Absolutely agree on much of what you've said...education and financial gain doesn't guarantee anything, but it does make a stronger position to work from. And globally....ugh....I did my MS at a university with a strong international community economic development program, and I was fortunate to be able to work with students from all over the world....from inner city organizaitons in the U.S. to students from Ghana and Sierra Leone. Coming from a global perspective we have very, very far to go.

One of my fellow students was from India, and worked with an organization providing capital to women to start small businesses. Even among lower caste women (and that's their reality, not a slam against them), having access to capital and the ability to create an income for themselves frequently (although not always) made a difference in their role and standing within their communities and families.

I come from a place that says we may not be able to change everything overnight, but education, employment, and access to capital is a darn good place to start.

Anyway...feel like I'm derailing now...apologies!

At this point, I would have to disagree with you.

A year or so ago, I probably would have agreed with you (to a point, because there just are biological differences). However, after having lived with both sets of hormones coursing thru my bloodstream I now wholeheartedly disagree with you. There are differences, and it's not all just socialized stuff (which obviously exists too).

*******
Medusa and getting he'd online:

I have a theory I've been working on/watching for years and years. Straight women and queer women tend to speak/act differently when in a public setting. I'm sure gay men and straight men do this too, but I've never bothered to notice, cuz I don't care so much.

Queer women tend to speak more assuredly and with more conviction. I rarely hear queer women using the 'straight girl lilt' when they're talking about something. That's one difference. I'm on my phone, so I don't have time to go into all the other differences I've noticed over the years, but I have more examples.

I think because of homophobia and sexism, if a person isn't acting in traditional 'catering to men' (read straight girl lilt, asking questions instead of just speaking plainly), people (online) are going to assume that means man (because naturally anyone who's not catering to a man, must be a het man, because queers aren't even thought of until someone points it out)


Gotta Get Back To Work,
Dylan

This has been my observation as well.

It's totally none of my business, but I would be interested to hear what differences you're talking about.

However, I still don't think that speaks to men and women being inherently different. I think it speaks to you being a different person on "t" (I presume that's what we're talking about here? we're not besties, so I don't know a whole lot about your life) than you were beforehand. But I'd be willing to bet that some of the things that have changed about you are not necessarily qualities that are inherent in all men. Likewise, I would be willing to bet that there are loads of women who possess these new qualities that you have.

It might be apples and oranges (but I don't think it is - hormones and chemicals hanging out around brain receptors aren't that far off from each other in terms of how they effect our emotional/mental/social make-up) but I'm a different person off of Welbutrin than I am on it. (I am a much better, more stable person OFF it - just for the record. Holy crap that shit did a number on me.)

HEY COOL I found a Canadian Smiley! :canada:

i think it's possible. i think a lot of people successfully do this. The problems come when you ASSUME others are or should be like you are.
It's not just an individual issue. It has social meaning when we default to "he." It defines the norm. Defining the norm as "he" is, for one thing, not statistically accurate. BY FAR, there are more butches who use female pronouns. It also is coercive in the context of right now -- our time, our place. It has cultural meaning.

And I would still disagree with you.

I used my own experience as one example of countless. I no longer share much of my personal business on these boards, but I wasn't talking 'oh, I feel different...like a whole new person' kind of thing.

I don't quite get your welbutrin analogy, because I'm reading as though it proves what I'm saying. There is plenty of science that backs up what I'm saying when it comes to how testoterone and estrogen affect one's brain/emotions/whatnot.


We Can Agree To Disagree If You Want Tho, Cuz I'm Definitely Not About To Share My Personal Business On These Sites Anymore,
Dylan

if there was indeed no difference, then why would anyone feel they were in the wrong body? because i don't think that is only related to biology, is it?

BOOBS FEED BABY HUMAN BEINGS..................they are wonderful on all who enjoy them - just not on me!

So I am one of those human beings who had baby humans, my boobs were not used for that purpose, for you see I am not some fucking cow.. I am not defined by the fact I got tits to feed some crumb cruncher.. Now, if anyone else wants to be defined by that, go for it, but not all humans with boobs were made to feed humans..

Do you see how you are defining someone by their breasts?

....Indeed you are not a f..ing cow and i dont define anyone by anything; of course it is a matter of choice whether someone feeds their young, but its an anatomical fact that breasts produce milk, whether in animals or humans for the purpose of feeding their young.

So we're back to it's just all about the anatomy? :|

Mine never did... The nurses were pretty fucking ugly to me, because I would not try, I know my body no milk was coming, just discomfort, someone got me a breast pump, so yes you did define by your statement.

Who the hell knows

breasts ARE part of the anatomy - females, whether animal or human have mamories which produce milk for feeding their young - i see nothing wrong with that, in fact its wonderful as babies benefit enormously from their mothers milk................

No one in this thread is questioning breasts as anatomy. I haven't seen a soul question whether breasts are "good" or "bad". I haven't seen discussion of breastfeeding, milk production or any other issues around the anatomical function of breasts. Which leads me to ask...have you read the thread?

If your answer is "yes" then can you explain your original post in greater detail because I must be missing something in context.

If your answer is "no" then, well, yeah..go boobs. :|

I AM a mother, who had NO milk,that did not make me less than, nor was I made to be someone's food supply.. I am a mother, woman regardless of my breasts..

[QUOTE=June;105411]Except when they don't. There are a lot of Breast Cancer survivors out there who are no less women because they have had mastectomies.

....you are right, and what i said has nothing to do with whether a woman is a still a woman without breasts............of course she is - i was in spain a while back on a naturist beach and this elderly couple came along where i was sitting with my partner, they were naked, she had only one breast and they looked very happy together. A woman is who she is, breasts or no!

What i was saying was that its an anatomocal fact that breasts are designed for feeding young. If a person choses not to or cannot do that, it doesnt mean theyre not womanly.