The ad for J. Crew features a mother and child having a good time painting her child's toenails hot pink. That may sound like a plain ho-hum ad, but the ad sparked a huge controversy in the blogosphere - you see, the kid in the ad is a boy:
It began when a photo of J. Crew's president and creative director Jenna Lyons painting the toenails of her son Beckett in an ad was sent to customers last week in a feature, "Saturday with Jenna."
"Lucky for me I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink," says the caption. "Toenail painting is way more fun in neon."
Social conservatives reacted with outrage. Fox News' Dr. Keith Ablow ran an opinion piece on the issue and Erin Brown of the right-leaning Media Research Center called the ad "blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children."
"Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna's indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future," Brown wrote. J. Crew, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the facade of liberal, transgendered identity politics."
Reaction to the reaction was appalled at the notion that the child was being "turned" gay or transgender.
Now let me ask you this: is painting a boy's toenail (pink, red, whatever color) harmful? Do you think that will "turn" him gay?
BTW, when I was little, I played dress-up with my brothers.. who were quite obliging in wearing my dresses, in order to play with me. Neither one "turned out" gay because they wore my dresses.
Are you saying that pink nail polish will make this child gay? Homosexuality is biological, not caused by clothing or makeup.
Rome didn't collapse because of homosexuality. Honestly, they didn't even really have that as a concept. Nor did the Greeks. For them, sexuality was about who was doing the penetrating. They didn't break it down into concepts like gay or straight.
Rome fell apart for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that maintaining an empire that large is just not sustainable. Local peoples wanted the power to rule themselves, to establish their own governments. It just didn't make sense to be rules by people that were based thousands of miles way, in place they'd likely never visit.
I'm oversimplifying here, but this explanation is a darn good start.
The discussion that it--if tangentially--brought up is really about social norms and clothing. Adults dress the way they do for reasons. Your clothing sends a message. If I went to work--or anywhere--in a dress, it would tell people something about me just as if I loudly dropped the F-bomb all the time in public. Colors should be arbitrary and meaningless, but they aren't.
When you dress your kids, you're sending a message to others on their behalf, whether you like it or not. They are not dolls, they're living individuals that make impressions and develop reputations. You, as a parent, are responsible for those until they're old enough to do so themselves.
Also, your children are NOT your own personal little social experiment. Prepare them for real life, not for your own idealistic image of some utopian future.
Still, a little goofing around isn't gonna hurt anyone. Come on.
Of course painting his nails pink won't make him gay. If he's gay, he's gay. Doesn't matter if his parents try to make him into a "little man" or let him paint his nails pink. He's just as likely to not be gay.
My brother used to put on lipstick and kiss the bathroom mirror when he was about 7 or so. Guess what? He likes ladies.
On the other hand there are tons of boys who are raised in militant style families and are told that men are tough and don't cry etc etc, and they still turn out to be gay.
It's a ridiculous question to even ASK if that will make him gay. Nail polish doesn't change your sexual preferences.
LITTLE BOY LIKES PINK.
MOTHER IS OKAY WITH THIS. MOTHER IS TURNING HIM GAY.
....Um what.
I agree with your assessments. Is it all just goofing around or are you trying to make a social statement through your kids, one is fine, the other one I find distasteful.
Oh, and I love having my toenails painted by girls, and they've always seemed to love painting them.
I've done some study of feminism, mainly Friedan. And I've also done some study of misogyny, Weininger, Quinn, Solway, Paglia, etc... Misogyny in this sense, often goes by the name "Wise Misogyny". Or that is the banner Kelly Jones uses. At least two of the names Jones and Paglia are women, so this kind of "Misogyny" is a bit unusual.
What it boils down to is a distinction between the archetypal male and archetypal female. Where the male or masculine is active, aggressive, stern, authoritative and thoughtful. The feminine is passive, easy-going, soft, submissive and emotional. The distinction is done abstractly and isn't immediately applied to men and women. The purpose is to abstract opposing human traits onto archetypes. From there they argue that society is degrading the masculine and propping up the feminine as something much more divine. But as a matter of fact, both are necessary for the survival of the species. The misogynists tend to down-play the importance of the feminine and assert that there aren't any famous female serial killers (like Jack the Ripper) for the same reason there are no famous female composers (like Mozart). The reason they assert; women are far too easy-going, not single-minded enough, not aggressive enough. But this is a gross generality which the misogynists do not deny. They simply assert that the majority of actual women conform to the archetypal feminine and the majority of men ought to lean toward the archetypal masculine, but argue that in modern times more men are becoming feminine.
