Is gender real?

Beatsong · **#41** by **Beatsong** » Jan 08, 2011 11:22 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:This is from the Gires (Gender Identity Research and Education Society)

Gender variance is an atypical development in the relationship between the gender identity and the visible sex of an individual. In order to understand this atypical development, it is necessary, firstly, to understand something of the typical development of these elements of our make-up. Many in the scientific and medical professions recognise the terms ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ as having distinct meanings. ‘Gender identity’ describes the psychological recognition of oneself, as well as the wish to be regarded by others, as fitting into the social categories: boy/man or girl/woman.

Thanks Scot. This is a good summary of the generally accepted view on the subject, and maybe a good way to narrow things down a bit.

I'm going to say straight out that I simply don't HAVE a psychological recognition of myself as fitting into the social categories man or woman, nor any wish to be so regarded by others. This unashamedly personal and subjective statement leads me to a number of possible hypotheses:

1. Most people do have such a recognition, but there is the occasional oddball like me who doesn't. There's something like this present in most peoples' brains that I just don't have, or that is under-active in mine.

2. People whose gender-characteristics naturally correspond to the extremes of male and female have such a recognition. Those in the middle tend not to - of these, some manage to talk themselves into believing one gender or the other better than others do.

3. Nobody actually has such a recognition. The "wish to be so regarded" is no different from the wish of a professional actor to be regarded as the role he is playing - it doesn't mean he actually believes he IS that role.

4. Normal-gendered or "cisgender" people don't generally have such a recognition. The recognition only emerges as a result of the specific brain development of transsexual people - ie the recognition only exists as an expression of conflict between mind and body in a transsexual person.

I suppose at the beginning of this thread I was thinking it was (3). But now I suspect it's just (1).

TMB · **#42** by **TMB** » Jan 09, 2011 1:56 pm

Beatsong, I suggest that you need to look more widely at peoples sense of who they are rather than just their gender. There are many socially imposed norms placed upon for people to conform to and by and large they try to do this, especially in earlier life, gender is one of these. For an average person you are likley to find something about themselves they are uncomfortable with usually this is due to social perceptions and often they strive to modify this in an attempt to met this norm. Consider the subject of our body image. Most people have an idea of themselves not meeting a socially ideal (but unreal norm) in terms of wight, height, skin texture, hair color, and use many mechanisms to 'correct' these. Many of these also reflect gender types, so women feel less feminine if they have excessive body hair, or less attractive if they are fat, or more attractive if they wear makeup or have breast implants. Men are also affected by their appearance but less so than women, they are more likley to reflect their strived for social status. In extreme cases of body dysmorphia people feel that one of their limbs does not feel right and have it amputated. Issues arise when they are unbale to meet the percieved standard. Most people have some issues with their body image, and they way they are percieved in society. While sexual orientation and a sense of gender appears to have strong biological underpinings society appears to be the mechanism that creats the conflict. This means that a sense of matching your gender is not likely to feel like anything because it is highly internalised when there is no conflict. Even if there is conflict, it can take many decades to emerge. Where the conflict does arise, then there will be a sense of being the 'wrong' gender. In the theoretical case of not being in a society, how would an isolated individual assess if they fely 'wrong' or 'right' according to their gender and sex. For them, they would justy be what they are. They might have conflicts with their environment, as they strived to stay alive, avoid being prey, predating etc, but its hard to see how they would have a yardstick to asess their 'right' gender without being among other people.

tribalypredisposed · **#43** by **tribalypredisposed** » Jan 10, 2011 8:42 am

Please people, if you want to debate with me all I ask is that you keep your words out of my mouth. That is not asking a lot, I think.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
tribalypredisposed wrote:This is a huge claim, the "no innate connection" claim. And it seems to be flat-out wrong. There are universal differences in the normal range of certain behaviors which differ between the two genders. Yes, there can still be significant overlap, but the averages of certain behaviors, for example rough and tumble play, do have a strong innate component determined by gender.

I think the point Beatsong was making was that obviously gender and sex are determined by two different things (i.e. sex does not equal gender) - I'm sure he wasn't denying the possibility that one's sex influences one's gender.

