I've always thought of gender as a multi-axial and fluid trait, not at all synonymous with physiological (genitalia) or genotypic sex - hormonal (gene expression), neurodevelopmental gender...
I've always thought of gender as a multi-axial and fluid trait, not at all synonymous with physiological (genitalia) or genotypic sex - hormonal (gene expression), neurodevelopmental gender identity, plus roles defined by religion, culture and society...
Having just two boxes is both incorrect and inexpressibly oppressive; I'm grateful that there's now a "non-binary" label and a community.
I have no desire to alter my physiological sex; it's pretty functional and I'm at home in the body I have. But gender is messy. In my skinnier days, I dressed ambiguously as a matter of course, and answered to whatever people called me. It's only in a heavier, curvier state that I can't avoid being defined as "she/her".
The sheer effort and expense involved in masquing as one gender or another simply confounds me. "Cross-dressing" as male is simply costume, no more or less effortful than feminized attire. As to gender role and sexuality, I want to be Switzerland in the war between the sexes - just let me do what I do, love whomsoever I love, and you can call it masculine or feminine, gay or straight, but I really don't want to have to care. Queer isn't comfortable in the world, but there is no other way to be comfortable with myself.
The true "nonbinary" or agender stance in the article has fascinating implications - we may have physiology, but what is fixed gender really necessary or good for?
First, I'd argue that 'fixed' is actually just representative of a range on the spectrum. And then I'd argue that that range is actually pretty set for most individuals. Sure, they might vary, but...
The true "nonbinary" or agender stance in the article has fascinating implications - we may have physiology, but what is fixed gender really necessary or good for?
First, I'd argue that 'fixed' is actually just representative of a range on the spectrum. And then I'd argue that that range is actually pretty set for most individuals. Sure, they might vary, but it's generally within that range. I'm probably slightly biased because my personal history is realising that I was more fluid with regards to attraction, then gender. For a while I identified as genderfluid, then dysphoria kicked my ass and I explored femininity more, and that felt much, much more "right" for me.
From what I can tell most cis people don't really think about gender at any level. Sometimes they might prod or examine the parts that directly affect them, like, gender roles, but outside the queer community there isn't really much of a push to alter gender presentation, or any of the other aspects of gender.
What I meant was, "fixed" implies either definitively "male" or "female", with little or no room for negotiation - it's not about permanence. In reality, for any gender characteristic, there are...
What I meant was, "fixed" implies either definitively "male" or "female", with little or no room for negotiation - it's not about permanence.
In reality, for any gender characteristic, there are two bell curves whose medians are labeled "male" or "female", with significant overlap between them. Your place on those continua may change little throughout your life, but that's not to say that you're precisely one gender or the other.
Am I correct that with the below statement, you're indicating that your attractions aren't fixed according to the apparent gender of the person you're attracted to, but your personal gender is trans?
I was more fluid with regards to attraction, then gender. For a while I identified as genderfluid, then dysphoria kicked my ass and I explored femininity more, and that felt much, much more "right" for me.
I think many superficially cis people spend more time thinking about gender than they'd readily acknowledge, though as you say, mainly in the context of culturally assigned roles and gender signifiers.
I've known several apparently cis people who, as young children, got caught playing with the "wrong" gender's clothing (I was one myself), and a couple of people with active cross-dressing fetishes as adults, though they never expressed dissatisfaction with their biological gender. While I can't claim these acquaintances come from a representative sample of humanity, I hear the odd hint at work and in public that suggests things aren't all boys and girls neatly boxed.
There's certainly a movement outside of the queer community to reject the truly ridiculous, like "pink and smaller" as adaptations of ordinary tools or products for women. The obverse of that is the gradual adoption of makeup and handbags by men, though toned down to avoid feminine-defined colors or descriptors. It's just capitalism in action through expansion of markets. Nonetheless, these changes have the effect of allowing more room for more people to define their own gender presentation.