This is particularly important distinction to their work which focuses on a mystic detachment from the affective qualities of ourselves. They are gearing up to a major insight into the operation of the mind which often goes under the banner of ego. They state that the archetypal feminine is too reactionary, too emotional, and too egocentric to become enlightened. So whether male or female it is imperative that we cultivate some masculinity into our spiritual pursuits. To earn the strength and determination to overthrow our own minds.
If the misogynists are onto something, which I'm quite sure they might be, then perhaps painting this boys toenails sets him up on the wrong path to enlightenment. Not because of any shoulds or coulds, but because of ares and ises. Because painting your toenails is, according to the archetypes, distinctively feminine, it is egocentricity and fashion, things masculinity has nothing to do with.
But are the feminists really all that different? No, I don't think so. I think feminism asserted much the same thinking about human identity and the character traits that accompany the ascent to feminine and masculine archetypes. The feminists wanted to abolish the archetypes as they were manifest into stereotypes, and asserted that men and women could be any combination of masculine and feminine. They also rightly asserted that the feminine has some positive traits, which the misogynists do not deny either. Both camps come down to selecting the best traits from either. As a spiritual seeker, a certain amount of femininity is beneficial to accepting the reality.
But I think the crux of the issue is the egocentricity that accompanies much femininity. Ego is definitely a problem for men as well, but we see with the feminine which is mostly manifest in women, a certain preoccupation with fashion, painting nails, doing oneself up, and for some, like the Greek myth of Narcissus, can barely pull themselves away from the mirror. The degree of self-centeredness is expected by the misogynists to be so extreme that any criticism of the feminine is met with tears, pouting, and a victim mentality. "Why are you picking on me?" "You don't love me!" these are the cries of the feminine when criticized. These misogynists are big on criticism! I once read a letter between two of them that was full of criticism from both sides, and they remained life-long friends. This is not expected in feminine circles where congeniality, and good feelings are king.
I think both the feminists and misogynists have interesting points. I'll leave you all with a few references:
Otto Weininger; Sex & Character
http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html
Women: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Exposition.html
Youtube channel of Kelly Jones
http://www.youtube.com/user/KellyJones00
Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.
Camille Paglia
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/camille_paglia.html#ixzz1JQmLBu5f
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html?c=y&page=2
You don't think Lady Gaga was wearing a meat dress to "make a statement", did you? It kept her in the news. That was the plan.
And no one freaks out
No of course not. And it's not just a gay kid who would enjoy having funky coloured toenails.
However when he lets it slip that this is an activity he enjoys doing with his mother, he will be dismayed at the over the top "we'll never let you forget this" reaction. Kids are not politically correct. Kids are not supportive or sensitive.
This mother is setting her kid up for the humiliation of his life, unfortunately.
you've really lost a lot of credibility today with this heinous, disgusting blog post
I don't see how this blog post is either heinous or disgusting or anything else. I think it is a great question and something that warrants some serious consideration. But I fear we are too entrenched in the "anything goes" "do what you feel" thinking to ask any serious questions about our behavior.
Yeah, right. Dressing in women's clothing, painting your nails, putting on makeup has no psychological effect on a child whose brain is still developing. None at all. Right. Try it on one of your kids and see what happens.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.short
However, given your obvious bigoted comments, I doubt that scientific papers will mean much to you.
As a little girl, I grew up working with with dad, who was a plumber. I wore jeans and t-shirts, helped him with his tool box, got dirty working on cars and unclogging toilets, ate lunch with him and the guys at the local diner, washed my hands with Lava soap, and had a short hair cut just like my Dad. You know what I grew up to be? A woman who has been married for nearly 12 years to a loving man. I'm a homemaker and rather conservative in my personal life.
By your logic, I should be a lesbian. The problem is that your logic just doesn't work.
That being said, as was posted here previously, children are not dolls or pets. They are human beings whose care is entrusted to people who should be looking after their best interests. How a child's well-being is best served by a mother carelessly painting toe nails a colour she might prefer eludes me. Maybe she should do something the boy would like doing, not doing something SHE would like doing.
But then again, we're probably reading TOO much in an advert.