However, I'm confused by your example. Do you have a reference for your claim that "rough and tumble play" is determined by biological sex? Given the work done by Bandura and what we know about social influences on gender, as far as I know "rough and tumble play" has not been identified as a sex-specific activity. Instead it seems that this kind of "observation" actually falls into the realm of gender myths, like the belief that women talk more than men, that men are innately better at reading maps, or that men are more aggressive than women etc.

tribalypredisposed wrote:The idea that there is "no innate connection" between gender and expressed behavior inherently depends on the idea that human behavior is not the product of evolution. To me this is Flat-Earth territory, since there is no scientifically sound hypothesis which can describe how our ancestors, alone of all Mammals, evolved without evolution selecting for both behaviors and structural features. Which is to say that when we look under the covers of the trendy politically-correct view that gender is purely culturally constructed we find folks who are forced to assert that humans did not evolve. When we get right down to it humans obviously are built differently physically, and this reflects different optimal fitness strategies for the two genders (as Evolutionary Psychology obsessively informs us). It is very rare, for example and for evolutionarily understandable reasons, for females to be directly involved in combat in war. So we should not be surprised that boys are far more likely to practice skills needed in combat in the form of play than girls are.

Well you've gone too far there. Yes, the brain is an evolved organ but this doesn't mean that all of our behaviors are selected for by evolution. Even if we ignore things like spandrels, we still have the obvious fact that a large portion of our behaviors have nothing to do with evolution and rather it's just general "learning algorithms" which have an evolutionary link. In other words, trying to find an evolutionary explanation for suicidal behavior is ridiculous, but when we explain it according to basic learning rules it makes more sense.

The kind of thinking that leads to the idea that all behaviors are the product of evolution is the cartoon view of creationists. Obviously no scientist believes anything like that.

tribalypredisposed wrote:There was a recent study which I can track down if anyone cares enough that showed that belief in this idea about gender declines very sharply in the group of people who have had children. Those who are most likely to believe it are Women's Studies and Sociology academics who are childless.

That's certainly interesting, but on the flip side I can link you to hundreds of studies showing that parents are extremely poor at identifying causes of behavior in their children, and can usually only guess at things they like and don't like at a level slightly above chance. So what parents believe is entirely irrelevant because parents are terrible predictors of behavior. This isn't a stab at parents, instead it's a result of the fact that parents have a clear bias and personal interest in the conclusions they draw from analysing their kids, so either consciously or unconsciously they draw bad results.

The contradictory results you are referring to aren't solely discussed in Women's Studies and Sociology classes (which you seem to bring up as a criticism of the validity of their conclusions), and it's pretty universal across all scientific disciplines - neuroscience, experimental psychology, anthropology, etc. Any area that studies human behavior will likely have reached the general consensus that a lot of the things we believe characterise gender, usually don't.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Sure, again, there is variation. Some women are way more macho than me. My mother-in-law, for one. But variation is what evolution selects from, and its existence in no way disproves a role for the "innate" in a behavior. The question is whether or not a behavioral range is universal and seems to be based on evolved predispositions. There are a number of examples of these ranges differing between genders. Of course, culture can alter how these predispositions express, no one is arguing for determinism either. But the assertion that gender is a purely cultural construct and our genes have no part in creating divergent averages or ranges of behavior cannot be correct unless the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

I don't think anyone is actually arguing that gender is purely a cultural construct (at least not in the sense that biology plays absolutely no part), instead they're just pointing out that when looking at gender, biological sex is not a perfect predictor.

With that said, however, there is nothing logically that would force us to reject the theory of evolution by suggesting that gender is a purely social construct. This is because evolution does not determine all of our behaviors, and sometimes it is entirely irrelevant to consider. For example, say we are looking at someone's behavior in a choice situation where they can pick A or B. Since both options rely on the same evolved learning mechanisms, there is no need to consider the theory of evolution and instead we just need to look at the environmental variables. So we can say that if a person chooses option A, then it's a "purely" environmental/social decision, given that the genetic influences were equal in both options.

