CDers continue to THINK like men

[GaleWarning]

My SO has put forward to me the following hypothesis:

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Can anyone provide evidence to support or refute this claim?

[Kate Simmons]

Interesting hypothesis my friend. I can't really give an answer as I don't know what a man(or a woman for that matter) thinks like, only what a person thinks like.:)

[tanya1976]

My SO has put forward to me the following hypothesis:

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Can anyone provide evidence to support or refute this claim?

How, exactly, do men think?! :)

[Jenniferpl]

My wife has told me that no matter how feminine I get, I still think like a man. I my look like a hot babe and act like one but I still think like a man.

Since she accepts me for the way I am, I ok with that.

[Lorileah]

I don't (burp) know what you are talking about (scratch scratch), I don't (opens a bottle of beer with my teeth) think like a (geez I forgot to place that bet ) guy when I am (Man! I got a run in these hose) dressed.

BTW Go Avs! Take that Jennifer! (that held a lot more water when the Avs could actually hold up against the wings) :)

[Kelsy]

I think some do and clearly some do not. depends on where you are on the curve. A guy in a dress is just that and would more than likely think like a guy. There are many here who think very much like women and don't think or relate as a man would. Then there also many who tend to cross back and forth. IMHO:)

Kelsy

[kristinacd55]

I think it's got to do with the amount of testoserone flowing personally. :)

[mykhelee]

I believe that how you think is somewhat determined by how you were raised and your environmental surroundings. My strongest influences growing up were my grandmothers, then I ended up with four daughters, much female influence. I score right at the borderline when taking the masc/fem mentality tests. I tend to think more like a female all of the time, most of my friends are female. I would agree with the question,"How exactly do men think?"
I would say that many operate on a somewhat emotional dysfunctional level, but when you are raised to supress all emotion and feeling it is hard to rise above it.

[Sarah...]

Who knows? What do men think like and what do women think like? Impossible to define so impossible to generalise. And you wouldn't get a wholly objective view from someone who has known you in both modes anyway, in my view.

Sarah...

[Sally2005]

I think she might be correct. In my case, I enjoy dressing to blend or more outrageous for a party, but I feel like I'm acting the part. I feel feminine for sure, but I don't think my thought patterns change to a woman's. When shopping, I don't tend to enjoy browsing, I would rather just go get what I need and get out. Also, I'm not sure I know all the funny colors based on names, I tend to think in the three primary ones. It doesn't feel right to use a female voice and my thinking voice always sounds male. I do think about issues once dressed, like not doing certain activities that might mess my hair or nails.

[Ballerina]

I guess that's the whole part of being us. We are stuck in the middle of two wonderful worlds, lol.

[MaryAnn40c]

When I go out I feel I'm thinking like a women,ie how's my hair,is my makeup ok,do I look fat in this outfit ect,ect...hehehehe....its hard to know what a GG is thinking some just don't talk about it.:heehee:

[Nigella]

I think therfore I am

[Violet]

Some of the greatest evidence in support of your SO's argument can be found in this thread (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98670).

There are very, very few folks who answered, "The job I do now. I love it and it's what I always wanted to do."

[Sheila]

How, exactly, do men think?! :)

good question and similar to one I ask myself when I see comments like " I feel like a woman" " I feel so Girly" :doh: I don't know what a woaman or girly feel is .... just know what I feel like :D

[AliciaWeb]

This is almost as good a question as "how long is apiece of string?" I think very like my daughter but not very like my wife. So where does that lead?

[JoAnne Wheeler]

Well that is easy to answer - NO ONE can describe how WOMEN THINK - its impossible - maybe we think like men because it is impossible to understand how women think
JoAnne Wheeler

[Tashee]

Of course I can not refute it. But lets say it like this. My S/O seems to think I think like a lady. And with all that my work brings and all that and whom I am that levels me off just fine. Now I have a nice balance in my life.

To put it the other way is to almost become the thought Police.

It was said/ Just how do men think? We know the stereo types just fine.. But no 2 folks think alike. That was or is a a generalization.

So My S/O is generalizing too--Her generalization is one to make me feel good---So is it OK? I dunno----


To really get to the root of this. You would have to break us down into categories---Who is here for the fetish. Who is Straight, bi etc..

Who dresses all the way up- who does not--who wants to become a women--The list is almost endless---

I only took 3 years of Sociology---I wish I could help you more... But do what most would do---Take a small sample and run with it.. If it works for you fine. If it doesn't keep breaking the numbers down until they do..:hugs:

[tricia_uktv]

I think like me. Does that make me think like a man or a lady? Surely we all totally individual and different. That is what makes like fun (and I like fun) :)

[John]

I philisofical point, if you'll indulge me.

If you are a man, then no matter what you are going or where you are or what you think, you are thinking like a man, becaus in the sphere of your own consiosnus, the only mark of what is 'thinking like a man' is your own thinking, as a man.

[sometimes_miss]

Well that is easy to answer - NO ONE can describe how WOMEN THINK - its impossible - maybe we think like men because it is impossible to understand how women think
JoAnne Wheeler
Well, actually, it's been done.

