revelation: why sex matters

[Guest guest]

Had a minor revelation this morning. Granted, it's probably something

that's " old hat " to everyone else, and it may be something I realized

before and subsequently forgot. But it felt like a revelation anyway.

It's always puzzled me that some people are irritated when they can't

tell (at first glance) what sex another person is. " Is that a man or

a woman? " seems to be an urgent matter for them, even if there is no

chance they might want to initiate sexual relations with the person

in question. Seemed weird to me. If you're not planning to suggest

sex (given that most people desire sex with one gender only), what

difference does it make whether the person is a man or a woman?

This morning I suddenly realized that most people alter their

behavior according to the person they're talking to. Even though they

do it unconsciously, it obviously bothers them when they come across

a situation where the automatic behavior control does not have all

the data it needs to determine the nature of the interaction.

Still weird. But more understandable. I'm glad I don't have to

operate on that basis.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> This morning I suddenly realized that most people

> alter their behavior according to the person they're

talking to.

***

This could be partly dictated by our society.

I wouldn't stand as close to a man as I would to a

woman.

Some quick remarks shared with a stranger while

waiting in line would not have the same affect when

spoken to a woman than a man, and reverse.

I'm selective about with whom I talk, but for reasons

different than most people.

I also talk unknowingly with people considered to be

undesirable. I'm not talking about a person in a ski

mask, rather one tough and gruff and wearing clothes

that warn others to avoid him. They've always been

nice to be (the tough and gruff ones) and seem to

understand I am not mocking them nor threatening.

~Bonnie

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

>

> This morning I suddenly realized that most people alter their

> behavior according to the person they're talking to. Even though

> they

> do it unconsciously, it obviously bothers them when they come across

> a situation where the automatic behavior control does not have all

> the data it needs to determine the nature of the interaction.

I've heard of people becoming almost violent when they couldn't tell

what gender someone was and make *demands* that they tell them. I've

heard of that from other transexuals. It probably never happened to

me because I don't interact that much with people. The only thing I

remembered was getting some dirty looks from people when I was in an

" in-between " state and maybe my voice didn't match my appearance or

something.

I've seen first-hand the difference between the way people treat you

according to what sex they think you are (I went from M to F). It's

one thing that takes some getting used to. Still I don't use a lot of

make up and present, I guess, more of a " butch " appearance than fem.

But I am very conscious that when out in public I need to present as a

member of the female gender or there will be consequences (and not

very good ones).

June

> Still weird. But more understandable. I'm glad I don't have to

> operate on that basis.

>

> Jane

[Guest guest]

> This morning I suddenly realized that most people alter their

> behavior according to the person they're talking to.

Perhaps, but in addition, there's the fact that sex is part of

the person's identity.

Case in point, a lot of people ask the sex of people's dogs. I

don't know why they care, but it shows that people seem to treat

it as a part of the dog's identity. It can be presumed they

aren't interested in breeding the dog and it's not likely that

any sex-linked bahaviours will manifest, but they want to know.

The point is that people wouldn't be expected to be concerned

that they are interacting according to the wrong sex of dog.

[Guest guest]

> I've heard of people becoming almost violent when they couldn't

> tell what gender someone was and make *demands* that they tell them.

> I've heard of that from other transexuals.

I'm not transsexual but whenever I have my hair sufficiently short I

get that reaction, and sometimes it does get really close to violence.

(What confuses me about this is that I have very large breasts. But

apparently people do not use this for male/female cues as often as

you'd think they would, and being autistic, my innate social behavior

doesn't particularly scream out a gender either.)

I once had someone come up to me and say " Are you a boy or a girl? "

(I'm also not sure why everyone thinks I'm a kid). When I didn't

(couldn't, physically, at the time) answer, she started repeating it

over and over, louder and louder, and getting in my face and more

aggressive the longer she did it.

Fortunately there were other people around who got her to stop, but I

was both frightened and confused by that encounter.

I'd forgotten about this effect because I'd grown my hair out for the

winter. I shaved it off this week again because it's getting warmer

(my hair is thick enough that it's like wearing a thick wool hat,

which is great in the winter but not so great when it's even slightly

warm), and noticed that when I was out yesterday a father was

describing me as " he " to his daughter who was curious about me. (His

other daughter, who seemed to be deaf and raised pure-oralist, was

left out of most of the conversation. :-/)

[Guest guest]

> > This morning I suddenly realized that most people alter their

> > behavior according to the person they're talking to.