At one time, I'd started working on a joke paper for the Journal of Irreproducible Results, laying out a nice mathematical model for "wardrobe diffusion" - the tendency for partnered people's clothing to migrate between closets, with some variables to account for size differentials, items compatible with only one partner's secondary sexual characteristics, workwear like coveralls or scrubs, and so forth. The point was going to be that we may be changing gender plumage all the time, without even thinking about it.
That's what I described. While I agree to a degree, it should be noted that it doesn't really apply to clothes that are 'certainly gendered'. It's really rare to see men going out wearing skirts...
Your place on those continua may change little throughout your life, but that's not to say that you're precisely one gender or the other.
That's what I described.
Nonetheless, these changes have the effect of allowing more room for more people to define their own gender presentation.
While I agree to a degree, it should be noted that it doesn't really apply to clothes that are 'certainly gendered'. It's really rare to see men going out wearing skirts (Although it does happen in, a) scotland (inb4 'kilts are not skirts' c:) and b) queer-adjacent circles). Women and femme-passing people have a lot more flexibility with this, though. I've heard this described as being because "women are culturally allowed to aspire to be like men, but men aren't culturally allowed to aspire to be women, because femininity is culturally, implicitly seen as being bad and weak by both men and women".
but your personal gender is trans?
I mean, although 'transgender' is a word, I don't think of trans as a gender. I consider it more of a metagender. Like being non-binary (Which actually is an extension of being transgender. If you take the following definitions: A. Being trans just means your internal gender maps or has otherwise changed to a different one than you were assigned at birth. B. Non-binary means that your internal gender isn't confined to the single axis used by society, and may or may not include your birth-assigned gender. Then A is implicit in calling yourself non-binary, because your gender has shifted in relation to the one you were assigned at birth), the word isn't so much describing a range on the gender spectrum so much as describing something in relation to the gender spectrum. In the case of being trans it's, your gender alignment over time or in reference to your assigned gender. In the case of non-binary, it's both in reference to your assigned gender, and in reference to your map of the spectrum itself (i.e. that it's bigger or more complex than the 'standard' single axis).
My gender is woman, and I'm trans, hence I'm a trans woman :)
I wouldn't really consider myself LGBTQ by any stretch of the word, but I've been experiencing this myself quiet a lot recently. I guess with long hair and enough layers in my outfit I don't...
I dressed ambiguously as a matter of course, and answered to whatever people called me
I wouldn't really consider myself LGBTQ by any stretch of the word, but I've been experiencing this myself quiet a lot recently. I guess with long hair and enough layers in my outfit I don't necessarily read as masculine all the time? I was surprised how little I seem to care, the only impact on me is that my mind doesn't register that "she" or "miss" or the like may be referring to me.
I was a skinny, flat-chested, broad-shouldered, short-haired, bicycle-thighed, grungy flannel-wearing northern nerd throughout my high school and college years - public gender wasn't so much...
I was a skinny, flat-chested, broad-shouldered, short-haired, bicycle-thighed, grungy flannel-wearing northern nerd throughout my high school and college years - public gender wasn't so much optional as irrelevant. Sometimes humorous, while watching people puzzle out whatever they thought were my gender cues. [My voice remains a dead giveaway, though.]
However, I don't think women bear the same risks for presenting ambiguously as men do, notwithstanding the article. I felt less at risk of assault when presenting less feminine, where you might be more at risk for hinting at femininity.
Well, in the end you are what you identify as. When you feel more 'right' as a Third Way gender of sorts, sure, you are. If you don't, you can just be a gender nonconforming cis.
Well, in the end you are what you identify as.
When you feel more 'right' as a Third Way gender of sorts, sure, you are. If you don't, you can just be a gender nonconforming cis.
Most of this discussion centers on Western, dominant-culture definitions of gender, which is a relatively narrow scope. These rigid definitions are narrowed further by the lineage of Christian and...
