Gender - what is it practically

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Ok I have to say, I honestly have to say because I need to get rid of my ignorance and I want you guys to help me rid myself of this ignorance, despite that it may offend.

Why is there this idea that there are more then 2 genders? That you can go beyond the established state of being a male and female? How does this even work biologically since we are all either born with various standard things just as genetalia, hormones, etc. Is this all a completely mental thing.

And this brings me to my more controversial question, basically I have a problem with the T in LGBT.

I can get 2 men having sexual feelings with each other, I can get 2 women having sexual feelings with each other, I can anyone having a preference to both, but trasitioning and changing your gender? That I find strange. And I can't tell whether someone truly believes they want to be the oppoiste gender or they are the opposite gender but in another's body or someone just practicing a fetish to get their kinks.

In the end is this all mental? Is there really genetic explination behind all this, or is it a mental condition, and is this condition a disorder or a natural thing?

So please I don't mean to be completely prejudice, I just want an explination to rid myself of my ignorance? Because really why is it too complicated for there to be only just 2 genders of man and woman in the case of Humanity when from what I understand animals do not practice this complicated gender politics.

evilthecat:

"Gender" is a word we've appropriated to describe and try and make sense of this transitional state we are living in, where we know that what was traditionally believed was wrong, but almost everyone (on some level) still buys into it either consciously or unconsciously. We still tend to wear different clothes even though we (or most of us, anyway) know that we don't need to. We behave differently, even though most of us know it's not necessary, and we still tend to maintain a power structure between the sexes which renders them as distinct social classes, even though we mostly know it's an irrational way of organising society.

Now that is interesting.

When i was young (child and adolescent and yes, that is a long time ago), i had no concept for "gender". My native language doesn't even have different words for gender and sex and sex was the only thing i knew. There were still trans people, but as far as i knew then that was just men wearing dresses (which was not particularly outragous or controversial or interesting), but i did not knew that a gender flipped variant existed or that being trans covered anything beyong clothes.

Eventually that changed, i learned more about trans people and their struggle for acceptance and the controversities about their treatment. But i learned most of that over the internet and reading English stuff. And i can't say i understood all that stuff as there seem to be significant cultural assumptions and a lot of missing context. But treating people like they want to be treated seems reasonable. I learned to accept gender as a cultural thing and not to use man, women, male or female only for sexes.

But a couple of years later, i came to the same question as Agema "How does a trans person know he/she is trans ?" Thinking about that, the next question was obviously "How do i know i am male ?" And i had a problem. Aside from the stuff between my legs i could identify nothing about me that i considered masculine. Or feminine. Thinking more about it, i still could not really come up with anything beyond "wearing dresses and makeup" as feminine. But even here i did not think about women who don't wear dresses (which fits nearly all of them anyway, it is not really common) or no makeup as less feminine.
I thought about it for a long time but could not come up with a single gender marker/role i actually believed in / was
brought up with that is not directly linked to primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Only lots of stuff "old people think", i.e. ouddated ideas only my grandparents generation believed. And maybe some backwater conservative areas. Nothing that i myself had seen as MY culture.
If i would live since tomorrow as a feminine women instead of a masculine man, the only think i can think of that had to change would be pronouns and similar grammar stuff.

That confused me a lot.

But if you say, that gender is basically a basket for waning social ideas, then all the stuff i think of as outdated and not really relevant for masculinity/femininity anymore, still fits the description.

trunkage:
I remember in the 90s that there was a general medical consensus that women were fatter than men. It came down to a study in the 50s that proved this. The problem was that it wasn't replicated until the early 2000s and found the initial claim to be false.

Er... are you possibly confusing two concepts here?

Body fat is normally split into two categories, "essential" and "storage". Women have considerably more "essential" body fat for various unique female functions: for instance the most visually obvious example of the two squishy lumps on their chests for making milk. Consequently, women on averge have a higher "body fat percentage" (i.e. the proportion of the body that is fat) than men, to the tune of 50%. This has been long established and not overturned.

