Perhaps, just paring it down to "What gender do you identify most with?" would be the key and leave an option for "both" for those in, or close to, the Middle of the spectrum.

If I'm reading right, there seems to be more interest in understanding the masculine/feminine aspects of users than their "sex".

I considered putting hermaphrodite in there as well, but I can't change it now. We could include the possibility of medical alteration and sex changes but male or female, whatever a person is at the moment is what it is on a physical level. Sure we could include "I'm physically one sex but feel emotionally and mentally like the opposite." But scientifically the simplicity of male and female is most relevant. It really isn't a discriminatory poll except in the aspect that it can only include Nexus members and can't include anyone outside of the Nexus. From a mathematical aspect, it is statistically biased because it is a voluntary poll. But beyond the fact that it doesn't include hermaphrodites and it doesn't take into account mutant chromosome combinations such as 'xx' and 'yyy' I don't believe it is significantly discriminatory.

I don't want to start an argument, but for many people this is a much more complex issue than "whatever a person is at the moment is what it is on a physical level," that goes beyond anatomical definitions of "male" and "female".

I have edited the thread title, per Infundibulum's suggestion to reflect that this poll is aimed at focusing on sex, rather than gender. I hope you do not mind

I agree that 'gender' would probably be more appropriate than sex. Or perhaps 'Anatomical Gender' would be better. I'll see if I can change it. When I posted, it was a quick and dirty throw-together. I certainly don't intend for anyone to take offense. And please don't take offense by the next statement. But from a statistical and scientific point of view, the only thing of interest or relevance is whether you have a penis or a vagina. Again, I will restate, this statement is not intended to offend. It is merely a simplification which is common to statistical studies.

Seems to me that on such a forum this kind of thread would be less likely to offend. Are people becoming offended by this thread?

The whole "taking offense" thing seems silly to me in almost all cases. There are certain situations where it would be common sense but the aim of this thread is pretty clear. And if you are having difficulty deciding whether or not to click "I'm a female" or "I'm a male" then I would say don't vote but rather start a search to find yourself.

There are many different activities that males predominate, do we know why? I've never heard a true answer to why certain things are predominantly male. Some reasons would be that females weren't allowed to do certain things (which is tragic) in the past, so the interest in such things is slowly building. That diesnt apply here obviously. Anyways a good portion of this thread is time spent deciding how to word things in order to not offend people. I think teaching people to be tolerant of offensive things, or things that could wrongly be ascertained as offensive is a better route.

To me, Women seem more spiritual by nature, or more connected to the spirit naturally. Men are fairly grounded. Always in search of something.

I've seen men more than women as:

Drug dealers
Business owners
Truck drivers
Gamers
Adrenaline sports

The list is long. Why? Women are just as capable as men in all areas of life IMO. Maye there is no mechanism. Maybe it's just coincidence. Maybe it's mindset. The biggest player in it though, seems to me is oppression. Women were oppressed for a long time.

interesting visual image

45 to 4 yup its confirmed

I'm not...but the following is rather off-putting, imo...


Implying that someone must identify as male or female reflects the false reality of gender binary (along with its large potential for polarization/division), which is why I made the initial statement.

Gender constructs and roles are reinforced in subtle ways, including language, and I feel that it is worth taking the time to deconstruct and examine these things. Just because someone does not...or cannot identify as "male" or "female" does not mean they don't know themselves. In fact, I would posit it's quite the opposite.

Again, this is why Infundibulum's comment seemed the most logical to follow...for the purposes of simplicity and the aims of this thread. However, there are entire libraries written on the topic of gender...to dismiss it out of hand is something I would caution you against.

The patriarchy rears it's head again. I think almost everyone on this forum is white too. Basically the most socially privileged seem to be into psychedelics enough to come on a site like this. Why that is, I don't know, but if we lived in a truly equal society we'd have an even mix. There's nothing intrinsic about any group of people that makes them more or less likely to do anything, and even if there was socialization would easily overpower that.

Edit: Everyone on this forum should read Feminism for Everyone by Bell Hooks. I feel that the social environment we live in isn't properly understood by a lot on these forums.

I'm not dismissing anything. This thread was meant to be a generalization of gender In association with entheogen use. It doesn't matter the details of what you think you are or could become. If it did then we may as well take into consideration genders of past lives as well.

You can't argue whether someone is generally male or female. Those are the two mainly determining genders, sexes, sexual orientations so on and so forth. To clutter such things up by putting too much thought into all te different possibilities for a "general" consensus is ridiculous.

Otherwise your running out of breathe for no reason.