Most of this discussion centers on Western, dominant-culture definitions of gender, which is a relatively narrow scope. These rigid definitions are narrowed further by the lineage of Christian and English legalisms.
I wonder if the prevalence of non binary perception of self depends on how prominent the biological sex body features are. Like if some guys are genetically very hairy, with thick stubble, big...
I wonder if the prevalence of non binary perception of self depends on how prominent the biological sex body features are. Like if some guys are genetically very hairy, with thick stubble, big stocky body and huge jaw, what do they do and how do they feel when non binary? Do they "click" to their "binary" gender more easily because of appearance? It's probably kinda hard to soften naturally strong sex features without using hormonal medicine.
I know a nonbinary friend who is very hairy and has a very stocky build. I can say that it does not connect them to their 'male' body. In fact, it causes further harm because that's not how they...
I know a nonbinary friend who is very hairy and has a very stocky build. I can say that it does not connect them to their 'male' body. In fact, it causes further harm because that's not how they see themselves. Looking in the mirror gives them bad gender dysphoria (the intensely uncomfortable feeling of your gender not matching your sex).
On my side, I had a softer face and DD breasts before I started hormones. Things that are traditionally very feminine. But I felt no closer to my femininity looking at them, I just felt shame and extreme discomfort.
It's a long-running joke between me and a gay male friend whom I've known since childhood, that I had more chest hair (two) than he did after puberty. I'm not any kind of gender studies expert,...
It's a long-running joke between me and a gay male friend whom I've known since childhood, that I had more chest hair (two) than he did after puberty.
I'm not any kind of gender studies expert, everything I know is from personal interest and experience. But I have a little medical background and have spent some time working with pediatric endocrinologists and urologists.
The range of normal human variation is astonishing. Gender divergence is often pathologized for purely esthetic, cultural or religious reasons, which have nothing to do with personal health. Radically simplifying something as complicated as gender potentially leaves a billion people isolated, shamed, and at risk of mutilation, suicide or violence.
I feel that nonbinary identity starts long before people manifest dramatic secondary sexual characteristics like body hair. We're basically assigned gender roles at birth, "is it a boy or a...
I feel that nonbinary identity starts long before people manifest dramatic secondary sexual characteristics like body hair. We're basically assigned gender roles at birth, "is it a boy or a girl?", then trained and socialized to match them throughout childhood.
While it may be a comfort to many to get through puberty and find that their bodies have become an ideal match for their assigned gender role, it's profoundly awkward and discomforting for others. Your "lumberjack" man may have been deeply disappointed that he had a box built around him all his life, when he'd rather have been a ballerina (I use "ballerina" as an extreme example of idealized feminine fragility, even though real ballerinas are essentially trained and starved to the point of near asexuality).
Also, when people get through puberty and don't have idealized physiological gender expression (men with smaller penises, little body hair, or soft musculature; women with small breasts, excess hair, or pronounced muscles, etc.), it can be profoundly damaging.
The Radical Faeries, a gay men's group which started in the 1960's, made it a point to toy with gender presentation without respect to physiognomy - bearded men in dresses, styled hair and makeup, and more playful roleplay.
I'm out of time right now, but there's more on this to come.
I've always thought of gender as a multi-axial and fluid trait, not at all synonymous with physiological (genitalia) or genotypic sex - hormonal (gene expression), neurodevelopmental gender identity, plus roles defined by religion, culture and society...
Having just two boxes is both incorrect and inexpressibly oppressive; I'm grateful that there's now a "non-binary" label and a community.
I have no desire to alter my physiological sex; it's pretty functional and I'm at home in the body I have. But gender is messy. In my skinnier days, I dressed ambiguously as a matter of course, and answered to whatever people called me. It's only in a heavier, curvier state that I can't avoid being defined as "she/her".