This should not be confused with "fat" in terms of a general description of someone's weight and appearance according to some idealised norm.

CM156:

BreakfastMan:

you didn't say "30 genders". You said "more than two". Again, would you bet money on that?

Look, there's a meme t-shirt that says there are only two genders, so it has to be true

There is nothing you can do to prevent me from having 5,7336 scoops of raisins on my bran. Deal with it!

Samtemdo8:
Ok I have to say, I honestly have to say because I need to get rid of my ignorance and I want you guys to help me rid myself of this ignorance, despite that it may offend.

Why is there this idea that there are more then 2 genders? That you can go beyond the established state of being a male and female? How does this even work biologically since we are all either born with various standard things just as genetalia, hormones, etc. Is this all a completely mental thing.

Technically speaking, everything's a mental thing, but that's th tranhumanist in me talking. Broadly speaking, Sex and Gender are two different things, and neither is binary. Heavily dimorphic and correlative, yes, but not 100%. Technically speaking, there are as many sexes as there are humans, but, like snowflakes, just because everyone is technically unique doesn't mean that they don't fall into some broad categories. Relevant Twitter thread. https://twitter.com/sciencevet2/status/1035246030500061184?s=21

And this brings me to my more controversial question, basically I have a problem with the T in LGBT.

I can get 2 men having sexual feelings with each other, I can get 2 women having sexual feelings with each other, I can anyone having a preference to both, but trasitioning and changing your gender? That I find strange. And I can't tell whether someone truly believes they want to be the oppoiste gender or they are the opposite gender but in another's body or someone just practicing a fetish to get their kinks.

You ask them. No, seriously. Folks like Drag Queens and other crossdressers will generally be forthright about their kink. Trans folks, enby folks, agender folks, etc, are generally likewise forthright about their identity. Well, as long as they think they can trust you. Also, other cultures already having more than two genders, from ancient to modern.

In the end is this all mental? Is there really genetic explination behind all this, or is it a mental condition, and is this condition a disorder or a natural thing?

Everything uncommon or weird is a disorder until it becomes normalized. For example, being Gay used to be classified as a disorder. We know that's wrong now. Well, most of us.

So please I don't mean to be completely prejudice, I just want an explination to rid myself of my ignorance? Because really why is it too complicated for there to be only just 2 genders of man and woman in the case of Humanity when from what I understand animals do not practice this complicated gender politics.

It's not that it's too complicated that there's only two genders, it's that "only two genders" is far too simple. It's the "this physics problem assumes a flat plane, no friction, and a vacuum" of biology. Actual human biology is much more complex than that.

Animals don't tend to have complicated politics of any kind, and if they did, we don't have the language skills to ask about them.

Combustion Kevin:
I'm inclined to disagree with this one, the most common thread you see throughout any human society is that the well being of women is the moral imperative above all, No functional society has ever allowed or even condoned harm to be done to their own women

That is not remotely true.

It is not the case today (though it's popular to pretend this is the case). The most powerful nation in the world is run by a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women. The same nation doesn't care too much about paying for rape kits to be tested. People rally around male celebrities accused of (or hell, who've admitted to) sexually assaulting women and girls. If society on the whole really cared about harm against women, nobody would want to watch Roman Polanski films or get Mike Tyson for things like celebrity lip sync.

It was not the case is years past, when it was legal for a man to rape his wife, or beat her for disobedience. Societies rarely are that interested in problems faced by female sex workers (or male for that matter), whether or not they are from that society.

Combustion Kevin:
Because of this, woman have always been the moral center of their communities whereas men became the formal authorities, to say that men decide everything in Western society just rings false to me since their morals primarily derive from what their mothers taught them, and their female peers decide what they desire from him in courtship, also informed by THEIR mother's upbringing.
In a sense, women are the flipside to the same cultural coin, always have been.

No. For one, that's a sweeping generalisation about any number of western cultures, for another, to say that women have invisible soft power that always exactly balances out the overt power men have is absurd.