> Perhaps, but in addition, there's the fact that sex is part of

> the person's identity.

> Case in point, a lot of people ask the sex of people's dogs. I

> don't know why they care, but it shows that people seem to treat

> it as a part of the dog's identity. It can be presumed they

> aren't interested in breeding the dog and it's not likely that

> any sex-linked bahaviours will manifest, but they want to know.

> The point is that people wouldn't be expected to be concerned

> that they are interacting according to the wrong sex of dog.

A lot of people call a dog " boy " or " girl " ( " Here boy! " " Good girl! "

etc.). I'd suspect it would either be that, or trying to figure out

which set of pronouns to use in talking about the dog.

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

> > This morning I suddenly realized that most people alter their

> > behavior according to the person they're talking to.

and Dude responded

>Perhaps, but in addition, there's the fact that sex is part of

>the person's identity.

Yes, but so what? Unless one " needs " to tailor one's responses

according to demographics, there is no reason to need to have a

detailed print-out of a person's identity. It is possible to treat

everyone with civil respect, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity,

able-/disableness, socio-economic level, literacy level, educational

history, natal family cohesion, etc., etc., etc.

>Case in point, a lot of people ask the sex of people's dogs. I

>don't know why they care, but it shows that people seem to treat

>it as a part of the dog's identity.

That's simply another point to support my original argument. Most

people (most NTs) feel anxious if they are not able to pigeonhole not

only people but even the " companion attributes " of people (as " pets "

often are perceived). It's truly weird for a human to feel the need

to know the sex of a dog (when not relating to the dog in any but the

most casual way; e.g., not providing medical care, not concerned with

the potential reproduction of the dog). Yet the need for

categorization is so strong that, as you say, people want to know the

sex of dogs they meet. Why? Because they are " wried " in such a way

that their behavior is determined by the way their brains categorize

every element with which they engage in social relations.

And again, I am glad I am wired in way that does not require me to

indulge in that rigidity in order to avoid the anxiety felt by so

many NTs when they cannot fit somebody into a pre-programmed

interaction category.

I can see how such rigidity, such need for the details of (socially

constructed) identity can be an efficient way to " mechanize " social

interaction, and thus how/why such wiring might have evolved. It

saves people the need to figure things out as they go along. The

reverse side of that efficiency is that it saves people the need to

figure things out as they go along and thus helps cement into place

such socio-cultural institutions as sexism, racism, ableism.

Jane

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Yes, but so what? Unless one " needs " to tailor one's responses

> according to demographics, there is no reason to need to have a

> detailed print-out of a person's identity. It is possible to treat

> everyone with civil respect, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity,

> able-/disableness, socio-economic level, literacy level, educational

> history, natal family cohesion, etc., etc., etc.

There are common instances where (at least men) are expected to modulate

language when addressing females. Examples would be the use of expletives.

Mild expletives are generally acceptable when talking to male strangers, and

it's not uncommon for stronger expletives to be acceptable.

In these cases, one is treating the other people with civil respect.

Therefore, avoiding such language because it may offend people not present would

be obstructionist. (Can one be obstructionist against oneself?)

It is possible to avoid such language, etc., but the use of some expletives in a

male-only group is not *ipso facto* sexist. (Some expressions are sexist, but

that's a different issue.) I would not want to feel restricted from doing

something because in a *different* circumstance it would be offensive.

Put more generally, why would I wish to avoid something which would only be

offensive to people not present. i.e., should I avoid eating beef in public

because it may offend a Hindu when a Hindu isn't present?

-s

[Guest guest]

Stan wrote:

>There are common instances where (at least men) are expected to

>modulate language when addressing females. Examples would be the

>use of expletives.

As far as I know, the only reason for those kinds of distinctions is

to form/maintain group bonds. Not a high priority for me, since I

don't feel them much. Again, I feel lucky. It is the existence of

that kind of group bonding that makes many -isms so easy to grow and

institutionalize, so hard to root out.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Here are some similar strange-isms:

" Do you think he/she's gay? "

" Oh I can spot 'em. I can tell right off when a person's gay! "

>

> Stan wrote:

> >There are common instances where (at least men) are expected to

> >modulate language when addressing females. Examples would be the

> >use of expletives.

>

> As far as I know, the only reason for those kinds of distinctions is

> to form/maintain group bonds. Not a high priority for me, since I

> don't feel them much. Again, I feel lucky. It is the existence of

> that kind of group bonding that makes many -isms so easy to grow and

> institutionalize, so hard to root out.

