As a person who sews as a hobby, I find myself thinking that it could just reflect the extra work of pants versus dresses. Pants are harder to fit, sew, and launder, in a time when clothes were reused more (therefore, a precise fit would be bad), sewing was by hand, and laundry was a pain--and little children would need their clothes laundered frequently, given their lack of control of their bodily fluids.
I think that even more than clothes what we are told as kids. Ex. When I was little, my brother got Legos, Godzilla-like things, and dinosaurs while I got dolls, jewelry, and clothing. Am I grateful for the gifts, yes I am, however my family made a conscientious decision to create a visible and mental gender difference here. I understand not every family is like that, but I do understand that there is a good amount of families like that (not that I am saying that it's wrong). Factor in the social media and culture. Now, for young kids it is prevalent in movies- think Snow White vs. Merida and the differences in their choices. There is a huge change in this regard coming about.
I'm a little confused. I never thought that the way that toddlers dressed impacted their gender roles. Edited to add: Oh, I see the post I missed. See, I saw the issue there as being about fragile/keep-them-clean clothes versus roughhousing clothes. I can see that affecting behavior. But you can roughhouse in the right kind of "dress." I don't see the critical thing as being about whether the clothes have divided legs.
I think you may be underestimating the relationship between roles and character traits. If someone is frequently put into the role of leader, I think that person will more likely become comfortable being a leader. If someone is rewarded for aggression while someone else is punished for aggression, I think the two are likely to develop different levels of aggression. etc.
Then how do you explain those children who are consistently pushed into certain roles and are exceedingly uncomfortable in them? The most extreme example is that of transgendered people, but it happens in less extreme forms all the time.
Yeah, I think there are exceptions, for sure. And I don't think we're looking at 100% nature or nurture. But you seem to be arguing for 100% nature? - No, I just read back over the thread and I don't think you were arguing for that. I'm not honestly sure what you are arguing... I guess that there are innate sex-based character traits? Is that accurate? Or...?
Ok then let's step back here. I feel that one cannot escape the nature vs. nurture when it comes to this subject due to, traits are a product of how we are raised is not? Gender which we have repeatedly and historically shown to have played a huge role in how each gender is viewed and treated, i.e. at one point a man was lord in his home and the woman deemed chattel, therefore in order to keep in with those designated gender roles one was raised a certain way. Thereby limiting what traits one could have if they had been raised on equal footing.
Actually, all I'm saying is that there are traits that manifest themselves in either gender, although with varying impacts. As I said in an earlier post, if one were to create two characters who had the exact same personality traits but were of different genders, they would come across differently to the reader. I think gender is part of who we are, inseparable from the rest of our traits. So, in my mind, to create a "genderless" character is to create an incomplete character. Are they? I would argue that upbringing only goes so far - and probably not very far - in determining one's personality traits. Again, transgendered people are an obvious example. But there are legions of young boys whose fathers expect them to be a certain "kind of man" but who just aren't (and I include myself in this group). And there are lots of young girls whose mothers expect them to be a certain "kind of woman" but who just aren't (and, interestingly, my wife falls into this group - no wonder we've been married for 40 years!). I would even go so far as to say we are, if not the majority, certainly a sizable minority. Moreover, that struggle makes for some top quality fiction, because that kind of struggle is so elemental and inherently compelling.
I agree that upbringing goes only so far as well. What about the society in which we live then? Is there not a set "standard" for each gender. That is transgendered people, and people who make androgyny a lifestyle choice are front and center. It's different than what was the perquisites for our gender are on a the emotional/mental/life-choice level.
Oh. Yeah, okay, I agree with the social science part of this, I think, although I'm not sure how we would explain "different impacts". I'm not sure about the writing aspect. Have you read Ancillary Justice or Middlesex? I'm trying to think of other books I've read with gender-fluid or genderless characters... I feel as if there have been more, but I can't name them right now. You're right that there seems to be an instinct to impose a gender even on non-gendered beings - C3P0 is clearly male even without genitalia, and I feel like R2D2 is male as well, although...why do I think that? I'm not totally sure this is a true instinct, though - that is, I'm not sure it's innate rather than imposed. I'd really like to read more genderless characters to find out!
No question "society" has standard expectations, but literature has been flying in the face of such expectations (at least as far as character traits are concerned) since Sophocles (e.g. Antigone). Shakespeare used gender-bending mostly for comic effect. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that being transgendered has nothing to do with society's expectations of character traits?
I am saying that being transgendered or preferring to be androgynous is in the limelight (maybe not as much as compared to others). It's a point of focus. Why? Like you were saying with: If this were not adverse to what is considered common or normal, then why would those lifestyle choices stick out the way it does? We are raised with an expectation based on our gender roles and tacked on to that is society whom deems the 'official' criteria for "male" or "female" -aside of the physicality.
I raise the "Bechdel" flag to suggest that it's because we've all been primed to see male fictional characters as the default.