1)I never said anything approaching the bolded and underlined section of your post, where you strongly imply that the opposite is the case by saying I have "gone too far." If you want to discuss things with me, discuss them with me and not some straw man version of me that you construct. Okay? I am starting to see this as a general feature of the argumentation of the posters here and it pisses me off. If you guys want interesting folks with some smarts and knowledge to stick around here, that needs to stop.

2)Your first sentence of your last paragraph can only be written by someone who has not grasped the Theory of Evolution. The rest of that paragraph assumes that all types of "behavior" would be equally subject to evolutionary selection, which is a farcical assumption. Clearly behavior that has some relevance to reproduction is more subject to evolutionary selection than a preference to wear one's hair in pony tails instead of a bun, and clearly such behaviors are quite likely to be gender specific. Any claims otherwise require truly astounding empirical evidence, which I now will wait to hear.

vombatiformes · **#44** by **vombatiformes** » Jan 10, 2011 8:17 pm

I'd like to point out that I think it's quite common sensical that you won't notice something about yourself that is generally taken for granted unless there is something to point it out to you.

You may not notice anything about your physical body and your "gender identity" because there is no discrepancy between the two. Whatever you feel feels normal and there is nothing to alert you to the fact that perhaps the two are not codependent.

There really isn't a consensus on what causes transsexuality, but considering all of the odd things that can happen in development, I don't find gender identity issues very odd in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine a myriad of things that could happen that may cause someone to be wired in such a way that they "expect" to be dealing with a male body and actually develop with female bits or vice versa. That is the clearest way I can describe my own experiences. I've obviously never had any primary male sex characteristics, but I don't *desire* them as much as *already expect them to be there* and thus feel distressed when I take the time to muse on the fact that they are not. I felt similar distress in regard to my breasts because they felt very odd to me and of course inhibited my ability to make myself appear to be more traditionally male-bodied, which was an emotional and a social hindrance.

I do think a lot of what I expect in terms of physicality may be socially shaped, but the actual fundamental need to have a male body is not, I think. (For example, I felt miserable not having a flat chest, but wanting a well-defined chest probably chalks up to vanity.

)

sweitzen · **#45** by **sweitzen** » Jan 10, 2011 9:22 pm

I am going to throw in my uninformed opinion that gender is, indeed, real, and one's biological gender may not match one's emotional gender. That seems to be the issue that too many do not understand. Really, it's just one symptom of the "if it's not my own direct experience, then it's not real" attitude.

Mr.Samsa · **#46** by **Mr.Samsa** » Jan 11, 2011 12:00 am

tribalypredisposed wrote:Please people, if you want to debate with me all I ask is that you keep your words out of my mouth. That is not asking a lot, I think.

If I've misinterpreted your meaning then just correct me, there's no need to take it personally. The internet is the place of imperfect communication.

tribalypredisposed wrote:1)I never said anything approaching the bolded and underlined section of your post, where you strongly imply that the opposite is the case by saying I have "gone too far."

You said this:

The idea that there is "no innate connection" between gender and expressed behavior inherently depends on the idea that human behavior is not the product of evolution.

Which appears to be saying that the idea that there is "no innate connection" between gender and expressed behavior must be wrong since it depends on the idea that human behavior is not the product of evolution. I pointed out that this is faulty logic, because a lot of human behavior is not the product of evolution (i.e. selected for). I didn't imply the opposite is the case for the specific case of gender, but most certainly it's true that not all behavior is the product of evolution so it's wrong to discount that idea on the mistaken assumption that human behavior is the product of evolution.

If you didn't mean to imply that all human behaviors are the product of evolution, then why bring up this line of reasoning at all?

tribalypredisposed wrote:If you want to discuss things with me, discuss them with me and not some straw man version of me that you construct. Okay? I am starting to see this as a general feature of the argumentation of the posters here and it pisses me off. If you guys want interesting folks with some smarts and knowledge to stick around here, that needs to stop.

If you feel you are being consistently misrepresented then perhaps in addition to malice or ill-intent, you could entertain the possibility that this misunderstanding could be the result of a) an honest mistake (which only requires you to correct the speaker's understanding), and/or b) an inability of yours to effectively communicate your ideas (after all, if the common denominator in all these situations is you, then it's only natural to assume you may be partly to blame).

tribalypredisposed wrote:2)Your first sentence of your last paragraph can only be written by someone who has not grasped the Theory of Evolution.