>

> Jane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" alfamanda " wrote:

>

" June " <roberts.june@> wrote:

>

> > I've heard of people becoming almost violent when they couldn't

> > tell what gender someone was and make *demands* that they tell

> > them. I've heard of that from other transexuals.

>

> I'm not transsexual but whenever I have my hair sufficiently short I

> get that reaction, and sometimes it does get really close to

> violence.

>

> (What confuses me about this is that I have very large breasts. But

> apparently people do not use this for male/female cues as often as

> you'd think they would, and being autistic, my innate social

> behavior doesn't particularly scream out a gender either.)

Women with very short hair are " supposed " to be embarrassed about

that and would cover it up with a wig. I think people (especially NT

people) focus first on the face and anything close to the face for

gender markers and make an instant decision on gender based on that

and the person's behavior. I have small breasts and am 6 feet tall,

which is taller than most men. Still, both of those things aren't

enough for people to " read " me as male because apparently my face and

hair say female to them. My behavior sometimes gets me into trouble --

not because it's male type but rather because it's not stereotypically

female.

> I once had someone come up to me and say " Are you a boy or a girl? "

> (I'm also not sure why everyone thinks I'm a kid). When I didn't

> (couldn't, physically, at the time) answer, she started repeating it

> over and over, louder and louder, and getting in my face and more

> aggressive the longer she did it.

That's exactly the sort of interaction I've heard of happening. I'm

not sure what I would do in such a situation; giving a definite answer

would seem like " giving in " .

June

[Guest guest]

Personally though, I think group bonding serves a larger social purpose. It

helps mobilize people to work together towards common ends. Do you believe

there's a way to maintain those group bonds and identities without making

negative distinctions? The very idea of organized society is based on some

level of group bonding, after all, and the entirety of the sort of world we

live in can't be organized on the basis of individual interaction. This is

taking things somewhat off topic, but what do you think?

-Ari

>

> Stan wrote:

> >There are common instances where (at least men) are expected to

> >modulate language when addressing females. Examples would be the

> >use of expletives.

>

> As far as I know, the only reason for those kinds of distinctions is

> to form/maintain group bonds. Not a high priority for me, since I

> don't feel them much. Again, I feel lucky. It is the existence of

> that kind of group bonding that makes many -isms so easy to grow and

> institutionalize, so hard to root out.

>

> Jane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ari wrote:

>Personally though, I think group bonding serves a larger social purpose. It

>helps mobilize people to work together towards common ends. Do you believe

>there's a way to maintain those group bonds and identities without making

>negative distinctions? The very idea of organized society is based on some

>level of group bonding, after all, and the entirety of the sort of world we

>live in can't be organized on the basis of individual interaction. This is

>taking things somewhat off topic, but what do you think?

Seems to me it's probably better and safer to organize around

interests than around " identities. " There's too much

objectification/stereotyping involved in the latter. It's how " women "

(female human beings) come to be seen by some men as " those around

whom I cannot be fully myself " (*not* the best basis for long-term

relationships, eh?).

Jane

[Guest guest]

On one hand, you're right, that isn't the basis for a healthy relationship.

Although, I might take issue with saying that all men who behave differently

do so because they feel less comfortable around women and are more

" themselves " around men. A great deal of men are more open around women that

they know well then they would be around men they know equally well. It's a

matter of differing approaches to social interaction, not necessarily geared

in any practical result of the difference in gender but from the different

roles people of different sorts play in people's minds.

But more to the point, I think that from a practical perspective identity

and interest often coincide. The idea of a shared national or community

identity, for instance, encourages people to take action for the good of the

nation or the community, even if it does not serve their individual

interests as much. The concept of being associated with others means that

you can place the interests of the group identity alongside your own. That

serves an important social use. Without that idea of the group or community

identity, even the neurodiversity and anti-cure movements would be

significantly damaged, as part of the reason we're all here is that we feel

part of the larger autistic community/identity. It drives us to advocate on

issues that may not directly affect us personally but still are very

important to us because of the group identity.

I see what you mean about the problems with using identities to classify

others, but in terms of developing a group identity for our own community,

there are definitely some tangible benefits, practically speaking.

-Ari N.

>

> Seems to me it's probably better and safer to organize around

> interests than around " identities. " There's too much

> objectification/stereotyping involved in the latter. It's how " women "

> (female human beings) come to be seen by some men as " those around

> whom I cannot be fully myself " (*not* the best basis for long-term

> relationships, eh?).