When I saw this thread, I wondered what would come up. Men and women think in different ways, and communicate in different ways, with the methods far more different than just the level of emotional drama and vocal range changes that are commonly thought of as to be the most important variables. Women define themselves much more in terms of their interpersonal relationships than men do; their supposedly 'intuitive' abilities being genetically and practically increased because it is they who will be caring for infants who cannot tell them what they want, and what is wrong. Women, to us, endlessly ponder over what a person 'really means' by their behaviors, rather than interpreting things literally. They are always looking for another interpretation for things; and rather than simply ask someone a question, they will ask all the rest of their friends what they think instead. The discussions will go on endlessly until another topic comes up. Little girls play with each other; little boys play with things, and that doesn't change over our lives. There are many books on this subject, the simplest being by Barbara and Alan Pease; "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps", "Why men don't have a clue and women always need more shoes", "Why men can only do one thing and women never stop talking", are easy reads and will explain away a tremendous number of frustrating things that people often hate about the opposite sex. Yes, the hormones have a lot to do with it; give a man estrogen and he will start to develop some perspectives more like a woman. Give a woman enough testosterone and she will start to develop masculine behavior.
Some examples. Let's say you're driving on a trip. Your SO might say something like, "Would you like to stop for coffee?" when what she is really meaning is that SHE wants to stop for coffee. Now, if you don't want coffee, you interpret her question literally, say no, and just keep on driving. But she will get upset that you didn't understand her indirect approach to suggesting that you stop for coffee. Men don't speak like that. A guy will most likely say to another guy something like, "Pull over at the next store, I want to pick up a bottle of beer", and his friend thinks nothing of doing exactly that.
Give a man directions, and it goes something like this: "Take route 507 for three miles, then it becomes Park ave; make the first left on Maple, third right on Excelsior, then at the third traffic light take the fork towards the left."
Give a woman directions and she prefers something like this: "Drive up Locust avenue until you see the Exxon station at which you turn left; you'll see a Burger king on the right, but you will turn left between the dry cleaners and the big vacant lot, watch for the school on the right and turn right there, and then just go under the tunnel on the left". Women can see things in pictures easier than they can create a spatial diagram in their minds.
Women can hear better than men; they don't need the volume up as high as we like, and find it irritating. It's because women evolved to react to an infant's subtle noises rather than sleep on, which is what men usually do. But men have better direction, and distance. A crying cat will wake a woman up; but the man will be better able to tell her where the crying is coming from, and how far away it is. Men are also more sensitive to sounds involving movement, such as hearing branches rustle or twigs snapping, because it could involve a predator approaching, and we can also tell where it's coming from better than a woman can.
Men can only hear and focus on one thing at a time. When the phone rings, we tend to turn off or lower the volume on a TV or radio, and once involved in one conversation, we cannot actively listen to another. Women can; they can talk to one person on the phone and another who is present with no problem. While this may seem like an advantage, a man's ability (or inability) to hear two or more things at once is compensated by his greater ability to focus on a single thing, like tracking down a fleeing animal by listening for it.
Women take things personally, and will assume you are trying to hurt her feelings when you do something she doesn't like. Men, not so much; we tend to think the other person is simply trying to attain their goals, rather than acting maliciously in our direction. Sure, we may be 'in the line of fire' when another person's behavior takes advantage of, or hurts us, but we usually don't think it's because they hate us, where as women tend to interpret it that way far more often.
In the above mentioned books are hundreds of examples on how women and men differ in our thinking. Next time you're in a book store, pick one up and check it out. They helped me tremendously; if I had read them while I was married, who know, maybe I wouldn't have gotten divorced.
If you're interested in mating behavior, try reading 'How to make anyone fall in love with you', 'Undercover sex secrets', and 'The biology of love'. Each has many examples of how men and women differ in our desires, beliefs, and behaviors.

[Gabrielle Hermosa]

I'm sure I still have my man-thoughts even when completely dressed and all made up. There are both elements in me - I look and feel feminine, but I'm still a man and have that part there too... ok, "part" is a poor choice of words. :heehee: I meant that side of me; that portion of my mental make.

I really embrace my feminine side, but my masculine side doesn't exactly go to sleep while dressed up. It may not be driving the car, but it's sure got a say in where to take the next turn. ;)

[StevieTV]

If it were that easy to tell how women think just by putting on their clothes, I'd be a millionaire by now with book deals.

[curse within]

I'm guessing ......That sometimes us men do things that relate to having sex and everything else ties into that..Is that what she meant because isn't it like a guy to do that..??? I get accused of it all the time..

[carhill2mn]

How can your wife possibly know how "all CDs" think? She doesn't know all of us!
I am the first to admit that there are CDs that continue to think and act as males even when "dressed" but, that certainly does not apply to all of us. I know that I at least try to think differently as Carole.

[deja true]

Well, I think she might be right!

No matter how I'm dressed, I can still parallel park in one pass ...

:D

[jill s]

I have wondered for some time about the way a few of us act over at the FTM area, it sometimes seems like a "typical male rude/ unthinking" behaviour. I know I will be slammed for saying that but Males and Females do act differently in social settings.

[insearchofme]

Violet

I love my job and it's always what I've wanted to do.

I think like a guy when I'm dressed cause I'm a guy. I may "feel femme" but deep down inside I'm a guy and wouldn't have it any other way.

[Sally24]

My SO has put forward to me the following hypothesis:

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Can anyone provide evidence to support or refute this claim?
Quite easily, "All CDers" don't do any one thing the same. When you make an absolute, all inclusive statement, you're almost always going to be wrong!

[Shannen]

?

I think like me.

[Patty]

:iagree:
Quite easily, "All CDers" don't do any one thing the same. When you make an absolute, all inclusive statement, you're almost always going to be wrong!


:iagree:

[Tess]

Well that is easy to answer - NO ONE can describe how WOMEN THINK - its impossible - maybe we think like men because it is impossible to understand how women think
JoAnne Wheeler

I completely agree...after 38 years I have no idea how my wife thinks. I've got two daughters and they haven't given me any special insight into how women think either.

[Nicki B]

My SO has put forward to me the following hypothesis:

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Can anyone provide evidence to support or refute this claim?

Surely the way we think is strongly affected by our experiences, the people we learn from, our culture and upbringing?

Testosterone obviously plays a part, that's often very clear in posts made here. :sad: But you can't lump us all together and assume we're all the same? :)

[docrobbysherry]

I just don't want to LOOK like one! :doh:
Because men r very visually oriented, I guess?:eek:

If I were ever to go out dressed, I expect I would be a man, trying to ACT like a woman! Whatever I THINK that is!:brolleyes:

[Rachel Morley]

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Not necessarily. When I'm dressed en femme and out at night (especially if I'm on my own) I think about my surroundings, the people around me and my safety much more. Isn't that thinking more like a woman? I rarely do that when I'm in boy mode so I'd like to suggest that being en femme "can" make me think more like a woman (in certain circumstances)

[suchacutie]

Men and women do not approach issues in the same way. When I first started to dress my wife started to educated me in all aspects of appearing to be a woman. One of those was thought process.

For example, just tonight my wife was unhappy about a certain issue and she was grousing about it. Suddenly she stopped, smiled at me, and said, "you do know I don't want this problem solved, I just want to complain". That reference is to the fact that men, generally, will try to solve a problem when it's presented from a loved one. I've quickly learned about this one, and even before she said the above-mentioned quote, I had already tuned in and was helping her grouse, supporting her thoughts. THAT is what women will often do, my wife tells me, and as Tina she loves to talk to me about issues knowing that "he" would try to "fix" it where as Tina just smiles and responds in kind.