You think this sentence is an example of a failure to grasp the ToE:

I don't think anyone is actually arguing that gender is purely a cultural construct (at least not in the sense that biology plays absolutely no part), instead they're just pointing out that when looking at gender, biological sex is not a perfect predictor.

To disagree with that statement is to say that "If the ToE is true, then biological sex must be a perfect predictor of gender". So since people like vombatiformes don't have genders which are perfectly predicted by biological sex, are you suggesting that the ToE has been disproven? :scratch:

tribalypredisposed wrote:The rest of that paragraph assumes that all types of "behavior" would be equally subject to evolutionary selection, which is a farcical assumption. Clearly behavior that has some relevance to reproduction is more subject to evolutionary selection than a preference to wear one's hair in pony tails instead of a bun, and clearly such behaviors are quite likely to be gender specific. Any claims otherwise require truly astounding empirical evidence, which I now will wait to hear.

Interesting. For someone so concerned with accurate understanding and portrayal of other people's arguments, you haven't applied this same principle to your own posts. You've misunderstood me, I'll point out where.

Of course all behaviors aren't equally subject to evolutionary selection, especially considering some aren't subject to it at all. My point was that in situations where there is no specific evolutionary difference between two (or more) behaviors, like in a standard behavioral choice task, we don't need to consider evolutionary pressures at all as it adds nothing to our understanding of the situation. As such, we can get a range of interesting and intelligent behaviors coming about without a specific evolutionary source.

I'm not sure what you mean by "gender specific", surely you mean "sex specific"? I'd be interested in reading some of the research on those sex differences you think are the result of evolutionary pressures (the burden is yours since you're the one making the claim, I'm simply skeptical of it), but I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say that gender-specific behaviors are evolutionary?

tribalypredisposed · **#47** by **tribalypredisposed** » Jan 11, 2011 6:46 am

Samsa, nope, pretty sure the failure to communicate is not happening on my side. For example, when one uses the term "last" one expects English speakers to know what is meant.

Here is what was abundantly clearly your "last" paragraph of the post I quoted the entirety of:

"With that said, however, there is nothing logically that would force us to reject the theory of evolution by suggesting that gender is a purely social construct. This is because evolution does not determine all of our behaviors, and sometimes it is entirely irrelevant to consider. For example, say we are looking at someone's behavior in a choice situation where they can pick A or B. Since both options rely on the same evolved learning mechanisms, there is no need to consider the theory of evolution and instead we just need to look at the environmental variables. So we can say that if a person chooses option A, then it's a "purely" environmental/social decision, given that the genetic influences were equal in both options."

This is the sentence you claim is the first sentence in it:

" I don't think anyone is actually arguing that gender is purely a cultural construct (at least not in the sense that biology plays absolutely no part), instead they're just pointing out that when looking at gender, biological sex is not a perfect predictor."

This is the sentence that is actually the first sentence in it:

"With that said, however, there is nothing logically that would force us to reject the theory of evolution by suggesting that gender is a purely social construct. "

As for the rest, when you think can manage to stop stuffing the word ALL into what you claim to be my positions than I will entertain the notion that an exchange of ideas with you might be anything more than a complete waste of my time.

What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically. Theory of Evolution insists that form and function are linked. Additionally we know that various substances like Estrogen and Testosterone affect our behavior, and exist in very different amounts in our bodies depending which sex we are. I could go on but there is no point. If your assertions are correct then form does not follow function and therefore the Theory of Evolution is decidedly wrong. Selection would be impossible if your assertion was correct. This is the only answer logic can give us.

I encourage you to at least Google a primer on the Theory of Evolution. It does apply to a lot of areas of behavior and science these days and understanding it even a little will greatly increase your scientific literacy.

Mr.Samsa · **#48** by **Mr.Samsa** » Jan 11, 2011 7:01 am

tribalypredisposed wrote:Samsa, nope, pretty sure the failure to communicate is not happening on my side. For example, when one uses the term "last" one expects English speakers to know what is meant.

