Gender conformity and sexual orientation operate separately and have biological explanations
“Why Gender Matters”, by Leonard Sax, is offered with a 2017 update to the original 2005 book, as a Second Edition. There are subtitles on the page like “What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences.”
As a gay man (now an elder), the topic is important personally. If I am attracted to men, then the purported “masculinity” of a potential “object” of my attention is of importance. I may perceive “maleness” as virtuous when combined with other desirable traits, as I explained in Chapter 2 of my DADT III book. Conservative writer George Gilder (who sometimes has gotten the admiration even of Andrew Sullivan) had, back in the 1980s, called this process 'upward affiliation' as normal in men, seeking to gain 'life points' by being men even more competitive than them (in his “Men and Marriage”, 1986), and I’ve talked about that concept before a lot.
And I am aware of the general impression from the past, of the controversy of the 'sissy boy' or 'feminized male' of Patricia Cayo Sexton in the 70s, as riding on the risk-taking of supposedly more combative or 'virile?' males Yet, the “nonconformists” (below), who may get teased and bullied for avoiding the rough play of their contemporaries, often come out ahead in life by avoiding unnecessary risks (like football concussions or war) and deploying their own individual gifts, sometimes demanding their independence and defying human tribalism and social cohesion.
There is also an overriding controversy over whether consciousness and self-awareness (as part of consciousness) comes from biology – as in Chandler Burr’s writing about homosexuality and biology in the 1990s (“A Separate Creation”).
No question, boys and girls learn differently. Girls mature more rapidly than boys (because of biological evolution). Boys do not hear and smell as well, and prefer visual images emphasizing action, whereas girls prefer texture and detail. Boys are less verbal. More important, boys take more risks, sometimes amounting to recklessness. There is a moral question when those who take fewer risks benefit from the costs born by the risk-takers (the “skin in the game” problem).
In my own boyhood, our making cardboard stadiums and then crafting rules for 'backyard baseball' and whiffleball so that the run scoring was about what could happen in real MLB, was a guy thing. Interest in what happens when a batted ball hits the Green Monster in Fenway Park (or even old Griffith Stadium) and becomes only a single is a guy thing. Later, my own interest in the “attractiveness” of an intimate partner and the desire for upward affiliation was a guy thing (however paradoxical). Yet the concern that others “like me” should be attractive is a girl thing. Also, the abstraction (and exacting endgame calculations) of chess is a guy thing, but not as much in recent years.
But there are variations. Sax start out by discussing gender non-conforming men, as having genetic variations where codons dilute the androgen receptors for some gender-related characteristics. He describes himself as such a male, and notes that many such men have brains that function more like women’s. I think that the either-or description of this seems a bit over-simplified.
It’s useful to consider the histories of gifted young men, especially in the sciences or music or chess. Think about Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Andraka, Taylor Wilson, Magnus Carlsen, and now David Hogg. Their histories vary. But what seems common in is more verbal skills than usual, and more ability to do very abstract thinking early in life, and to apply the abstractions. These skills are probably influenced by the placement of codons in various configurations that enhance intellectual activity without affecting gender in ways that would be socially obvious in the modern world. So “non-conformity” is probably itself a continuum. But it is much more significant for men than women. (Hogg is interesting in that, by his own account, he was dyslexic as a kid and a slow learner, until puberty, when he suddenly blossomed and became an AP student. Ironically, testosterone increases with puberty actually help some young men mature intellectually with verbal and communication skills Hogg particularly may provide a good example of how variable codon placement really is; giftedness probably requires these variations.)
I mention music here, and it’s interesting that most major composers have been men, until more recent decades. Somehow large music compositions require “masculine” thought, and indeed the music of America’s most prominent past female composer, Amy Beach, seems very “masculine” in conception and execution.
But homosexuality in men is separate from gender non-conformity because homosexuality is largely epigenetic and occurs most often in latter born sons, as nature’s way of managing population and providing extra males to help protect the community as a whole. (That sounds like the ultimate justification for gays in the military!) Non-conforming men are somewhat more likely than conventional men to become gay men, bit not that much more. Plenty of non-conforming men are straight, marry and have biological kids. Gay men, he notes, are indeed varied biologically, from being hypermasculine to being what say are wannabe transgenders. If you go to a large gay disco during a pride event, you see men tending to separate into different clans by preference. That probably makes political solidarity in the gay community difficult (masculine gays tend to be more conservative). Hypermasculinity also comports with the fact that sex alone satisfies men more than women, because evolution favors males who can spread their genes as widely as possible, whereas (as Gilder points out), evolution also prods females into getting men to support them in families. You can test for inner feelings of sexual attraction with penile plethysmography (which is done to prisoners in treatment for sex offenses). But it makes perfect sense in nature (for advanced social mammals) that inner sexual orientation splits off from other gender indicators because evolution directs that large social groups benefit from wide diversity within.
Sax considers male homosexuality as medically normal, but transgenderism is not, because by definition the latter requires medical intervention. He briefly discusses XXY cloacal exstrophy, but then goes on to many cases were transgenderism is outgrown, or is sometimes conflated with real mental illness. He discusses the controversial work of Kenneth Zucker.
Sax also gives out a lot of advice on how parents need to consider gender in dealing with both and alcohol or drug addiction, and social media (girls) and video game (boys) addiction. Parents need to demand cold turkey in some cases, especially with adult children who don’t work and get out of the house (see Eberstadt’s “Men Without Work”, Jan. 20, 2017).
The decomposition of gender matters by “conformity” and “sexual orientation” (and gender identity) reminds me of Paul Rosenfels’s polarity theory and psychological growth. In the Rosenfels view, polarity and operation make binary combinations independent of gender and sexual orientation. “Non-conforming” men are probably unbalanced personalities (masculine-objective or feminine-subjective). But Sax insists that women are really a lot more consistent biologically than are men. Maybe that’s a good thing.
Author: Leonard Sax
Title, Subtitle:“Why Gender Matters”
publication date 2017 (2005)
ISBN 978-0-451-49777-2
Publication: Harmony, 12 chapters, Extra Stuff, index
(Posted: Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:30 PM EDT)