Mark,
The status of "boy" is socially designated, and it is based on phenotypic
markers. XY is a genotypic reference. There are girls with XY chromosomes.
You made two mistakes in your post: (1) confusing phenotype with genotype
and (2) confusing gender designation with genotypic reference. These are
egregious errors considering their basic understanding in the scientific
community.
Andy
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Mark Jones wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
> > Being a boy is in the genes, the story went,
> > and therefore gender is not as social as the biological egalitarian
> > thinks. The proof was a scene where one of the girls participating in the
> > study was video-taped playing with army men. "Look," the female reporter
> > pointed out to the male researcher, "she isn't playing like a little girl.
> > She goes straight for the army men." "Yes," the researcher sighed, "alas
> > she is." The ahistorical stance of both this scientific novice and the
> > psychologist was astounding.
> >
> But being a boy IS in the genes: the X and Y chromosones, to be precise.
> The problem with this way of arguing with Jay Hanson is that you throw
> the baby out with the bathwater. There is a huge amount of research
> which has got as far as indetifying the genes which give girls better
> social skills and more 'intuition' than men, and it's not much use
> labelling it 'popular scientism', which is actually just a
> mirror-inverse of the labelling Jay does. Of course, the personality and
> gender differences are socially constructed, but there is a material
> basis, isn't there?
>
> Capitalism is not in the genes but no other species makes things for
> sale, that I know of. That has to mean something. Jay's fatalism is
> unfortunate, but I see where he's coming from. If you live in his moral
> universe, and cannot even think an alternative to capitalism, then yes,
> the future is pretty bleak. Socialism, too, is not in the genes so it's
> still there to be worked for and won.
>
>
> --
> Mark Jones
> http://www.geocities.com/~comparty
>
>
>