Now, how much of a power imbalance, and of what kind various cultures have had varies, but there's a familiar pattern of there being one.

Thaluikhain:

That is not remotely true.

It is not the case today (though it's popular to pretend this is the case). The most powerful nation in the world is run by a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women. The same nation doesn't care too much about paying for rape kits to be tested. People rally around male celebrities accused of (or hell, who've admitted to) sexually assaulting women and girls. If society on the whole really cared about harm against women, nobody would want to watch Roman Polanski films or get Mike Tyson for things like celebrity lip sync.

It is popular to pretend the outliers to be the norm, the sweeping moral outrage is evident that there is a great concern for women's well being and bodily integrity, this man getting elected is a symptom of a deeply flawed democratic system and the untested rape kits evidence of a dysfunctional justice system, if people really didn't care about women's well being there would be no attempt to ruin the careers or livelihoods of those merely accused, let alone convicted.
Being a celebrity affords you protection by your fanbase and the skeptics that catch wind of your trial, people who are not famous are hounded, stalked, abused and barely ever reported on.

Thaluikhain:

It was not the case is years past, when it was legal for a man to rape his wife, or beat her for disobedience. Societies rarely are that interested in problems faced by female sex workers (or male for that matter), whether or not they are from that society.

False, whipping posts were commonplace until only two centuries ago and meant to primarily (but not exclusively) punish thieves, public drunks, deviants and wifebeaters, documentation and correspondence at the time even comment that this is preferable to the "obscene and barbaric cruelties" that a lynchmob would inflict, on top of the disorder that would go along with it.
The matter of prostitution is rather a rather odd issue to me, actually, the Netherlands actually qualifies sex workers as "independent entrepreneurs" that pay tax and are subject to the same protections as any other citizen, it's even illegal for any other party to take a cut of the profits besides the sex worker themselves.

Thaluikhain:

No. For one, that's a sweeping generalisation about any number of western cultures, for another, to say that women have invisible soft power that always exactly balances out the overt power men have is absurd.

Now, how much of a power imbalance, and of what kind various cultures have had varies, but there's a familiar pattern of there being one.

It is not invisible at all, nor is it necessarily soft, traditional societies have always tried to separate the social ladders that men and women occupy and the way they influence society has always been different, societal power does not begin and end with institutional authority.
The victimization of women have been great catalysts for change as recent as the civil rights movement or labor laws that preceded the years before, if men die, people mourn, if women die, people revolt, the same can be seen today.

Women do have a great social strength, pretending that they don't and never have is what keeps them from realizing it and consequently keeps them weak, always subject to the protection of those "exceptional good men".

Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives? What is the overall cultural attitudes? And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

Lets just say I never seen a true bisexual person portrayed as a normal person and not treated as just some kinky fetish like in the case of women swining both ways in porn and what not.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
'Irrational' makes the assumption that it wasn't actually put together or orchestrated in a methodical manner.

I don't think so. Just because something has irrational origins doesn't mean it hasn't subsequently been rationalised, but it was rationalised in response to critique.

At the time of Elizabeth, educated people didn't understand what sex was at all. They mostly followed Galenic models based on vitalism (the idea of mystical energy in the body) because at that point people tended to accept that the work of the "ancients" was absolutely trustworthy. However, even by the time of Elizabeth stuff was definitely going on under the hood. Partly because of this, people also didn't really distinguish fully between affectation and reality. At the same time, the legal position of women in Elizabethan England was absolutely clear, they were under the couverture (essentially a relationship of fealty) to their husbands.

Where I think we can start to see the stirrings of modern gender in Elizabethan England, and which became much much more prevalent under James I, is in the controversy that arose from gender non-conformity. Elizabeth is a good example, but as a queen her position is kind of exceptional because she was queen. Under James I (who was himself effeminate by the standards of his time, and definitely not heterosexual) the anxiety about gender non-conformity became much more pronounced (see the aforementioned "doublets will destroy society!") Having to respond to these controversies forced conservative or "essentialist" thinkers to actually start articulating why they were opposed to this sort of thing, which meant they had to give language to something which had previously stood unopposed, and by doing so they opened themselves up to criticism (indeed, given the rhetorical style of the time, they often provided possible criticisms of their own position in the course of dismissing or attacking it). Responding to gender non-conformity became an issue of personal belief, whereas before it had very definitely been an issue of faith.