IME, it's the exact opposite. Of course, this is a pretty big generalization on both sides. From my experience I've found woman to be much more grounded; focusing on the important day-to-day tasks of life like taking care of/raising the family. Whereas men, in my experience, seem to have their head in the clouds, so to speak.

While studying philosophy in university there was a disproportionate number of males both as students and professors. The leadership of the catholic church is disproportionately male. Same with the Lutheran church, Mormon Church, Church of Scientology, Jewish Temple... on and on across the organized religions. This doesn't mean woman aren't spiritual... it just seems to me woman, generally, care more about what's happening on this planet while men love playing in the clouds as the woman cleans the house and cooks the food.

Again, all in my experience and very generally speaking from my culture.

And I agree with you a1pha, but the clouds our minds are in are generally* about day to day things. Women being more family oriented in taking care of family and being teachers of compassion and caring seems to me to be of spiritual value. Rather then men who teach their sons and daughters how to do things with their hands and minds. The physical "more grounded" nature of men. Either way like you said it is a very general outlook.

And to comment on my statement about those having difficulty deciding which to vote on was more about someone's difficulty in choosing which general choice to choose. It's not a difficult question and doesn't refer to off shoots of opinion. Are you male or female. If this is a hard question to answer in a general sense then I see an issue.

I tend to agree with a1pha, although the examples of philosophy majors and specially the major christian churches and other big organized religions are misleading, since the main reason why the majority of the participants have been traditionally male has little to do with gender natural inclinations and more to do with the abrahamic patriarchal cultures and the male dominant society.

But agreed that women are more down to Earth, and female spirituality is more easily manifested in traditions related to nature like paganism (or as easily as male spirituality, in a non-gender dominant culture) and men are more prone to reach towards abstract concepts and questions. But the last few thousands years of our history have been extremely biased gender wise, and questioning the nature of gender spiritualism, besides what biological imperatives may suggest, has to deal with a motherload of social imprint.

Oh, I agree completely. I was just trying to keep my post somewhat short w/o bringing this angle into the discussion since most of those traditions are slowly being disassembled. For example, there's no one denying female entrance into a philosophy major these days... yet the majority of students/professors still seem male.

But you are correct - the examples I list are somewhat misleading given the past few thousand years of female suppression.

It seems that you don't understand what gender is...this statement is absurd and inconsiderate. To quote wikipedia, "gender is a range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity." To claim that there are only two categories is a very stunted perspective.


Reading this legitimately makes me sad. First, being male or female has nothing to do with sexual orientation (and there are, most certainly, more than two sexual orientations). Secondly, conflating gender, sex, and sexual orientation is flat-out ignorant. Finally, a sentient being's assertion about what it is, is most certainly not "clutter". If you truly feel this way, I feel sorry for you.

People versed in gender studies would say that I'm a cis male, or an "individual who has a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity." That doesn't seem hard to understand, accommodate, or accept. It's also generally unnecessary to assert, except that you seem intent on dismissing entire swathes of human beings simply because they don't conform to your limited conceptualization of gender. It seems a shame, to me, that you are so intent on brushing off people's identities.

Whoa! This thread got intense!

To me, the question should be interpreted as, which gender are you, really.

Any transgender folks I have come across would likely say male, if they truly feel that they are male even though they have a female body and vice verse. As for the ones that identify with neither, or a mix of the two, well I suppose they are left out. I know we should try to be as inclusive as possible, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I would imagine they wouldn't be shocked, as they've probably run into a situation like this before. Plus, anyone who is actually offended can speak for themselves.

A lot of people are unaware of the difference between sex and gender. Now, thanks to this thread there are less who do not know!

I think the biggest player here is the effect of culture. As others have stated, the contemporary religious and social establishments have been changing, and women are offered any position they desire. An example is college. There's no one saying women cannot be engineers, but there's not a single female in any of my engineering classes! So if no one told them they can't do it, it must be something else: culture.

From a young age women are told what is "lady-like" how to be "sweet" how to be a proper wife, and on and on. I think it is because of this social and cultural influence of the idea of what a woman should be is why there are fields deficient of women, such as with psychedelics and engineering.

1992 brought up the race issue, which to me is quite similar to the gender issue. I don't see anyone telling people they can't do something. I'm broke as shit, but I made it to college. I think it's a cultural influence that keeps people from being interested in certain things. Psychedelics may be one of those things. But maybe, being a white privileged male also leaves the mind and soul yearning for something of value, since materialism is inherently valueless, and materialism is sometimes all you really get, being a white privileged male.

So, you probe your mind, soul, hyperspace, and the universe searching for something of meaning.