I've gotten good enough at changing mindset that my wife will often talk to "him" about a topic, then wait until Tina arrives and talk to her about the same topic. The first time she did this I must have given her an odd look because she came back with, "well, I thought Tina would have a different perspective!".

One thing that I'm not good at yet is the different speech patterns. If you do a search on the web for speech patterns of men and women you will find an interesting discussion (and DVDs you can buy to help you out!!) of the differences in how men and women generally talk.

OKOK...I know, everyone is unique and these "rules" don't hold in absolutely all cases. However, women are exposed to "how to be women" for many years as they grow up and men have a different experience. It's a learned pattern on top of the genetics, and we can all learn it too! In fact, learning about those patterns of thought and speech is, I think, one of the tremendous positives we have as transsexuals in a relationship with a genetic women! The more we learn the deeper emotional and logical feelings of women, the more we emulate those patterns while we are presenting as women, the more desireable we are as life partners!

Sorry for the soapbox at the end, but yes girls, how we think and how we talk is a dead giveaway to what gender is in our cells to those who are paying attention, unless we understand how to be a women more than skin deep.

So stop solving those problems, girls!!!!

:)

tina

[MarinaTwelve200]

of course us M2F CDs "think like men"---we ARE biologically guys,--if we thought like women we would be Trannsexuals.

[battybattybats]

I was taught logic by women.

Women who fought against the sexist notions that women thought differently, who complained that women were taught to be more emotive thinkers because it made them more easilly manipulatable.

Meanwhile most men I've known can be very emotive thinkers even when they are strongly emotionally repressed!

Many me need to free up their emotions. Many women need to learn logic and rational thinking. Neither is exclusive or my mother, grandmother, great grandmother and all my GG lecturers must all have mens brains which seems entirely unlikely.

[danacd96]

I'm not sure that one can determine what another is thinking. I believe in the fact that our actions speak louder than words. Based on that I would let others that I interact with be the judge.

dana:hugs:

[Carole]

I tend to think the same way no matter what I am wearing; so as I dress as both sexes do I naturally have a mixture of the way both sexes think?

[Jocelyn Quivers]

Another Example- Even when completely dressed and en-femme. Deep down inside my "internal hard drive" is wired as male and when en-femme some of my male behaviors still come out. The following example describes it best in my case.

My wife will always ask, "what are you thinking?" Either as Jocelyn or en drab, my response is always the same. "Honey if I wanted to share with you my inner thoughts I would say. "Honey I was thinking about" and then I will discuss with her what ever was on my mind. Of course I would say this in a much more compasionate manner than how it appears in this post.

[CharlotteW]

Generally, I shop like a man. That is to say I make the decision to purchase a particular item, I go to the shops, then I buy it and get out the shop quickly.

[Hali]

Not necessarily. When I'm dressed en femme and out at night (especially if I'm on my own) I think about my surroundings, the people around me and my safety much more. Isn't that thinking more like a woman? I rarely do that when I'm in boy mode so I'd like to suggest that being en femme "can" make me think more like a woman (in certain circumstances)

Yeah i think its true about how we become more concious of the environment wen en femme.........oh i have really changed, some how i am more security concious this days and suprisingly not as brave as before...........may be i lost weight and become slimmer and not as strong as before cos i shaded alot of my body mass or may be its just a coincidence...........but i know i have lost alot of my combat-survival skills i just couldnt fight like before pple comment alot about that.

[CharleneT]

I agree, although I believe there is a very wide continuum of how men/women "think". As well as how different that might be for any two examples you pick (one guy, one girl). I do believe that by cross dressing we can put ourselves in touch with more than feminine "looks". In recent years I have increased my CD'ing quite a lot, and have also been trying to be more female when in that role. It has leaked into regular life. I have had several female friends tell me that I "think a lot like a gal" or as one recently put it "you have a LOT of yin in ya for a guy". I will always think like a man, can't help that. I can and do change that compass direction to a small extent though. Some on purpose, some just by bending the gender line.

[Terra_Branford]

My SO has put forward to me the following hypothesis:

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Can anyone provide evidence to support or refute this claim?

I'm inclined to disagree, on the grounds that thinking like a man, and in fact masculinity itself, is defined by way of circular logic. Ladies and other ladies, I present to you, Terra's General Theory of Gender:

It is generally assumed that gender is a linear continuum, with masculinity on one side and femininity on the other side. Thinking of gender in this way, we could describe gender in numerical terms, assigning completely gender neutral things (behaviors, thoughts, items, people, etc.)a value of 0, feminine things a positive value proportionate to how feminine they are, and masculine things a negative value proportionate to how masculine they are. This works reasonably well for behaviors, thoughts, and items, as their gender value is generally agreed upon by society, but people present a problem in that someone with many masculine and feminine qualities has the same gender value as someone with neither masculine nor feminine qualities. Indeed, similar problems crop up throughout the spectrum, since the exact combination of traits that yields a person's gender value is variable, with the least variation being found near the gender poles and the greatest variation being found at 0. Clearly, unless one resides near the gender poles of such a scale, it's almost useless in actually determining what someone is like.

However, this is all really secondary to my actual argument, which arises from problems in defining the gender poles. There seems to be no unifying concept for either gender by which we can assign a gender value to an action, item, or thought with an unknown gender value. The one and only thing that all masculine things have in common is that they are considered masculine, and the only thing that all feminine things have in common is that they are considered feminine. If one asks why something is considered masculine, the answer is always simply that it's something associated with men. If one asks why something is associated with men, then the answer is because it's masculine. The same circular definition seems to apply to femininity. Thus, genders appear to be nothing more than collections of otherwise unrelated traits, and are defined by a circular argument. One might therefore reasonably conclude that gender is completely arbitrary, a sort of mass hallucination that survives because our culture acts to prevent it from being questioned too deeply. This idea is supported by the fact that gender standards change over time with culture in a way that similar opposed pairs of traits do not.

...and that's the end of this huge wall of text.

[Persephone]

Bravo! Bravo! Well said!

My spouse too has been teaching me to listen and commiserate rather than solve.


Sorry for the soapbox at the end, but yes girls, how we think and how we talk is a dead giveaway to what gender is in our cells to those who are paying attention, unless we understand how to be a women more than skin deep.
tina

You are so right. "Girl World" is a different place; it is definitely a fall through the looking class.

There are even differences in how a group of men and a group of women will move something, a table, for example. There is a sort of intuitive instruction set that usually allows four random men to pick up the corners of a table and move it together -- a single word here, a gesture with the head there -- that you would expect to be "universal." But the instruction set is different in Girl World! The team works and moves differently, with different expectations of each other.