Here is what was abundantly clearly your "last" paragraph of the post I quoted the entirety of:

"With that said, however, there is nothing logically that would force us to reject the theory of evolution by suggesting that gender is a purely social construct. This is because evolution does not determine all of our behaviors, and sometimes it is entirely irrelevant to consider. For example, say we are looking at someone's behavior in a choice situation where they can pick A or B. Since both options rely on the same evolved learning mechanisms, there is no need to consider the theory of evolution and instead we just need to look at the environmental variables. So we can say that if a person chooses option A, then it's a "purely" environmental/social decision, given that the genetic influences were equal in both options."

This is the sentence you claim is the first sentence in it:

" I don't think anyone is actually arguing that gender is purely a cultural construct (at least not in the sense that biology plays absolutely no part), instead they're just pointing out that when looking at gender, biological sex is not a perfect predictor."

This is the sentence that is actually the first sentence in it:

"With that said, however, there is nothing logically that would force us to reject the theory of evolution by suggesting that gender is a purely social construct. "

Fair point, that was my fault for assuming you were lumping the last section of my post into a "paragraph". But see, it's easy just to correct someone's mistakes rather than going on a personal tirade about being misrepresented. Arguably you didn't need to go into so much detail, but you got your point across.

tribalypredisposed wrote:As for the rest, when you think can manage to stop stuffing the word ALL into what you claim to be my positions than I will entertain the notion that an exchange of ideas with you might be anything more than a complete waste of my time.

Okay, I can accept I was wrong again if you could just clarify this sentence for me: "The idea that there is "no innate connection" between gender and expressed behavior inherently depends on the idea that human behavior is not the product of evolution."

So if you accept that not all human behavior is the product of evolution, then your argument fails since there is no logical problem with claiming that there is no innate connection since we've accepted that not all human behaviors are the product of evolution, and theoretically this could include gender (since "gender" is a description for the behaviors and beliefs associated with certain roles, and is independent from biological sex).

tribalypredisposed wrote:What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically. Theory of Evolution insists that form and function are linked. Additionally we know that various substances like Estrogen and Testosterone affect our behavior, and exist in very different amounts in our bodies depending which sex we are. I could go on but there is no point. If your assertions are correct then form does not follow function and therefore the Theory of Evolution is decidedly wrong. Selection would be impossible if your assertion was correct. This is the only answer logic can give us.

That's all fine and dandy, but the whole point of gender is that it isn't limited or restricted to our biological sex, so our dimorphism is entirely irrelevant to the question.

tribalypredisposed wrote:I encourage you to at least Google a primer on the Theory of Evolution. It does apply to a lot of areas of behavior and science these days and understanding it even a little will greatly increase your scientific literacy.

I understand the ToE very well thanks, and specifically how it relates to behavior, which is why I was confused when your comments appeared to be at odds with the scientific consensus. Maybe tomorrow you could teach my grandmother how to suck eggs.

Beatsong · **#49** by **Beatsong** » Jan 11, 2011 9:19 pm

sweitzen wrote:I am going to throw in my uninformed opinion that gender is, indeed, real, and one's biological gender may not match one's emotional gender. That seems to be the issue that too many do not understand. Really, it's just one symptom of the "if it's not my own direct experience, then it's not real" attitude.

But is it real for everyone, or only for those who say it's real for them?

Surely gender IS nothing more than "direct experience". Gender is defined, by groups such as the one Scot quoted above, as what a person themselves reports as being the role that they "identify with".

Which means that if I tell you that I don't identify with any gender role, then THAT is my experience. And you have no more right to tell me I have a gender than I have to tell someone they don't. (And I'm not the only person that feels this way).

When I think about it this is not so strange. There are plenty of psychological phenomena that people accept as "real", and which have been studied and measured and explored in considerable detail, without anyone thinking for a moment that everyone has them. Maybe the problem is not the idea of "innate gender" per se, but the assumption that it must be universal.

Beatsong · **#50** by **Beatsong** » Jan 11, 2011 9:25 pm

tribalypredisposed wrote:What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically.