>

> Jane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ari wrote:

>I see what you mean about the problems with using identities to classify

>others, but in terms of developing a group identity for our own community,

>there are definitely some tangible benefits, practically speaking.

I guess my problem with the whole concept is that I'm just not wired

for it. And I can't help thinking: " Wouldn't the world be better off

(safer for a higher proportion of inhabitants) if people were more

like I am? " For so many people, " developing a group identity "

involves making lots of connections between identity-markers and some

deep emotional reactions. Tweaking those ties releases floods of

emotion, often in destructive ways.

Whereas I can and do feel related to issues and to groups of people

(to " identities " ), but it's a thought-out thing. Intellectual. Not

that I am without emotional reactions, but those reactions tend to be

tied to *issues* (e.g., fairness, or the right to be free of

coercion) rather than to identity-markers.

It seems weird to be holding myself up as a model in any way, given

how ineffective and " extremely small beer " I am (not to mention the

fact that my brain is littered with " stupid areas " )! But in this one

respect, I do think the majority (with strong emotional bonds to

identity-markers) are at a disadvantage when it comes to responding

rationally to emotive cues or events.

Jane

[Guest guest]

The world would be better off if people were not wired towards these

instinctive connections between classification of identity and emotion, I

agree. However people aren't, and unfortunately, that imposes an unpleasant

reality on those with the intellectual ability to avoid those emotional

responses. The vast majority of the population is not going to start

behaving in a more logical fashion. That's part of the reason why government

is necessary - because the reasoned and logical actions of people such as

yourself are not the universal way of doing business for most people. So

it's insufficient to just count on people to reason out on an individual by

individual basis the most effective course of action, in my opinion. And

unfortunately, as long as that means of mobilizing large amounts of people

towards common ends exists, it will be abused by some. But personally, I

think that the best way to respond to that abuse is to utilize the tool of

group identity towards positive ends, mobilizing large groups of people for

the common ends of fighting bigotry or prejudice. Like anything, identity

politics is a tool and properly utilized it can be used for good. But that's

just my perspective.

-Ari

> Ari wrote:

> >I see what you mean about the problems with using identities to classify

> >others, but in terms of developing a group identity for our own

> community,

> >there are definitely some tangible benefits, practically speaking.

>

> I guess my problem with the whole concept is that I'm just not wired

> for it. And I can't help thinking: " Wouldn't the world be better off

> (safer for a higher proportion of inhabitants) if people were more

> like I am? " For so many people, " developing a group identity "

> involves making lots of connections between identity-markers and some

> deep emotional reactions. Tweaking those ties releases floods of

> emotion, often in destructive ways.

>

> Whereas I can and do feel related to issues and to groups of people

> (to " identities " ), but it's a thought-out thing. Intellectual. Not

> that I am without emotional reactions, but those reactions tend to be

> tied to *issues* (e.g., fairness, or the right to be free of

> coercion) rather than to identity-markers.

>

> It seems weird to be holding myself up as a model in any way, given

> how ineffective and " extremely small beer " I am (not to mention the

> fact that my brain is littered with " stupid areas " )! But in this one

> respect, I do think the majority (with strong emotional bonds to

> identity-markers) are at a disadvantage when it comes to responding

> rationally to emotive cues or events.

>

> Jane

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ari wrote:

>...as long as that means of mobilizing large amounts of people

>towards common ends exists, it will be abused by some. But personally, I

>think that the best way to respond to that abuse is to utilize the tool of

>group identity towards positive ends, mobilizing large groups of people for

>the common ends of fighting bigotry or prejudice. Like anything, identity

>politics is a tool and properly utilized it can be used for good. But that's

>just my perspective.

It's a perspective you share with many people.

Whenever I hear it, I feel impelled to remind that " The ends do not

justify the means " (and it is necessary to be careful that the means

one chooses do not take on a life of their own, seducing us into

failing to notice when the ends become less important than the daily

exercise of means) and " The master's tools will not dismantle the

master's house. "

Of course, this is a debate that will go on as long as our species survives.

Jane

[Guest guest]

>

>

> It's a perspective you share with many people.

Such a diplomatic way of putting it.

