistication in manipulation.

Which also very easily could’ve been taught and or learned. 

41 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

my own personal experience is that early psychological sexual differentiation appears to be strongly correlated with the presence or otherwise of a Y chromosome.

What have you done specifically to rule out alternative possibilities?

[Genady]

Like Seth, I also had 1 of each. By the age of 3 they were just two very different persons. So different in so many respects, that there is no way, I think, to ascribe any specific differences to their genders.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Being gay is just an invitation to some to peck down

Not when one lives in a culture where being gay is accepted as perfectly normal and entirely valid.

People shouldn’t have to beg society for basic decency and respect just bc they happen to love differently than you do.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

This I suggest is an entirely different level of sophistication in manipulation. I know it's a population sample of two but the difference is staggering which is why I remember it so clearly. 

This, i suggest, is generalizing from an inadequate sample size. (Not that I believe that dialogue coming from a 3-year-old in the first place).

People's characters are not determined by their genitals or hormones alone. In my household, for example, the exact opposite was true. The girl was outspoken, willful, changeable and in her mid-teens, could be volatile. The boy, one year younger, at first relied on her protection; as he grew older, he expressed his resentment of her dominance through subtle provocation: he was the innocent cherub; she was the aggressor who got reprimanded. And in spite of all that jockeying for position, the altercations and jealousies, they were the only people in the world the other sibling trusted. None of this had to do gender; it was a matter of innate temperament and early childhood experience. (We learned something of their pre-adoption history) There are as many variations to sibling relationship as there are to individual personality.    

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Which also very easily could’ve been taught and or learned. 

From who? She has her mother's emotional intelligence coupled with my IQ. Effing nightmare.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

What have you done specifically to rule out alternative possibilities?

Absolutely nothing. IMHO Psychology has not progressed beyond eugenics. I prefer my own personal observation of a small population to the confirmation bias of an unscientific community.

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not that I believe that dialogue coming from a 3-year-old in the first place.    

Are you calling me a liar, Peterkin, really? I know my daughter's date of birth, which house this conversation occurred in, and the date we moved to a different house. So I'm pretty clear on the timeline.

Retract now, pretty please.

Edited February 5, 2023 by sethoflagos

[Peterkin]

52 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Retract now, pretty please.

I'm already short enough. I did not call you anything. I made a statement regarding my own state of mind: i.e. incredulity that a 3-year-old would have such a sophisticated command of language; it did cross my mind that you might have paraphrased. If the child is, indeed, a prodigy, I will make every effort never to meet her in person. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Peterkin

[sethoflagos]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I'm already short enough. I did not call you anything. I made a statement regarding my own state of mind: i.e. incredulity that a 3-year-old would have such a sophisticated command of language; it did cross my mind that you might have paraphrased. If the child is, indeed, a prodigy, I will make every effort never to meet her in person. 

She's now a delightful adult. I hope she doesn't meet you either. Contact with the spineless and dishonest rarely proves positive.