I mean, as a viewer, I'm pretty sure that we just hear R2 referred to as 'he' by other characters and think "ah yes, inexplicably, this robot is a dude". 3PO has a voice (not a super masculine one, sure, but he's obviously voiced by a guy), which makes that an easier jump. Still, when I give my phone voice commands and it responds in a feminine voice, I don't start thinking of my phone as a girl. It's a phone. I'm more interested in why, as writers, we feel to need to decide that our robots are dudes. In TFA I'm pretty sure BB8 isn't explicitly gendered by other characters (I didn't notice for sure when I watched it, but that's what I've read; I believe Poe calls BB 'buddy' at some points but that's debatably gendered), but apparently is referred to as 'she' in the script. I remember seeing an interview with Daisy Ridley where someone asked her if the robot was a boy and her response was along the lines of "I don't think that matters - it's a robot, and it's very important and cute, and we all love it," which checks out for me. I know I don't go out of my way to gender the genderless, but I always find it interesting to see how other people do. /mostly sw-related aside
This must be my favourite discussion on all of the forum. (I've been watching it for a while) I agree with @izzybot , why do we see certain things as male or female? For one thing we call ships (and other forms of transport) she, which is a tad strange. Maybe it's something to do with the languages that 'gender' everything, but then again the french for boat is masculine. It's all very strange.
androgynous - Strictly speaking in English "they" is plural, as is their and they're. English is gender heavy; the culture from whence the language arose and the language itself. Trying to bend a story around this fact defies another obvious fact, your character has to be one gender or the other. Even with theoretical, extreme surgery the DNA itself will be the final say in this. Another interesting conundrum is the deity in English. You have he, she or it. So, your god must be a guy, a gal, or a thing. However, the definition of the deity is a combination of gender, i.e. both genders at once? The language can't accommodate that subject. A way around this could be to say "the deity" at every mention. For your story you could use another such convention. An old method was to say "our hero". If your character has a profession, say "chef" or "artist". That might get old fast, but swapping back and forth between a given name (Henry) and the gender (he) isn't all that much variety, either. The editor in me has to say if I find "they" or "their" as a pronoun for a singular, one person, the blue pencil comes out. It's "he" or "she", or their proper name, or their title. This isn't really "imposed" as was mentioned above. It's a fact of reality. There are no genderless people. It's a physical impossibility. Why we call ships "she" has to do with the elegant lines of the design. Men tend to call things with attractive curves "she". B.B. King called his guitar "Lucille". It's the same with automobiles. "Listen to her engine purr." However, if ladies choose to reverse this nobody's going to argue the point with them. This convention was created centuries ago by a male-dominated society, and is now the standard for succeeding generations who don't have in their core of experience how this came to be. This isn't the only one. And, yeah, calling someone a grammar Nazi for pointing this out is as rude as it is ill-advised. Trying to change the convention for more modern times? See what you can do. It might work.
Sex depends on which chromosome you happen to be born with, 'gender' is the cultural identity you're assigned. I personally like the idea of having what used to be defining characteristics vague, it gives any reader the ability to put themselves in the story, not a lesson that 'you have to have this trait to be like the MC'.
Depending on for whom you're editing, your blue pencil may or may not be appropriate. CMOS made one little bobble into the singular they camp but has since recanted, so you'd be safe there, but the American Dialect Society is behind the singular they, following the lead of none less than the Washington Post. The Oxford Dictionary folks are okay with it, as are lots of famous writers over the past centuries. I have trouble with it myself. But... it seems to be gaining steam. And you may want to look at the distinction between "sex" and "gender" that's often used in conversations like this one. The convention is to treat "sex" as the physical traits, "gender" as the social or emotional construct. There certainly are people with non-binary sexes, but there are quite a few more with non-binary genders. (This use of the words is more of a term of art situation rather than a dictionary right-or-wrong, but it's pretty well accepted in sociology, psychology, etc.)
Heh. Oxford included "bling bling." I'm simply referring to the words - the language itself, it's constraints and what [we] have to work with...with some of the why. And, Chicago Manual of Style?
Just sticking to the English portion of your post, I can't say I see much point in insisting that 'they' is plural only while lamenting that 'the language can't accommodate the subject'. We made the language. When it doesn't have words for what we need to express, we can change it. By the way, the term would be 'bigender', and there have throughout the years been tons of suggested nonbinary pronouns if 'they' isn't to your liking.
No. I don't use a style guide. A style guide is useful only when one wishes to generate a uniformity in text. When I did use a style guide, I used the Associated Press style guide. Frankly, I'd have a problem with an editor editing my novels using a style guide. Also, CMOS isn't the only one out there for other things such as term papers, and the like. Style guides are what they say, a guide. They do not alter the rules of English. In fact, as you yourself said, they often accept violations of rules of English to keep with their preferred style. I don't have a choice in "sticking with..." anything with regard to the rules of English. And, regardless, what I point out about the problems with pronouns in English is there, like it or not, prefer it or not. By the way, I don't recall saying I like, or prefer any of this, did I?