Whenever I hear it, I feel impelled to remind that " The ends do not

> justify the means " (and it is necessary to be careful that the means

> one chooses do not take on a life of their own, seducing us into

> failing to notice when the ends become less important than the daily

> exercise of means) and " The master's tools will not dismantle the

> master's house. "

Why don't the ends justify the means? It's an unpopular thing to say, but we

decide they do every day. It's simply a matter of how bad those means are

and how good those ends can be. Every day people make that cost-benefit

analysis. " Do I work in a job I can't stand to live in a way I'm accustomed

to? " (Although I see you have a very enviable job at the School,

something I'd love to hear more about sometime) " Do I hurt my colleague's

feelings by correcting his work so that it gets done properly? " " Do I obey a

law that I disagree with, in order to avoid going to jail? " Even something

as simple as finishing work at the expense of spending time with family and

friends.

We justify means we don't like by the ends that we desire all the time.

Perhaps *these *ends don't justify *those *means. That's a matter of

opinion. But it bothers me when a blanket statement like " The ends don't

justify the means " is made, because it means that those who do the

unpleasant things that are necessary for the functioning of a society or a

community are demonized because the tools they have to use are less than

optimal. Sometimes those people are making the wrong decision, but sometimes

they're making a very brave and very right decision, to do an unpleasant

thing (say, war or identity politics) to stand up to an even more unpleasant

evil (say, Hitler or slavery or discrimination). I think identity politics

have been used for good (civil rights, anti-colonialism) and for evil

(fascism, violent nationalism) in the past, but they remain just a tool.

What kind of tool they become depends entirely on whose hands use them.

I do agree though, that it is important to differentiate between the means

and the ends. As an example, that's part of why I disagree with a

total *laissez

faire *economic policy, even though I generally support competition and free

markets. Although I think that in general those means serve the larger ends

of seeing the most possible prosperity among the most possible people, when

it can be shown that they are failing to work or would fail to work for

those ends (Health care and Education might be two good examples) there's no

reason to adopt them. A lot of people on my " side " of the political/economic

viewpoint spectrum mix up the means and ends about that, and it bothers me.

Of course, this is a debate that will go on as long as our species survives.

I imagine so, as it's been going on for as long as our species has existed

and in species prior to us as well.

-Ari

[Guest guest]

Kayla is a Sargent in the 101st Airborne

Division, Military Intelligence, who wrote a book,

" Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the

US Army. "

In a Public Radio interview she said even inside her

body armor, both she and all the other men soldiers

were aware she was a woman.

The social structure of the male soldiers has a sexual

element (they hump each other to indicate playfulness

and friendship). This creates a serious environment

for possible sexual abuse: (a)Since the men have a

sexual-friendliness towards each other when they make

sexual gestures towards a woman, are they being

friendly or abusive? (b)A woman's friendliness can be

interpreted as a sexual invitation.

The interviewer asked whether Kayla was

concerned about being raped. " No, I carry a gun. " She

said she is never without her gun and everyone knows

her gun is loaded.

I mention this last incident cautiously: it is a

sexual example she gave in the interview. It has

strong moral and political significance. I mention it

only because originally this topic was about the

social custom of establishing the gender of

individuals before initiating a conversation with

them. This incident reminds me the power of one person

saying, " No. "

Kayla foolishly thought her skill in Arabic

would have her interrogating women, demonstrating

America's sensitivity to the Muslim culture. No. A

blindfolded male prisoner was stripped of his clothes

and put in front of her so that when the blindfold was

removed his first sight would be a woman looking at

him. She mentioned to the officer in charge her

dislike for the tactic and her belief the act was

illegal. The officer agreed with her and never again

made her repeat that interrogation technique.

~Bonnie

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Bonnie wrote:

>...This incident reminds me the power of one person

>saying, " No. "

I agree! It always used to amaze me that so many people never thought

to say No when the FBI came calling, for example. An authority figure

says Jump, and everybody whispers " Please, sir, how high, sir? "

Jane

[Guest guest]

We are tribal creatures, from thousands of generations of tribes. We

don't really need reasons to act like it. I suppose tribalism has some

survival benefits, because it doess seem to get perpetuated, doesn't it?

Someday I'll go through my Extended Rant on tribalism and how it affects

society today. I suppose it's a bit of a perseveration for me. I figure

if folks actually understood why it works the way it does ... they'd

probably keep doing the same stupid stuff for the same stupid reasons.

Oh, well. ;-)

It was 18 Mar 2006, when Ari N. commented:

> Personally though, I think group bonding serves a larger social purpose. It

> helps mobilize people to work together towards common ends. Do you believe

> there's a way to maintain those group bonds and identities without making

> negative distinctions? The very idea of organized society is based on some

> level of group bonding, after all, and the entirety of the sort of world

> we live in can't be organized on the basis of individual interaction. This

> is taking things somewhat off topic, but what do you think?