Completely amazing how the two cultures live side-by-side, and so much fun to fall through the glass.

Hugs,
*

[Sarah...]

of course us M2F CDs "think like men"---we ARE biologically guys,--if we thought like women we would be Trannsexuals.

I'm TS and I still don't know if I think like a man or a woman. I certainly do think, I think. At least I'm fairly sure that I think. Sometimes I think I don't think at all, just talk. Sometimes I think so hard I can't talk. So, in conclusion, I rather think I just think like me. Whatever that is. :battingeyelashes:

Sarah...

[Persephone]

Thus, genders appear to be nothing more than collections of otherwise unrelated traits, and are defined by a circular argument. One might therefore reasonably conclude that gender is completely arbitrary, a sort of mass hallucination that survives because our culture acts to prevent it from being questioned too deeply. This idea is supported by the fact that gender standards change over time with culture in a way that similar opposed pairs of traits do not.

While you might find some support for your hypothesis (stated as your conclusion), Terra, I believe that there is a vast body of research literature that would contradict it.

We know, for example, that infant girls, even prior to language acquisition, will be more likely to choose a doll over a fire engine and that infant boys will more often select the fire engine.

Human behavior, and certainly gender behavior, is more than the cultural overlay of a "mass hallucination."

Perhaps it would help to substitute a bi-modal distribution for your single "linear continuum."

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/sandylewiscares/OverlappingGaussCurves.gif

Using this distribution one curve would represent the continuum of "female behaviors" and one the continuum of "male behaviors." There is significant overlap.

[suchacutie]

Persephone, that's a great term! Girl World!

Part of Girl World is that world of makeup and specifically "feminine" clothing, ways of walking, picking something up from the floor, sitting, basically dealing with the physical world (and how many books are there out there that want to help us understand all of this for a fee, plus all the "transformation studios" who wish to help us do the same, and hurray for them!!!)

But there is another part of Girl World. Have you every heard two good GG friends talking on phone? You'll know because that giggle they use is incredible. When's the last time any of us giggled like that? (The first time I heard that giggle after Tina had arrived, I knew I had a long way to go, since my wife hadn't yet giggle to me!). This is just an example. There are so many books that cover the issue of the differences of approach to the world from the gender perspective. I grant that some of them are soap boxes for some cause, but there are many legitimate books out there discussing the very thing we want to know: how to approach being a woman from the mental perspective. Sure, there is a spectrum of how woman think, just like there is a spectrum of how men thing, but even with some overlap, there is clearly a block of thought process we have all observed as men that many men simply cannot understand. How many times have you heard a man say, "I just don't understand women!", and then hear almost every male in earshot agree?

That's where we have the advantage. I may not yet understand women like a GG would, but I'm sure as hell working on it!!!

Tina, and proud of it!

[Bev06 GG]

I would have to agree with her. There does seem to be a definite difference when you have a conversation with a CD as apposed to a TS or GG.
Bev

[Kelli Michelle]

Gosh, there are an unlimited number of variations. I venture to say that some cders still have almost totally male thoughts at one end of the spectrum, while some are almost all female thinking at the other end. I suspect it's the same with everyone, not just cders. Some women are very masculine thinking/logical, for example, some are more emotional, communicative, and nurturing. It's hard to discuss this without generalizing to a degree (no offense intended)

Obviously we could get deep on what constitutes masculine and feminine thinking. I know I try to be more feminine, and generally, I tend to try to be more compassionate, understanding, and sympathetic. I tend to listen more as well. No doubt I still have male thought patterns, like being a little pragmatic about shopping, but that may be because of my comfort level with being dressed.

I do believe that even if we weren't wired as men, being raised male, for years, would have a lingering effect on us. I do believe, though, that one can strive to change one's thinking to a more desired tone. I suspect a lot of us do that.

[Persephone]

Persephone, that's a great term! Girl World!


Thanks, Tina, I first heard it in the movie "Mean Girls" (for us, a great educational movie).

I do agree that there are so many books out there that attempt to define the differences between men and women, but, to me, they seem a lot like books about sailing -- reading a book about sailing and actually being in a boat on the water are two entirely different experiences.

Now, how can I learn how to giggle?

[Nicki B]

...but yes girls, how we think and how we talk is a dead giveaway to what gender is in our cells to those who are paying attention, unless we understand how to be a women more than skin deep.

One only has to look at the variation in the way people post here, to see that? ;)

[Terra_Branford]

While you might find some support for your hypothesis (stated as your conclusion), Terra, I believe that there is a vast body of research literature that would contradict it.

We know, for example, that infant girls, even prior to language acquisition, will be more likely to choose a doll over a fire engine and that infant boys will more often select the fire engine.

Human behavior, and certainly gender behavior, is more than the cultural overlay of a "mass hallucination."

Perhaps it would help to substitute a bi-modal distribution for your single "linear continuum."

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/sandylewiscares/OverlappingGaussCurves.gif

Using this distribution one curve would represent the continuum of "female behaviors" and one the continuum of "male behaviors." There is significant overlap.

That does seem to represent reality more accurately, yes. Also, admittedly, my perspective on this may be clouded somewhat because of my place in the genderless no-man's-or-woman's land in the dead center of things like this.

[valenstein]

I have to agree with your wife more often than not, but not all CD's wish to think or behave in a female manner. Men and women do process information differently and communicate their thoughts differently. Some of it is social, but people are who they are, regardless of physical characteristics.

The best evidence to your wife's comment is seen in any number of threads on this board. Still, many of us don't know how to think like women, because we haven't tried to, or been in enough situations where it is okay to do so. When I am the only male with a group of women, they usually explain how they are sorry for me that I got stuck with all the women for the day; they don't see me as someone who would like to listen and be a part of their group. I'd rather be more like them, I digest what I can from my gf, but sometimes it's just lack of experience.

[Samantha Kelsey]

I think the same regardles of how I present. So you could say I think like a man when presenting as a woman or equally I think like a woman when presenting as a man

[Tamera]

Remember we were born and raised Male. So yes we will think as a male also.
The same I am sure for a F to M. I am sure they being born and raised female even though they may want to be a male think as a female.

Now if you could go back to your childhood and be raised as the opposite gender(maybe even have the surgeries), your "BORN" gender would probably not be show as much, I would think.
Hugs,
Tamera

[MissConstrued]

Human behavior, and certainly gender behavior, is more than the cultural overlay of a "mass hallucination."