I don't think you're working from the same definition of gender as the rest of us here, which may be the source of conflict between you and Mr Samsa.

nunnington · **#51** by **nunnington** » Jan 11, 2011 9:39 pm

Beatsong wrote:
tribalypredisposed wrote:What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically.

I don't think you're working from the same definition of gender as the rest of us here, which may be the source of conflict between you and Mr Samsa.

It's also a confusion between sex and gender, isn't it? My memory of gender studies is that one's sex is the biological, and gender the socially constructed. Thus a male can be of either masculine or feminine gender, or a blend, or neither, but he remains biologically male. And of course, we have to add sexuality to this. Thus a male could be a very feminine straight, or a very masculine gay. Gender floats around, and can indeed be altered during one's lifetime, or overnight! Tonight I'm butch, but tomorrow, wow!

Beatsong · **#52** by **Beatsong** » Jan 11, 2011 10:01 pm

nunnington wrote:
Beatsong wrote:
tribalypredisposed wrote:What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically.

I don't think you're working from the same definition of gender as the rest of us here, which may be the source of conflict between you and Mr Samsa.

It's also a confusion between sex and gender, isn't it?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Mr.Samsa · **#53** by **Mr.Samsa** » Jan 12, 2011 12:17 am

Beatsong wrote:
tribalypredisposed wrote:What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically.

I don't think you're working from the same definition of gender as the rest of us here, which may be the source of conflict between you and Mr Samsa.

Indeed, I think that's what the issue is.

vombatiformes · **#54** by **vombatiformes** » Jan 12, 2011 3:44 pm

Yeah, gender =/= sex, but that is why I always felt uncomfortable with the word "transgender". I don't really feel like it's my socially-constructed sense of gender that has been in question here, if that makes sense. I really don't care about conforming to social expectations of male or female.

This is pretty much why I don't think it's appropriate to classify GID as, well, "GID" -- gender identity disorder. This is also why I don't think it's appropriate to imply that one's awareness of the fact that they are trans is due to conflict about one's "gender". Perhaps this is the case for some people, but it wasn't for me, and it wasn't for a large number of other people I know.

For the record, I know that I sometimes felt pressured to conform to male social expectations because of, well, pressure in general. I don't want to be abused or derided and that often means not making oneself stand out. But that pressure existed because I already knew I wanted to have a masculine body, not the other way around. I've often wondered if some trans people get it confused. They know that they, say, want to wear dresses and own cutesy things and think that is what makes them feel female, when really they may have already "felt female" or desired a female body and are sensitive enough to the social role of female that they want to incorporate every aspect of femininity into their lives, perhaps as a way of feeling "normal".

I've often felt pretty crappy about not being born with a body that I can tolerate, and it's pretty easy to overcompensate when feelings like that pop up.

Scot Dutchy · **#55** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 12, 2011 4:45 pm

nunnington wrote:
Beatsong wrote:
tribalypredisposed wrote:What logically forces us to reject the notion that gender is a purely social construct in humans is that humans are quite clearly and indisputably dimorphic, men and women look a fair bit different physically.

I don't think you're working from the same definition of gender as the rest of us here, which may be the source of conflict between you and Mr Samsa.

It's also a confusion between sex and gender, isn't it? My memory of gender studies is that one's sex is the biological, and gender the socially constructed. Thus a male can be of either masculine or feminine gender, or a blend, or neither, but he remains biologically male. And of course, we have to add sexuality to this. Thus a male could be a very feminine straight, or a very masculine gay. Gender floats around, and can indeed be altered during one's lifetime, or overnight! Tonight I'm butch, but tomorrow, wow!

I have been saying this for a very long time. You have genital sex and brain sex and bothe can be completely opposite. I am 80% female mentally and 100% male genitally. When I was young nobody ever really thought about gender dysthoria. I was always being told grow up and be a boy.
My gender has never change but I only discovered who I was when I was in my forties when it was too late to make a completely successful change.
Vombatiformes was lucky to be born at this time. He can now live his life the way he wants to. I agree with him that if it is treated pre-puberty it saves a lot of hastle with the second sex change.
I am glad that the penny is finally falling for a lot of people.

Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Re: Is gender real?

Who is online