>

> -Ari

>

>

>

> >

> > Stan wrote:

> > >There are common instances where (at least men) are expected to

> > >modulate language when addressing females. Examples would be the

> > >use of expletives.

> >

> > As far as I know, the only reason for those kinds of distinctions is to

> > form/maintain group bonds. Not a high priority for me, since I don't feel

> > them much. Again, I feel lucky. It is the existence of that kind of group

> > bonding that makes many -isms so easy to grow and institutionalize, so

> > hard to root out.

> >

> > Jane

--

B. , another satisfied user of

Pegasus Mail Client and Mercury MTA <http://www.pmail.com>

<ftp://ftp.usm.maine.edu/pegasus/winpmail/w32-431.exe>

[Guest guest]

It was 17 Mar 2006, when Jane Meyerding commented:

> I wrote:

> > > This morning I suddenly realized that most people alter their

> > > behavior according to the person they're talking to.

>

> and Dude responded

> >Perhaps, but in addition, there's the fact that sex is part of

> >the person's identity.

>

> Yes, but so what? Unless one " needs " to tailor one's responses

> according to demographics, there is no reason to need to have a

> detailed print-out of a person's identity. It is possible to treat

> everyone with civil respect, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity,

> able-/disableness, socio-economic level, literacy level, educational

> history, natal family cohesion, etc., etc., etc.

>

> >Case in point, a lot of people ask the sex of people's dogs. I

> >don't know why they care, but it shows that people seem to treat

> >it as a part of the dog's identity.

>

> That's simply another point to support my original argument. Most

> people (most NTs) feel anxious if they are not able to pigeonhole not only

> people but even the " companion attributes " of people (as " pets " often are

> perceived). It's truly weird for a human to feel the need to know the sex

> of a dog (when not relating to the dog in any but the most casual way;

> e.g., not providing medical care, not concerned with the potential

> reproduction of the dog). Yet the need for categorization is so strong

> that, as you say, people want to know the sex of dogs they meet. Why?

> Because they are " wried " in such a way that their behavior is determined by

> the way their brains categorize every element with which they engage in

> social relations.

I suspect it may be for different reasons than that, though. When young,

if we " guess wrong " the sex of a person or of an animal, we can be

ridiculed. Ridicule, teasing and bullying can be a strong motivator, as I

suspect any Aspie can attest. It hurts, and we remember. It may be

unrealistic to expect ridicule under the same circumstances when one

becomes an adult. But that doesn't mean we don't feel the same stresses

as if it might actually happen.

Is there somebody in this group that isn't familiar with the long-term

impact of bullying and ridicule in youth?

--

B. , another satisfied user of

Pegasus Mail Client and Mercury MTA <http://www.pmail.com>

<ftp://ftp.usm.maine.edu/pegasus/winpmail/w32-431.exe>

[Guest guest]

It was 17 Mar 2006, when KayeT commented:

> Here are some similar strange-isms:

> " Do you think he/she's gay? "

> " Oh I can spot 'em. I can tell right off when a person's gay! "

A friend of mine used to say, " I know for a fact he's gay. When I

nuzzled his ear, he giggled! " ;-)

--

B. , another satisfied user of

Pegasus Mail Client and Mercury MTA <http://www.pmail.com>

<ftp://ftp.usm.maine.edu/pegasus/winpmail/w32-431.exe>

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Is there somebody in this group that isn't familiar with the long-term

>impact of bullying and ridicule in youth?

Me. I didn't notice my age peers much for many years, and when I did

begin to notice them, I usually didn't understand them. In the second

half of seventh grade, some classmates took the trouble to explain

some things to me, and then I knew that all of them saw me as

weird/different -- and that they cared enough about it to react in

ways that were supposed to upset me. I was upset, but not in the way

they expected (and wanted?). It was then that I lost my original

assumption that people are universally rational.

Jane

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>We are tribal creatures, from thousands of generations of tribes. We

>don't really need reasons to act like it. I suppose tribalism has some

>survival benefits, because it doess seem to get perpetuated, doesn't it?

>

>Someday I'll go through my Extended Rant on tribalism and how it affects

>society today.

You can direct people to the book instead (instead of ranting), if

you want to. I started reading it and found it interesting but a bit

bothersome that the author continually writes (as you did in your

post) about what " we " are like, describing things that are not like

me at all.

The book is " Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind " by

Berreby (Little, Brown, 2005).

Jane