These are not things people can have an opinion on. Pink nail polish can't confuse anyone's gender identity. Nothing environmental "turns" boys gay (unless you're talking womb, in which case, the jury is still out). Rigidly enforced gender roles, on the other hand, have caused serious emotional harm to many individuals. These are scientific facts. Don't lead others to believe otherwise by making it appear like it's an open ended debate.
I might drum up some papers to support my point of view as well. I find it interesting that prior to Bailey & Pillard in the early 90s there was no evidence for heritability of homosexuality. They were the first researchers to show a significant correlation. What is particularly interesting about this is that Bailey, J. Michael has done a lot of research into gender orientation and gender identity. The LGBT community jumped all-over his research from the early 90s, but when he wrote The Man Who Would Be Queen, arguing that transgender men have an intense desire to be treated like the Queen of England, the LGBT community got in an uproar.
J. Michael Bailey had to defend his reputation and even resigned from his tenured and respected position at Northwestern University. The zeal with which his early work was supported had shifted poles. That is an interesting case study in how research is filtered through the public eye. Bailey and Blanchards theory of autogynephilia is not popular with the LGBT community who holds a lot of sway over the opinions of many "liberally" minded people. What LGBT'ers say, they must assume, has to be the most progressive and respectful of differences. But... is it true? Or simply defensive behavior? At least one transsexual openly agreed with autogynephilia. With that said, Bailey is a controversial person who recently came under fire for performing a live sex act on stage at Northwestern.
We have to consider that we are not aware of our own motives much of the time. Out of concern for self-image we dwell in lies about ourselves. When questioned on our motives, we don't own up to the real motives, we engage in deflection, scapegoating, name-calling and all kinds of defense mechanisms. We do this because how others evaluate us has more apparent importance than how we evaluate ourselves. If we are met with disapproval we set about denying the basis for the disapproval and not examining our actual selves. You know, in AA the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Because a similar processs happens with alcoholics, they deny their motives. "I don't drink because I'm addicted, I drink because I want to." What the alcoholic overlooks is that their "wants" are subverted or hijacked by the addiction.
Though there is a relationship between genetic factors and sexual orientation,there is also a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and sexual orientation. This latter link is overlooked or out-right rejected by LGBTers. They are only interested in causes which support a clean, healthy, perfect bill of mental health. When you demand that you get a perfect pass on mental health issues, you are mentally ill. Your illness is egotism, selfishness, the problem of appearance, identity and so forth. Your concern is not about being right or being good, it is about appearing right and appearing good. Your concern is pride not humility, and as such you pick and choose what you want to see and what you want to believe. You are a slave to desire and ignorance.
There is a difference between being born with an inclination and acting on that inclination. Psychopathy has pretty strong genetic correlates. Pedophilia correlates with early childhood sexual abuse. Almost anything has a genetic correlate that modulates the propensity one has to attach to any particular. There are genetic correlates for all inclinations and character traits. That is not a measure of goodness. David Hume explained in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding why you cannot derive an ought from an is. You can't say "I am a thief, therefor it is okay." or "I was born with psychopathic tendencies, therefor its okay to feed them." I was born that way is just a way of washing your hands of your life, a way of not taking any responsibility.
As for whether homosexuality is good or bad, I refrain from commenting because the society at large is far too myopic to appreciate any depth of actual concern. There is so much depth to it that can't be penetrated when the atmosphere is to quickly latch onto labels and categories and freak out. We need to grow up to tackle these issues.
BTW, this question is not offensive. It's a valid question and a good discussion to have. Of course, liberals hate having discussions like this because it challenges their beliefs.
Tough.
Get the fuck on.
chill out.
It's just a question. Don't make it mean anything else.
BTW: NO
Things only become a big deal when you make it a big deal. You broadcast your hang-ups to your kids. And, believe me, they will pick up on them. No hang ups? No worries. The most important thing you can do for your child is to love them unconditionally.
First off - I'm a big homo.
@Jdoozie - I agree with you about the devaluing of the heterosexual male.
I think men are turning into pussies en masse. All sensitive, emotional, and whipped, these men are far too soft.
Perhaps this is why the show "Mad Men" is popular, because it shows men at a time when they had nads, and had control over their workspace as men.
In the Candadian Education system there is a "crisis in boys education" where the fact that boys learn different than girls, and the fact that a school is a corporation run by women (my opinion), has somehow left boys out.
As well, humans are turning into pussies. I read somewhere that a Greek battle was re-inforced by all the soldiers of a neighbouring city rowing a boat to the battle in record time. A re-creation was attempted with modern Olympic level rowers and we could not do it. As well, we can't throw javelins anywhere near as far as ancient Greeks.