Your missing my point entirely. No need to feel sad for me as I understand AND agree with what your saying EXCEPT...

This thread isn't about that. This thread is not about the multi-diverse groups that can be identified within a community. This thread seems at the beginning sage that it was geared towards a generalization of male or female entities that frequent this forum. In a very general sense to are either male or female. Notice I said "very general sense".

I am not dismissing the fact that there are people who consider themselves as something that cannot be classified in a general way as far as gender goes.

I am not dismissing that there are more detailed categorizations of gender.

My reference to clutter was based off this thread specifically. If I wanted to know the answers this thread seeks then anything off topic would be considered clutter. If I made a poll asking if you enjoyed ham sandwiches or turkey sandwiches we don't then go on to debate whether or not its real turkey or real ham and then try and angle the poll more towards people who feel that ham and turkey are sometimes the same thing because they are both meat. It's clutter and diverts from the objective of the question.

I do understand what gender is but we don't need to complicate a simple question with complicated re-understandings. There are times when just a basic understanding can give you a clear picture. Also, it doesn't really apply to people who don't have an understanding of the multiple layers of gender, that kid of situation contaminates the results of the poll because your basically getting different answers.

Someone who understands your side and full understandings if the inner workings of gender is going to have a slightly different answer then someone who is only familiar with a linear design of male and female.

And I love you man so I hope this doesn't all get tangled into a negative mess

Being a women and through experience with meeting many people interested in psychedelics through my profession, I've came to the realization that more men are into psychedelics than women because it is more in their nature.

What swims through most of women’s minds as main priorities in life are meeting a husband, having children, and sometimes their career. Almost all decisions we make have the tendencies to go towards these priorities, especially a husband and children. Why is the big question? I’m not sure but thinking it might be hardwired into us through evolution as a mechanism for the need to reproduce. To have and raise a child seems to be what most of our existence strives for. To harness and create life, a life that once created is part of you. Most men do not think of having babies or getting married.

More men than women are indeed dreamers and like to think about other realities as a1pha stated. Also like Peabody stated, men do like to take risks. Women usually like to live life safe and most women don’t like to impart in risky activities like for example play dangerous sports, race fast cars, hit on the opposite sex, go bungee jumping… and yes take psychedelics. Again why not sure, but thinking again it might be hardwired through evolution. Cavemen had to make dangerous risks to get food and not get killed while women stayed home. Women’s bodies are too weak and fragile to do the hard risky things. It is more in our nature to stay home, create and take care of children and “play it safe”.

Things have always been in this nature. But this is most women not all. Everyone is different and there are still lots of women that don’t like to play it so safe like myself

It's not just a psychedelic phenomena, in general there are more men than women experimenting with almost any drug you would care to name. Why is this? Do men generally have a stronger innate drive to alter their consciousness than women? Are men more likely to take "risks" like exposing themselves to psychoactives? Is it because women grow babies within them, tend to avoid using psychoactives while pregnant or breast feeding, and take on more of the responsibility of raising children? Is it just a cultural phenomena, (not just ours, but others eg. cultures where only the men are allowed to grow and use coca)? Are women less likely to talk about their psychoactive experiences for some reason? Or is it something to do with the internet itself? I'm sure all these factors and others may come into play.

... though it is worth noting that in some cultures, the women are more likely to be the healers/curanderas than men. Look at Maria Sabina, good example of a women working with psychedelic fungi.

This is definitely an interesting phenomena. Well said ladygaia and I agree for sure. I definitely have not met very many women that are dreamers like myself. And I guess I fail to make that distinction with psychedelics. Mainly because my use of psychedelics isn't because of my dreamy nature nor my risk taking behavior.

My use is cause it makes sense. It hits home. It feels as if my true self is expressed through emotion and understanding. I have had many emotional experiences that I attribute to being my feminine side. Crying and compassion so on. I'm not at all declaring this is the only reason people would take them, just my own experience for myself.

I have no idea what would cause such a difference in numbers of females to males taking psychedelics or being members on this forum. I know of the few girls I have dosed that they were hesitant. Didn't seem all that interested in it even knowing what it is I could explain to them about DMT. I can see where with DMT that "wonder" would play a bigger role. Where as spirituality wasnt talked about as much when it comes to shrooms or LSD. I also know that when I was younger and first starting out with mushrooms and LSD that no one that I was acquainted with was worried about risks. It was a fun thing to do. So we did.

Men seek out the meaning to things more I think. The details rather than just the whole. I personally would like to see more females involved. I get a strong sensation of caring, love, and unity when tripping with females. It's amazing really.