The sheer effort and expense involved in masquing as one gender or another simply confounds me. "Cross-dressing" as male is simply costume, no more or less effortful than feminized attire. As to gender role and sexuality, I want to be Switzerland in the war between the sexes - just let me do what I do, love whomsoever I love, and you can call it masculine or feminine, gay or straight, but I really don't want to have to care. Queer isn't comfortable in the world, but there is no other way to be comfortable with myself.
The true "nonbinary" or agender stance in the article has fascinating implications - we may have physiology, but what is fixed gender really necessary or good for?
First, I'd argue that 'fixed' is actually just representative of a range on the spectrum. And then I'd argue that that range is actually pretty set for most individuals. Sure, they might vary, but it's generally within that range. I'm probably slightly biased because my personal history is realising that I was more fluid with regards to attraction, then gender. For a while I identified as genderfluid, then dysphoria kicked my ass and I explored femininity more, and that felt much, much more "right" for me.
From what I can tell most cis people don't really think about gender at any level. Sometimes they might prod or examine the parts that directly affect them, like, gender roles, but outside the queer community there isn't really much of a push to alter gender presentation, or any of the other aspects of gender.
What I meant was, "fixed" implies either definitively "male" or "female", with little or no room for negotiation - it's not about permanence.
In reality, for any gender characteristic, there are two bell curves whose medians are labeled "male" or "female", with significant overlap between them. Your place on those continua may change little throughout your life, but that's not to say that you're precisely one gender or the other.
Am I correct that with the below statement, you're indicating that your attractions aren't fixed according to the apparent gender of the person you're attracted to, but your personal gender is trans?
I think many superficially cis people spend more time thinking about gender than they'd readily acknowledge, though as you say, mainly in the context of culturally assigned roles and gender signifiers.
I've known several apparently cis people who, as young children, got caught playing with the "wrong" gender's clothing (I was one myself), and a couple of people with active cross-dressing fetishes as adults, though they never expressed dissatisfaction with their biological gender. While I can't claim these acquaintances come from a representative sample of humanity, I hear the odd hint at work and in public that suggests things aren't all boys and girls neatly boxed.
There's certainly a movement outside of the queer community to reject the truly ridiculous, like "pink and smaller" as adaptations of ordinary tools or products for women. The obverse of that is the gradual adoption of makeup and handbags by men, though toned down to avoid feminine-defined colors or descriptors. It's just capitalism in action through expansion of markets. Nonetheless, these changes have the effect of allowing more room for more people to define their own gender presentation.
At one time, I'd started working on a joke paper for the Journal of Irreproducible Results, laying out a nice mathematical model for "wardrobe diffusion" - the tendency for partnered people's clothing to migrate between closets, with some variables to account for size differentials, items compatible with only one partner's secondary sexual characteristics, workwear like coveralls or scrubs, and so forth. The point was going to be that we may be changing gender plumage all the time, without even thinking about it.
That's what I described.
While I agree to a degree, it should be noted that it doesn't really apply to clothes that are 'certainly gendered'. It's really rare to see men going out wearing skirts (Although it does happen in, a) scotland (inb4 'kilts are not skirts' c:) and b) queer-adjacent circles). Women and femme-passing people have a lot more flexibility with this, though. I've heard this described as being because "women are culturally allowed to aspire to be like men, but men aren't culturally allowed to aspire to be women, because femininity is culturally, implicitly seen as being bad and weak by both men and women".
I mean, although 'transgender' is a word, I don't think of trans as a gender. I consider it more of a metagender. Like being non-binary (Which actually is an extension of being transgender. If you take the following definitions: A. Being trans just means your internal gender maps or has otherwise changed to a different one than you were assigned at birth. B. Non-binary means that your internal gender isn't confined to the single axis used by society, and may or may not include your birth-assigned gender. Then A is implicit in calling yourself non-binary, because your gender has shifted in relation to the one you were assigned at birth), the word isn't so much describing a range on the gender spectrum so much as describing something in relation to the gender spectrum. In the case of being trans it's, your gender alignment over time or in reference to your assigned gender. In the case of non-binary, it's both in reference to your assigned gender, and in reference to your map of the spectrum itself (i.e. that it's bigger or more complex than the 'standard' single axis).