Those are the same people who see every other physical human trait or difference as a "social construct." But they're quick to contradict themselves. For example, gender and sexual orientation are "social constructs" but if you're gay, you're born that way, can't help it, and need special government protection. Race, too, is a "social construct" or a "mass hallucination," but they'll tell you in the next breath we need more laws to protect minorities. Why not just change our "social constructs" a bit more?

We are all a combination of our genetics, and our environment. It's not one or the other.

That said, I'll point out that, while I have never personally dissected human bodies to see for myself, I'm told male and female brains differ in physical structure.

[battybattybats]

Those are the same people who see every other physical human trait or difference as a "social construct." But they're quick to contradict themselves. For example, gender and sexual orientation are "social constructs" but if you're gay, you're born that way, can't help it, and need special government protection. Race, too, is a "social construct" or a "mass hallucination," but they'll tell you in the next breath we need more laws to protect minorities. Why not just change our "social constructs" a bit more?


That some group is treated as unequal because of an arbitrary trait, that requires redress whether its over a social construct or an intrinsic trait.

So whether race is a social construct or not, a choice like religion or intrinsic like carrying a particular gene either way to have the equality functioning that is the basis for justice and the assumptions of good society then such protection is logical.

In other words the discrimination defines the protectedclass, not anything to do with the class other than it is unfairly discriminated against.

[MissConstrued]

Batty,

That's some beautiful flowery prose, but not quite what I was aiming at.

My issue is the contradiction I hear. I've heard out of the same mouth, simultaneously, that "race is a social construct," and, "white people are racist." If it's a social construct, how can anyone be racist at all -- how can anyone base prejudice on something which does not exist? I've heard, too, "men are pigs," and "gender is a construct," from the same person. How can this be?

I admit it. I'm not an emotional guy. Not much, anyway. So, to me, an awful lot of the pop sociology out there doesn't pass the logic test. In my world, truth and facts are more important than feelings, and it seems to me that if we all dealt with facts; if we were more honest with each other; folks might just get along. But when we operate on emotions, it's too easy for one emotion to swing to another... like anger or hatred.

Maybe I'm a trans-species... a Vulcan trapped in an Earthling body. :straightface:

[Persephone]

So whether race is a social construct or not, a choice like religion or intrinsic like carrying a particular gene either way to have the equality functioning that is the basis for justice and the assumptions of good society then such protection is logical.

I don't wish to open this particular can of worms, but discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, or whatever, when it is applied by government, even to supposedly address discrimination on the basis of . . . is still discrimination.

In other words, as recent events have so clearly shown, most of us have gotten over racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it is only those who are preoccupied with reinforcing it by creating "protected classes" that keep it alive.

[GaleWarning]

Well, well, well ... this thread is starting to wander off-track!
MissConstrued, please consider starting a thread dealing with your thoughts, over in The Lounge.
Your post headed by your quote from persophone would be the logical opener.
Then I will feel free to share my thoughts with you, batty and the many intellegent and interesting personalities who are members of this wonderful website.
Let's pour ourselves a drink and get started!
:drink:

[VeronicaMoonlit]

I've heard, too, "men are pigs," and "gender is a construct," from the same person. How can this be?

Because the semi-constructed gender "rules" as they exist encourage men to be pigs. In other words, Men are Pigs because they (in a generic sense) aren't taught how not to be pigs.



I admit it. I'm not an emotional guy. Not much, anyway. So, to me, an awful lot of the pop sociology out there doesn't pass the logic test. In my world, truth and facts are more important than feelings, and it seems to me that if we all dealt with facts; if we were more honest with each other; folks might just get along. But when we operate on emotions, it's too easy for one emotion to swing to another... like anger or hatred.


Feelings aren't logical, they can't be, and we have to deal with that as best we can because human beings are emotional creatures that don't always act out of facts or logic and shouldn't always be logical because....feelings matter.

Suppose a kid falls down and hurts themselves in a minor fashion, scraped knees or something, and begins crying. Now a purely logical person would think: Minor injury of no consequence, they should suck it up and stop crying. But that would be a bad reaction because the kid is hurting both physically and emotionally so a better response would be to comfort the child and say that it isn't so bad and that they'll fix it up so it feels better, perhaps also teaching them some minor first aid skills while doing so.

Empathy helps us get along with each other, it helps us understand how others feel.

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.

[GaleWarning]

Suppose a kid falls down and hurts themselves in a minor fashion, scraped knees or something, and begins crying. Now a purely logical person would think: Minor injury of no consequence, they should suck it up and stop crying. But that would be a bad reaction because the kid is hurting both physically and emotionally so a better response would be to comfort the child and say that it isn't so bad and that they'll fix it up so it feels better, perhaps also teaching them some minor first aid skills while doing so.

Empathy helps us get along with each other, it helps us understand how others feel.

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.


Ah! But here in NZ, logic will tell you that it is best not to get involved ... someone is bound to jump to the conclusion that you smacked the kid, thus causing him to fall down and incur a minor injury ... that person is then very likely to smack you, and so you run the very real risk of being seriously injured. I know this! Been there, done that.

Empathy? We kiwis don't understand the term.
and that goes for the females as well!

[docrobbysherry]

Those are the same people who see every other physical human trait or difference as a "social construct." But they're quick to contradict themselves. For example, gender and sexual orientation are "social constructs" but if you're gay, you're born that way, can't help it, and need special government protection. Race, too, is a "social construct" or a "mass hallucination," but they'll tell you in the next breath we need more laws to protect minorities. Why not just change our "social constructs" a bit more?

We are all a combination of our genetics, and our environment. It's not one or the other.

That said, I'll point out that, while I have never personally dissected human bodies to see for myself, I'm told male and female brains differ in physical structure.


That some group is treated as unequal because of an arbitrary trait, that requires redress whether its over a social construct or an intrinsic trait.

So whether race is a social construct or not, a choice like religion or intrinsic like carrying a particular gene either way to have the equality functioning that is the basis for justice and the assumptions of good society then such protection is logical.

In other words the discrimination defines the protectedclass, not anything to do with the class other than it is unfairly discriminated against.

What if there were NO SUCH THING AS RELIGION? Of ANY kind!

Don't u think that by now, the human race would have long passed the judgementalness of the, "us and them", concept? CDing would be COMPLETELY acceptable, as well as a thousand other HARMLESS pursuits that people, as idividuals, could pursue, without negative judgement from the general public.