Satinavian:
But a couple of years later, i came to the same question as Agema "How does a trans person know he/she is trans ?" Thinking about that, the next question was obviously "How do i know i am male ?" And i had a problem. Aside from the stuff between my legs i could identify nothing about me that i considered masculine. Or feminine. Thinking more about it, i still could not really come up with anything beyond "wearing dresses and makeup" as feminine. But even here i did not think about women who don't wear dresses (which fits nearly all of them anyway, it is not really common) or no makeup as less feminine.

So, this requires us to move from talking about gender in a very general sense to talking about two terms which appeared in psychology in the 1970s. Gender identity, and gender expression.

Psychology and psychological research had always been very interested in gender because it partly grew out of 19th century attempts (especially in Germany) to treat or manage cases of gender non-conformity in a society that, on paper, didn't think that gender non-conformity should exist and was confused as to why it did. Freud, for example, drew very heavily on this legacy of German sexual science and wasn't afraid to delve quite deeply into issues of gender in his own work (although people still debate over what he actually thought believed about it). In the interwar period, researchers began to produce psychological metrics for how masculine or feminine someone was, ostensibly as a means of identifying people with homosexual tendencies so that these tendencies could be treated or corrected (because by that point any kind of gender non-conformity, including being trans, had become bound up with homosexuality). Looking back, these are very, very crude and stereotypical, but they show us that society had a strong conception that how a person behaved (expression) said something about who they were (identity).

From the 1970s onwards, psychologists began to distinguish between gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation. Because it's a distinction that fundamentally makes more sense. We know that men can act effeminately, and yet be cisgender. Men can act in hypermasculine ways, but also be gay or bisexual. Unfortunately, one of the biggest early proponents of this approach was doctor John Money, who you may have heard of and who has become something of a rallying cry for those who oppose trans people. Needless to say, Money was ultimately proved correct in his belief that sexual essentialism (that people will naturally adopt the gender identity and expression of their birth sex and those who believe otherwise, like trans people, are mentally ill and delusional) was wrong, and his ideas about gender expression and identity have gone on to be useful. But he is most well known for his treatment of intersexed patients and those with genital injuries. To put it bluntly, he assumed (as did most people of his time) that a child needed to be either male or female, and also needed to be heterosexual, in order to be happy, and thus rather than allowing people to adopt gender identity on their own therapists should try and "force" the development of appropriate gender identity through controlling a child's behaviour and forcing them to simulate heterosexual acts. The irony is that while Money is often brought up by those who are arguing against trans people, his behaviour is ultimately indicative of the kind of abuse involved in repressing a trans person's gender identity.

But yeah, distinguishing between identity, expression and orientation makes sense, and is something almost every psychological and medical approach to gender (especially in the case of trans people) now does.

We all have gender identity, just as we all have identity more generally. It's a psychological attachment to being a particular kind of person. It is often argued that gender identity is in some sense preconditioned by hormonal or neurological factors present from birth and is thus a "physical" thing, and I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's not necessary to believe that in order to understand what it is. Most males like being male, they have a psychological attachment to being male. If we took those males, put them in female bodies and clothes and brainwashed everyone to believe that they'd always been female, most of them (despite the obvious jokes) would not be happy, and would probably still try to live and behave as males. Being trans is not a "feeling" in the sense that being a particular sex has a feeling, for trans people the feeling is one of not being the sex to which you are assigned, not feeling attached to either the body in which you were born or the baggage which comes with it. That's why we still treat is as something requiring medical treatment, because gender identity only really becomes visible or something you can "feel" when it's a problem.