My gender is woman, and I'm trans, hence I'm a trans woman :)
I wouldn't really consider myself LGBTQ by any stretch of the word, but I've been experiencing this myself quiet a lot recently. I guess with long hair and enough layers in my outfit I don't necessarily read as masculine all the time? I was surprised how little I seem to care, the only impact on me is that my mind doesn't register that "she" or "miss" or the like may be referring to me.
I was a skinny, flat-chested, broad-shouldered, short-haired, bicycle-thighed, grungy flannel-wearing northern nerd throughout my high school and college years - public gender wasn't so much optional as irrelevant. Sometimes humorous, while watching people puzzle out whatever they thought were my gender cues. [My voice remains a dead giveaway, though.]
However, I don't think women bear the same risks for presenting ambiguously as men do, notwithstanding the article. I felt less at risk of assault when presenting less feminine, where you might be more at risk for hinting at femininity.
minor edit: punctuation
Well, in the end you are what you identify as.
When you feel more 'right' as a Third Way gender of sorts, sure, you are. If you don't, you can just be a gender nonconforming cis.
Most of this discussion centers on Western, dominant-culture definitions of gender, which is a relatively narrow scope. These rigid definitions are narrowed further by the lineage of Christian and English legalisms.
There are many societies and religions that recognize "third" genders (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/two-spirits_map-html/), with greater or lesser constraints on what that membership permits for gender expression.
I wonder if the prevalence of non binary perception of self depends on how prominent the biological sex body features are. Like if some guys are genetically very hairy, with thick stubble, big stocky body and huge jaw, what do they do and how do they feel when non binary? Do they "click" to their "binary" gender more easily because of appearance? It's probably kinda hard to soften naturally strong sex features without using hormonal medicine.
I know a nonbinary friend who is very hairy and has a very stocky build. I can say that it does not connect them to their 'male' body. In fact, it causes further harm because that's not how they see themselves. Looking in the mirror gives them bad gender dysphoria (the intensely uncomfortable feeling of your gender not matching your sex).
On my side, I had a softer face and DD breasts before I started hormones. Things that are traditionally very feminine. But I felt no closer to my femininity looking at them, I just felt shame and extreme discomfort.
It's a long-running joke between me and a gay male friend whom I've known since childhood, that I had more chest hair (two) than he did after puberty.
I'm not any kind of gender studies expert, everything I know is from personal interest and experience. But I have a little medical background and have spent some time working with pediatric endocrinologists and urologists.
The range of normal human variation is astonishing. Gender divergence is often pathologized for purely esthetic, cultural or religious reasons, which have nothing to do with personal health. Radically simplifying something as complicated as gender potentially leaves a billion people isolated, shamed, and at risk of mutilation, suicide or violence.
I feel that nonbinary identity starts long before people manifest dramatic secondary sexual characteristics like body hair. We're basically assigned gender roles at birth, "is it a boy or a girl?", then trained and socialized to match them throughout childhood.
While it may be a comfort to many to get through puberty and find that their bodies have become an ideal match for their assigned gender role, it's profoundly awkward and discomforting for others. Your "lumberjack" man may have been deeply disappointed that he had a box built around him all his life, when he'd rather have been a ballerina (I use "ballerina" as an extreme example of idealized feminine fragility, even though real ballerinas are essentially trained and starved to the point of near asexuality).
Also, when people get through puberty and don't have idealized physiological gender expression (men with smaller penises, little body hair, or soft musculature; women with small breasts, excess hair, or pronounced muscles, etc.), it can be profoundly damaging.
The Radical Faeries, a gay men's group which started in the 1960's, made it a point to toy with gender presentation without respect to physiognomy - bearded men in dresses, styled hair and makeup, and more playful roleplay.
I'm out of time right now, but there's more on this to come.