The problem then is; that from the dawn of human intelligence, all mankind, including the BRIGHTEST scientific minds, have had to BEND their theories to account for their, and the public's current, religion of choice!

So, ALL SOCIAL INTERCOURSE, that involves ANY human behavior, is tainted by these thots and guilts, of even the BEST of our predecessors, AND the best scientific minds of today!:doh:

( And so saying, puts soap box away, and goes to do his laundry and finish his glass of wine!):heehee:

[MissConstrued]

Don't u think that by now, the human race would have long passed the judgementalness of the, "us and them", concept?


I hesitate to share your optimism.

"Us vs. Them" is a human behavior that long predates religion of any kind. It's tribal. It was with us in the primordial ooze.

I suspect that, knowing enough of human nature, we can safely say we'd still have it even if there had never been a religion invented.

[Angie G]

Well I must say I most probably do. well it hard not to. but I wouldn't thinf the f to m's do. :hugs:
Angie

[Nicki B]

If it's a social construct, how can anyone be racist at all -- how can anyone base prejudice on something which does not exist?

Surely the fact that something may be a social construct doesn't make it any less real? :strugglin


Surely the attitude to trans people in many parts of the world is a social construct - which is most prevalent where there is an Abrahamic religion?


Well I must say I most probably do. well it hard not to. but I wouldn't thinf the f to m's do. :hugs:
Angie

Forgive me, but if you're saying M2Fs generally think like women, having met a few of those here (and more from elsewhere), I think you're making an assumption too far.

Try taking one of them shopping, for starters, and see how far you get.. :heehee:

[Tess]

What if there were NO SUCH THING AS RELIGION? Of ANY kind!

Don't u think that by now, the human race would have long passed the judgementalness of the, "us and them", concept? CDing would be COMPLETELY acceptable, as well as a thousand other HARMLESS pursuits that people, as idividuals, could pursue, without negative judgement from the general public.


The bad old USSR was about as stripped of religion as it's possible to find and it didn't seem to do anything to improve the treatment of "harmless pursuits".

[RachR]

I haven't been here a very long time, but it's been my observation that I'm definitely interacting with a bunch of men. That's not to say I'm any different though.


That said, I'll point out that, while I have never personally dissected human bodies to see for myself, I'm told male and female brains differ in physical structure.
I have dissected numerous human bodies. At my last university I took a graduate level course in human dissection, and the following two years helped teach the same course (also received a minor in Human Anatomy and Neurophysiology). When you pull the brain out you can't take a brain from a female body and a brain from a male body, put them side by side and say, "Oh yeah, that definitely came from a male and the other came from a female." Same thing with a hemisected brain; there is no visual difference. If you go down to the cellular level it may be possible to see a difference in cellular density in different sections of the brain, or different pathways formed by the neurons. However, besides what's considered normal, every brain will be different.

[battybattybats]

My issue is the contradiction I hear. I've heard out of the same mouth, simultaneously, that "race is a social construct," and, "white people are racist." If it's a social construct, how can anyone be racist at all -- how can anyone base prejudice on something which does not exist? I've heard, too, "men are pigs," and "gender is a construct," from the same person. How can this be?

The person is hypocritical when they say 'white people are racist' as its a generalisation and not universally true, even if it is true 99% of the time because white people are born into race-privilege about which they are largely unaware of and blind to. The same goes for men and gender. But people can indeed be racist when race is an illusion. The illusion is what they are biased about. Once facial characteristics were used to judge peoples criminality! Or bumps upon their heads! /these theories and beliefs were untrue and false but people acted on them all the same! So it is not race that gives a white person their advantages but the social deferance to the belief that does so. Same with gender.


I admit it. I'm not an emotional guy. Not much, anyway. So, to me, an awful lot of the pop sociology out there doesn't pass the logic test. In my world, truth and facts are more important than feelings, and it seems to me that if we all dealt with facts; if we were more honest with each other; folks might just get along. But when we operate on emotions, it's too easy for one emotion to swing to another... like anger or hatred.

Maybe I'm a trans-species... a Vulcan trapped in an Earthling body. :straightface:

I know quite a few people like you :) Men and women! But many people are quite literally taught to reject thought, disregard fact be suspicious of intelligence and rely only on feellings! On the other hand a significant part of our neural system is devoted to unconcious processing and our feellings are largely the communication between the larger unconcious mind and the final-deciding concious one.

The unconcious is logical, but follows its own precepts that the concious mind is often unaware of or dismissive of and it can pick up logical fallacies as habits easilly.

As such its good to listen to your feellings but never make your decisions by them! Feellings will tell you about your unconcious thinking and often your needs, but they are often selfish destructive and biased. But they always operate and tyibg to be rational alone can be self destructive as vital needs aren't met or worse the unconcious creeps through biasing decisons and actions and thoughts unnoticed by the supposedly rational mind.

Only through interaction between the two, through rational decisons but also intuitive awareness can we really be both wise and intelligent. Altruistic without being self-sacrificing nor fall into unfeeling selfishness.


I don't wish to open this particular can of worms, but discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, or whatever, when it is applied by government, even to supposedly address discrimination on the basis of . . . is still discrimination.

In other words, as recent events have so clearly shown, most of us have gotten over racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it is only those who are preoccupied with reinforcing it by creating "protected classes" that keep it alive.

First bit second. look at the unemployment rates, the murder rates, the legal inequities in taxation, visiting rights, inheritance, next-of-kin status... No there is a long way to go before you are correct. In law alone Australia is changing over 100 laws to move towards equality for lesbians and gays and that still isn't full equality under the law yet!

Now as far as affirmative action goes, its generally handled poorly true. But consider this: If you state 'now everyone is equal' but they do not have equal opportunity in general fact then they are equal in name-only and by ignoring the practical inequality of situation you in fact ensure the continuance of the inequality!

Ah but how do you create the practical equality without ensuring that it eventually switches over and becomes unequal in the opposite direction? A little more time consuming but not that hard. You link the affirmative action to the statistics. As for example women become equally present in areas of the workforce you cut down on the neccessary quotas of affirmative action so long as that is approximately so. Unchanging affirmative action would be unfair. Cuttingit off when women reach equality in the low-level slave-wage jobs but make little ground at high levels despite provable capability and effort though is merely letting the most powerful bigots off the hook.