Perhaps this ad is playing to some zeitgeist that women want their men to be more like the homos (my opinon). Most gay men I know follow their own path, think for themselves, take action quickly, are independant, macho, and think "boobies are for babies". Lol.
Seducing a man can get you killed, and that is waaaay tough.
No way this would "make a kid gay". Gay kids are always gay. Everyone knows it - they just don't yet have anyone to be gay with.
"look at the majority of males now, they look and act more homosexual than any men in history"
Clearly you have never seen saturday night fever.
The whole "nature vs nurture" debate is so pointless if you just don't worry about what other people think and just be yourself. Who cares why you turned out gay or straight? You are the way you are, so accept it.
The mantra is "We're here, we're queer; get used to it". It's not "We're here, we're queer; it's genetics". If you don't like someone else's sexual orientation, go f*** yourself. It's none of your business.
For the record, I think the Roman Empire commenter was trolling you, silly people.
Yes, men are being emasculated at an alarming rate in society. They're also portrayed as children or idiots in most advertising.
Will painting your son's toenails make him gay? No, but it will make him embarrassed in five years time. The majority of gay men I've met would be insulted by the idea that they would ever paint their toenails any colour.
Thanks for the laugh.
You do a lot of finger pointing, but may I suggest that you turn that finger towards yourself? You make a lot of accusations and use a lot of loaded language in your appeal to common sense, but you hardly have any. I wish I could go into detail, but suffice it to say that you have labeled "LGBT" as a group and you are scapegoating them. Firstly, no one is saying "I was born Gay so I have to be Gay", as in your assumption with Hume. You're missing the critical middle step, that it's OK to be homosexual. We're moreso saying "I was born Gay, it's OK to be Gay, I'm Gay". You probably didn't want to open that can of worms, so I see why you mentioned it briefly at the end of your post. Still, there's more to chew on later, when you claim "At least one transsexual agreed with autogynephilia"? At least one commenter thinks that's a BS premise for an argument. The field of Psychology is ever expanding and ever changing, like all Sciences, based on the facts that we are able to uncover. The ideas of early Psychologists on gender and sexuality issues are plain ol' incorrect based on new findings and new frameworks. People most often blame a group for "covering up" research, but the reality is that research just isn't accepted as true any more. Whew, I'm taking more time than I have to respond because I fundamentally don't agree with the viewpoint that I assume you have (internet posts are so glib for topics as complex as this). Anyways, back to work.
Many people are idiots and jerks. Painting toenails any colour, wearing make-up, using hair products, whatever... none of those things inflict "gayness".
(I'm a little surprised that no one out in Idiotville endorses the forced painting of girl toenails pink as an inoculation against lesbianism.)
And if it was turning the kid gay, what the hell difference would it make to anything anyway? It only makes a difference to a bunch of hateful people that can't see the world beyond their own noses. And when the world shows itself for something that isn't a little booger in that nose of theirs they twist and contort themselves into a frenzy of hatefulness that they call "common sense" and "the good old days" and "traditional values" or any other insipid monstrosity of innocent words that are drenched in the blood of beaten people throughout the ages.
That these insipid things are a vocal minority is the only thing we can be glad of. They are, sadly, a loud and powerful minority, desperate and struggling to stay in the spotlight and to have power in a government that they hate anyway simply to continue to perpetuate their irrational hated of anything and everything that they don't understand.
Lucky for us, even in the US, they are dying breed. Yes, they are loud, but yes they are dying. Each generation they lose more people that buy into their thinking.
I think you have the right idea. These are not pictures of a family's typical Saturday. This is an advertisement meant to stir up controversy and therefor get free publicity.
Knock it off.
and yeah, playing dress up is normal, but no the ad isn't about that
As the only reason I could think of was "Because other people don't like it" or "Society frowns on it", I let him.
Pretty dress, pretty doll, pretty pushchair and a buzz cut. Got some strange looks there!
But now - straight as a die. Not that I would care if he wasn't, but wearing girls clothes did nothing to him. He doesn't even wear them in private - I have three boys, one girl and three bedrooms - we WOULD know!
And my daughter used to dress them up, paint their faces and their nails. I have the pictures to prove it, which are way better to embarrass them with than naked baby pictures!
Pink is just a slice of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. It can't hurt you. It can't change which gender you are sexually attracted to. It can't send you to Hell. And unless you are already broken in some way, it can't cause any damage to your psyche.