Not redressing the practical injustice is merely paying lip-service to the notion of justice. Now if you don't like the idea of affirmative action as the mechanism for doing so how would you propose to alter the actual practical inequality?


What if there were NO SUCH THING AS RELIGION? Of ANY kind!

Don't u think that by now, the human race would have long passed the judgementalness of the, "us and them", concept?

Nope. While studies have show that in democratic nations the less prevalant religion there is the less intolerance, murder, teen pregnancy and a host of other issues there is the religion portion is only part of that. Non-religious non-democracies have been very intolerant. The Soviet states are an example.


CDing would be COMPLETELY acceptable, as well as a thousand other HARMLESS pursuits that people, as idividuals, could pursue, without negative judgement from the general public.

This could occur with religion. All that is needed is for religious people to accept that others do not share their own faith, that freedom of religion means no theocracy, no imposition of one faiths tenants over people not of that faith. This protects their freedom of religion from other faiths just as it protects other faiths from them and those without religion from either.

And it's worth remembering that CDing was sacred amongst many faiths and still is amongst some.

[docrobbysherry]

Nope. While studies have show that in democratic nations the less prevalant religion there is the less intolerance, murder, teen pregnancy and a host of other issues there is the religion portion is only part of that. Non-religious non-democracies have been very intolerant. The Soviet states are an example.


All that is needed is for religious people to accept that others do not share their own faith, that freedom of religion means no theocracy, no imposition of one faiths tenants over people not of that faith. This protects their freedom of religion from other faiths just as it protects other faiths from them and those without religion from either.

And it's worth remembering that CDing was sacred amongst many faiths and still is amongst some.

My error, I wasn't clear on my point. Which isn't unusual, in my case!:doh:

What I meant was, if a society was just NOT religious by nature. NOT that they were forced by an autocracy, as in the Soviet Union, and not allowed to practice their religion openly. Their religions survived in the people anyway! The Russian Orthodox church is VERY healthy today. With many perishioners, both young AND old.

If people were actually NOT religious in a society, there would less divisiveness as a whole. Practicing religion in secret, is probably even more divisive, than worshipping in the open. U have that little "secret" in common with "your people". As opposed to the "others", who r NOT blessed, and/or chosen!

Your example of CDs being considered sacred only goes to prove my point! Whether we're revered, or hated, in each case, the "others" acknowledge our difference!

I believe a society that is TRULY NOT religious, would ALSO be less likely to notice differences of race, creed, gender, age, etc. Since no educated/informed society has ever developed in that way, there's no way to be sure.:sad:

Maybe in 100, or 200 years. After the, "World War III, War of the Modern Crusades". Maybe then, people will understand we r one, and begin to ignore our differences, and celebrate our commonalities instead!:brolleyes:

That may sound silly, uninformed, and idealistic, but that is my sincere hope for the future! And maybe our great/great/great grandchildren, can dress any darn way they want to. And no one will even notice!:)

[KimberlyS]

My wife has said I walk and do things like a guy when I am out and about enfemme. But she also said I have many feminine traits when in male mode.

[MissConstrued]

Not redressing the practical injustice is merely paying lip-service to the notion of justice. Now if you don't like the idea of affirmative action as the mechanism for doing so how would you propose to alter the actual practical inequality?


You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

Trouble is, Batty, when you start with a level playing field, one team is still going to win. If we're talking about firefighters, for example, there is a set of physical standards that must be met. We know that more men can pass those standards than women. If we are to have equality of outcome, that is, as many women as men firefighters, we must un-equalize the opportunity, and turn down many more men until we get enough women to pass the test -- or eliminate the test.

If you want an equal outcome, you must handicap someone. Ever read or see "Harrison Bergeron?" It was your ideal world, in which everyone was totally equal. All C students.

I wonder how your stance will change the day you're turned down for your perfect job because the employer must hire a one-legged aboriginal lesbian with facial tics, to meet a quota. You're better for the job. Wouldn't YOU have the job, under equality of opportunity? She gets it, under equality of outcome.

Again, you don't get to have it both ways.

[Debutante]

... I would agree with the question,"How exactly do men think?" I would say that many operate on a somewhat emotional dysfunctional level, but when you are raised to supress all emotion and feeling it is hard to rise above it.

Good observation mykhelee.... I have been trying to learn what this is all about. If I FEEL feminine, how should I have a corresponding THINKING component that matches the feel, and the clothes, so that I can present fully as female?
Harder said than done... if one is raised as a male, one has to "un-do" that... but then we have to get along as males in a world, say on a job, in other roles, if we are not TSs or full-time TGs... a real dilemma...
men are taiught to repress emotion... hence the world gets dysfunction: wars, rape, murder, etc etc.

[Debutante]

And it's worth remembering that CDing was sacred amongst many faiths and still is amongst some.


How true......!! :battingeyelashes:

[VeronicaMoonlit]

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
If we're talking about firefighters, for example, there is a set of physical standards that must be met.

Let's not bring up jobs with physical requirements, they cloud things and most jobs don't have them.



If you want an equal outcome, you must handicap someone.

No, you don't have to handicap someone, but you can help someone.


I wonder how your stance will change the day you're turned down for your perfect job because the employer must hire a one-legged aboriginal lesbian with facial tics, to meet a quota.

There are no actual quotas in affirmative action, haven't been since 1978. If you don't like affirmative action, fine, but don't exagerrate about what it is or what it does.


Again, you don't get to have it both ways.

She doesn't want it both ways. She wants to do the right thing and redress injustice.

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.

[Persephone]

Ever read or see "Harrison Bergeron?" It was your ideal world, in which everyone was totally equal. All C students.


Thank you! Thank you! I've been looking for that story for years! I only remembered snippets, not the title nor the author. Thank you!

[battybattybats]

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

Nope :) I'm talking about genuine equality of opportunity versus in-name-only on-paper equality of opportunity.

Example: A college says they are equal-opportunity for rich and poor because they have no income-test. But their fees are $10,000 a year. In real terms without scholarship programs they are not equally available to the poor because the poor wont be able to afford the fees and therefore you wont get propoer proportions of poor people there.

It's a false-meritocracy. One that pretends to be a meritocracy but isn't because the opportunity is not geuninely equal, it is not a truly level playing field.

Lets try a different variation.