I asked him why he reacted that way and he said that his son being gay would be the worst thing that could happen to him (him, not his son). I asked why that was, after confirming, worse than being a rapist or murderer or drug addict? and he gave me some long, rambling explanation about how if his son turned out gay, and his son was a part of him, then part of him might be gay.
I said, "If your son's going to be gay, he already is. Playing with pompoms won't 'make' him gay."
At the school where we both attended, in kindergarten, there was an area that was where the boys were supposed to play, with toy cars and blocks and such, and an area where the girls played, with dolls, fake kitchen appliances, and so on. I never was much into dolls and found the other girls boring to play with. I was more interested in the blocks. I actually got in trouble for playing with the blocks and not the dolls.
This was 1976, I should probably point out.
Anyway, I didn't grow up to become a butch dyke, so I thought my classmate's attitude about his son was ridiculous and I said so.
Painting a little boy's toenails pink? Probably harmless to do in the privacy of your own home, and little kids haven't really learned to hate yet, so bullying at school probably won't be an issue. But I don't know if I would make such a big deal out of it. No, hot pink toenails won't 'make' a boy gay if he doesn't already have that inclination waiting to develop in him.
As for those who think it's ridiculous to even ask the question, we must ALWAYS be allowed to ask the question. It's the only way honest debate can come about.
Bailey and Blanchards theory of autogynephilia is not a very old theory and it was immediately rejected by organized "LGBT" communities. I'm using the term "LGBT" because that is what they call themselves as part of organized groups of mutual interest. If I could avoid categorization all together, I would, but as Kant and Hegel point out, thinking is categorization.
My point there was that the arguments that end up coming out of the mouths of 90% of the public, which is relfected on this blog, are asinine or completely non-sequitor. The "I was born that way" argument is a non-sequitor as I pointed out, you assert that there is a phantom middle step where it is proved that homosexuality is okay. I don't see that being argued! If it was being argued that homosexuality is okay, then there would be no need to appeal to genetics or heritability. If its okay, its okay. There is nothing more to add to that socially speaking. But that's not it, you got it wrong, they say "I was born that way" precisely in order to skip-over arguing that homosexuality is okay, it's meant as an argument for "homosexuality is okay". Otherwise that point just isn't being made at all.
Now, I've never gotten into whether or not it is okay. But the way people work is to assume the worst. Obviously I must be anti-gay because I'm making all these arguments against what pro-gay people are saying. That's not it at all. I don't care if you are gay, just like I don't care if you are a pedophile. What I do care about is the compounding affect it has on the social mores of our society. That conversation is evidently far too touchy for this blog.
@anothercommentor
You are right, it is poor argumentation. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) picked up the argument for homosexuality and began stating "We were born this way, therefor its okay to have sex with kids." In this light the argument is obviously absurd, or is it?
The thing I notice is that when coming from the mouths of pedophiles people are quick to deny any such reasoning and lash out in hatred at the one saying it. When it comes from the mouths of homosexuals it is all too reasonable to even be doubted. As onecooldan has pointed out, the judgement whether it is good or bad, doesn't ever factor into the argument, it is assumed to be okay or not and that justifies the argument. See the argument isn't like a philosophical argument where logical consistency and non-contradiction and argument form are actually required, here it is all political propaganda that people either buy into because they already think its okay, or reject because they already think its not okay.
And that has been my main point of contention throughout, that none of the arguments from anyone have any actual bearing on truth or approximate any kind of proof or demonstration, they are all just ego-driven vomit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsbmjNLQkc
http://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite#p/u/22/-gBLXJsDnII
http://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite#p/u/38/FSQHq9bMjj4
When you get there, you will understand why the first part needs to exist. Please do not be upset or afraid. That is just your ego reacting the way all egos do. Merely observe the negative feelings and let them pass. This letter has been written to help you.
Dear YOU,
Straight away, before anything else, I want you to understand that what you are about to read is a love letter, written because I love you. In fact, it's very possible that I love you even more than you love yourself, which is why I'm writing to you today.
It's also why I'm going to tell you some things that might be hard to hear. In fact, they WILL be hard to hear. The first thing I'm going to tell you might hurt worst of all.
YOU, my dear beloved creature, are INSANE. Not just a little insane, in the way you think of the people you may know who are diagnosed with "depression" or 'bipolar disorder" or what have you. Your insanity isn't something so easily treated with a pill or a visit to a therapist. I wish it were.