A college says it's equal opportunity for everyone so long as they are of the highest intelligence. So there is an entrance exam with the highest scorers getting let in regardless of any other factor. Now that seems extraordinarily fair yes? But what if it is not an IQ test or a comprehension test but one where the questions are based on assumed prior exposure to certain fields of knowledge. such a test may be in actuality culturally biased, religiously biased, class-biased etc! Again it could well be a flase-meritocracy!


Trouble is, Batty, when you start with a level playing field, one team is still going to win.

If it is level. But when it is not level one must first level the playing field. Then when it is truly level you get a genuine meritocracy. One where known arbitrary factors like race, sex, sexuality, gender etc have no bearing at all!


If we're talking about firefighters, for example, there is a set of physical standards that must be met. We know that more men can pass those standards than women. If we are to have equality of outcome, that is, as many women as men firefighters, we must un-equalize the opportunity, and turn down many more men until we get enough women to pass the test -- or eliminate the test.

Did you know that women make better astronauts? They handle stress better, pass the psych tests better, handle G-forces better, handle pain better. But the early female astronaut program was kept secret, training only at night and got shut down before it could occur. That's why no women walked on the moon despite being better suited to do so! And when the Soviets sent a woman into space the Americans called it a meaningless stunt!

Even now when America does have female astronauts are they the majority they should be with their natural advantages?

Did you know women make better fighter pilots?

Did you know that despite the lesser muscle mass they make better martial artists because of their lower centre of gravity, better balance, increased pain tolerance and cooler heads in a crises? By your standards if we consider biological reality surely almost all our military should be female?

Businesses with female CEOs and/or Board members do about 5% iirc better than ones without any.

So then, wheres the functioning meritocracy then?


If you want an equal outcome, you must handicap someone.

Not so. If there was genuine equal opportunity then arbitrary factors would not cause differences. But they do. Hence there is a false-meritocracy.


Ever read or see "Harrison Bergeron?" It was your ideal world, in which everyone was totally equal. All C students.

Equal is not identical. But the poorer students are no less important as human beings than those who have a natural aptitude to schooling. I never studied for an exam till my CFS started getting bad in year 10. But did that make me a better person than those who struggled to get the same grades as me? Or those who despite hard effort could not achieve that level?Meanwhile there are many things they could do that I could not.

Each deserved equal opportunity. Each from those who became lawyers and doctors and engineers to those who drive taxis and stack shelves at supermarkets are contributing to the good of the society. Trouble is far too many Aboriginals are stacking those supermarket shelves. Too many high-IQ people who had grades near mine are unemployed because of their skin. And most of the girls are underemployed, holding low level jobs despite being far more skilled and intelligent and educated than the boys raking in the money.


I wonder how your stance will change the day you're turned down for your perfect job because the employer must hire a one-legged aboriginal lesbian with facial tics, to meet a quota. You're better for the job. Wouldn't YOU have the job, under equality of opportunity? She gets it, under equality of outcome.

If Im so much better for the job then it'd be easier for me to get another equal or better or not much worse job. But for her there is not such an option so in fact i'd quite happily lose my job to her so long as she is qualified to do the job because her need is greater than mine!


Again, you don't get to have it both ways.

If there was a genuine meritocracy, one of education first and then employment after then there would be no need for affirmative action would there! And as we can see from the job figures in lower level work women now do not need it. But the higher levels are still unequal despite skills and education so the person best suited for the job is still not the one getting the job!

[Maria_1969]

[QUOTE=clayfish;1578692]All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.
QUOTE]


GOOD, I do not want their thoughts....

[GaleWarning]

I have been wondering whether these wonderful points of view are the products of male or of female thought processes.

No matter, I am thoroughly enjoying them!

The only reason I am staying out of it, is that once you get me going on issues such as racism and affirmative action, it's difficult to shut me up.

[unwritten2108]

I think a lot of how we think as CDs does depend on a number of factors since everyone is different. So I can't put out a general answer to that question.

But if I think back to my experiences out en femme, I did find a good number of my conversations with other CDs were really about subjects that I would talk to my male friends about. So of course I think that got my mind running in male mode for a bit. But I can't deny that being dressed and assuming the role of Cyndi did trigger something in my psyche to act and behave more female.

But I can agree that no one else can suspect how we feel when dressed. We can communicate it all we can, but in the end only ourselves know the real answer.

[Sheila]

My SO has put forward to me the following hypothesis:

All CDers continue to THINK (note - not feel) like men, even when en-femme.

Can anyone provide evidence to support or refute this claim?

Actually I would have to disagree ............ regardless of gender or clothing choices our inner being will continue to shine through regardless .. but just my :2c:

[GaleWarning]

Are you not actually agreeing with the hypothesis, Sheila?

[Sheila]

Are you not actually agreeing with the hypothesis, Sheila?

well what I was trying to say in my thick way was that our inner beings are genderless ........... The Gender label, being a given label at birth :straightface: ..... does that make any sense ?

[GaleWarning]

My inner being is androgynous ... but I act as a male, especially in the shower ... where are you, when we need you, batty?
Time for another drink ..., methinks.
:drink:

[suchacutie]

As always, we seem to be flaying about, testing one edge of the envelope and then the other. This is normally positive and helps us all in our thinking.

However, this idea of different thought patterns from mature men and women is not a new piece that suddenly fell from the sky. There is a lot of superb literature about thought patterns, language patterns, and decision-making patterns. Please note that I understand these are patterns and not universal. However, they ARE patterns, and the overall genetic and sociological effects are men and women ARE different. Let's not debate if there is a difference when it's been established for decades that there IS a difference.

For me, the point is that if I am to be as feminine as I can be, and make a reasonable feminine presentation to the world, I need to know about these issues, and, to the best of my ability, deal with them in a way that will make me and the people around me comfortable with the fact that I am presenting as a woman.

I would love to see a set of threads that take up these topics of differenced one at a time so that we can all become educated, and able to use this information as we see fit in our lives.

Hmmm, maybe I just volunteered to start one....let me see what I can do.

tina

[Nicki B]

However, this idea of different thought patterns from mature men and women is not a new piece that suddenly fell from the sky. There is a lot of superb literature about thought patterns, language patterns, and decision-making patterns. Please note that I understand these are patterns and not universal. However, they ARE patterns, and the overall genetic and sociological effects are men and women ARE different. Let's not debate if there is a difference when it's been established for decades that there IS a difference.

Of course that's absolutely true - but there is also a huge overlap? And many of these are likely to be caused by sociological factors, so it's not surprising if they may change, with new experience, IMHO.

The points made that the OPs remarks are too much of a generalisation is still valid?