Your insanity is systemic, very nearly universal, and absolutely incurable from within the system that sustains it. Every "professional" you might go to for help is as crazy as you are. Get that straight right here and right now. Your insanity is not recognized, acknowledged, or understood by the "mental health system." In fact, all that system can do is help you become a happier crazy person.
Continued at link: http://actualsanity.com/
"If it was being argued that homosexuality is okay, then there would be no need to appeal to genetics or heritability."
The appeal to genetics or heritability is partly because we (I am LGBT, I'll just put that out there and see what happens) need a defense against people who feel that "alternative" sexualities are an abomination and partly because Scientists and laymen are plain curious. I wasn't going to get into the justifications for Homosexuality, just wanted to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
Your ramble about public school education not teaching logic is bunk too. I went to public schools, a community college, and now a California State School, and I've taken Philosophy and Logic classes in all of them. I appreciate your love of wisdom, but you seem to be more in love with your own wisdom. I'm no subjectivist, but I believe you're a little too dogmatic from reading the scant few posts you have written here. Yes, I know that a pigeon passes basic logic better than a person, yes I know that people are full of cognitive dissonance. The problem with ALL of this is the fact that you put your own system of reasoning above all of this. Again, I'm not arguing for Subjectivity, I'm arguing that your worldview has more to do with "awakening" people than the truth.
L: AARGH!! It's like saying that this rock keeps lions away!
H: Hmmmm... How does it work?
L: Well, it doesn't work, but I don't see any lions around here, do you?
H: Lisa I'd like to buy your rock
I'm simply reducing it to it's basist constituent parts. My concern is rationality, not retaliation to some pathos.
A rational argument for the acceptance of homosexuality would be that the a)inclination is personal, b) it operates within a domain of mutual consent, and c) even if it was problematic, we have a right to make our own mistakes.
These are good arguments for accepting homosexuality as a personal thing. Good for removing any top-down control of the phenomena because it puts it in the domain of your "inalienable rights" to be a fallible person. It still doesn't address whether or not homosexuality is right with God or with nature, but it at least makes it legitimate constitutionally.
The argument "I was born that way" is a knee-jerk excuse that isn't very well thought out. I can give you tons of better arguments than that. It is a reaction to a perceived "pathos", and as such, it is nonsense.
My ideal is that this whole issue gets put away as soon as good arguments start to surface and the flawed, illogial, nonsense is abandoned.
Cognitive dissonance is probably a more enlightened state than either of the alternatives. That isn't the problem, the problem is when the toothpick always falls to one-side because it is biased.
I've been reading some Kuhn lately, and I believe that you and I are feeling some incommensurability in our paradigms. We are talking over each others heads, and It's more masturbatory than enlightening to either of us. I'm not entirely convinced of your opinion of homosexuality because of this snippet of your post, "homosexuality is not very conducive to production and appears to be primarily based in "I want" and "I need" egotistical striving". No, it isn't. It flat-out is not. You've created a large and complex closed system that gives you plenty of busy-work but doesn't relate to the objective truth. If this were anything but a small blog in the interwebs, I would offer you my best worded and clearest rational response, but as this is just a personal crusade I hereby resign before we get too deep. I'm not going to be able to convince a stranger over the internet and same with you. Thanks for sharing your worldview, it's been a pleasure (no sarcasm).
The Abstract from Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
"The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."
And the Abstract from Biased-Interaction Theory of Psychosexual Development: “How Does One Know if One is Male or Female?” M.Diamond Sex Roles (2006) 55:589–600
"A theory of gender development is presented that incorporates early biological factors that organize predispositions in temperament and attitudes. With activation of these factors a person interacts in society and comes to identify as male or female. The predispositions establish preferences and aversions the growing child compares with those of others. All individuals compare themselves with others deciding who they are like (same) and with whom are they different. These experiences and interpretations can then be said to determine how one comes to identify as male or female, man or woman. In retrospect, one can say the person has a gendered brain since it is the brain that structures the individual’s basic personality; first with inherent tendencies then with interactions coming from experience."
OK, to summarise: hormonal environment dictates the brain's organisation. This leads to detectable sex differences in senses of smell, hearing, emotional response, from birth. It also leads the brain to develop in particular ways later.
Sex Identity crystallises as the result if conscious and unconscious pattern-matching with others' behaviour. Appearance, dress etc seem to play a minor role if any.