One reason we need to distinguish between identity and expression is because being gender non-conforming (for example, being a man, but wanting to behave or express yourself in feminine ways) doesn't always mean a person is trans. There is a relationship between the two, and many gender non-conforming people (myself included) will ultimately come to realise that something is going on with their identity which is why they don't like to conform even though it's much easier and less dangerous, but it's not necessary. This is particularly evident with non-binary people, who run a full range of gender expression but still have that underlying lack of attachment to being the identity they were assigned at birth (except in the case of non-binary people, they also don't have any attachment to being the opposite sex to their assigned sex, or perhaps have a confusing mixture of the two). Gender expression can be incredibly complex and fluid. Two people can both identify as the same gender and yet can present themselves very differently (both in terms of being either masculine or feminine, or even both being masculine or feminine but drawing on different social or cultural information to convey it). But inside, we all have an interior sense of who we are, and it's very important to us psychologically. People (no matter who they are) tend to become quite upset when they are treated in ways which don't match their identity, because it's actually very painful and disruptive.

Satinavian:
If i would live since tomorrow as a feminine women instead of a masculine man, the only think i can think of that had to change would be pronouns and similar grammar stuff.

I don't want to straight up tell you you're wrong, but I believe that is almost certainly not true. It may seem like it would be true in an abstract sense, but in practice things would change a lot. The way people would treat you would change, the way you were expected to behave and act would change and the way you saw yourself would change, perhaps very subtly, but in ways that probably wouldn't be very comfortable for you. If you woke up with a female body, you wouldn't instantly feel that it was your body, it would just be a body you happened to be wearing, and maybe that's all you would need, but I think it would be more destabilising than you think.

Combustion Kevin:
It is popular to pretend the outliers to be the norm, the sweeping moral outrage is evident that there is a great concern for women's well being and bodily integrity, this man getting elected is a symptom of a deeply flawed democratic system

Yes, flaws in the US system put trump in power, but slightly less than half of US people that voted voted for Trump. Are these 60 million+ people all outliers?

Yes, there is concern from part of society about women's well being. A large part, even. It is far from being the "moral imperative above all" for society as a whole. If it was, we'd not be seeing the constant pushback against that part.

Combustion Kevin:
Women do have a great social strength, pretending that they don't and never have is what keeps them from realizing it and consequently keeps them weak, always subject to the protection of those "exceptional good men".

So...society is keeping women weak? That's sorta the problem.

evilthecat:

I don't think so. Just because something has irrational origins doesn't mean it hasn't subsequently been rationalised, but it was rationalised in response to critique.

At the time of Elizabeth, educated people didn't understand what sex was at all. They mostly followed Galenic models based on vitalism (the idea of mystical energy in the body) because at that point people tended to accept that the work of the "ancients" was absolutely trustworthy. However, even by the time of Elizabeth stuff was definitely going on under the hood. Partly because of this, people also didn't really distinguish fully between affectation and reality. At the same time, the legal position of women in Elizabethan England was absolutely clear, they were under the couverture (essentially a relationship of fealty) to their husbands.

Where I think we can start to see the stirrings of modern gender in Elizabethan England, and which became much much more prevalent under James I, is in the controversy that arose from gender non-conformity. Elizabeth is a good example, but as a queen her position is kind of exceptional because she was queen. Under James I (who was himself effeminate by the standards of his time, and definitely not heterosexual) the anxiety about gender non-conformity became much more pronounced (see the aforementioned "doublets will destroy society!") Having to respond to these controversies forced conservative or "essentialist" thinkers to actually start articulating why they were opposed to this sort of thing, which meant they had to give language to something which had previously stood unopposed, and by doing so they opened themselves up to criticism (indeed, given the rhetorical style of the time, they often provided possible criticisms of their own position in the course of dismissing or attacking it). Responding to gender non-conformity became an issue of personal belief, whereas before it had very definitely been an issue of faith.

I don't know ... while on one hand I see your argument about it almost being as if an institutionalized fallacy of a near is/ought conundrum... at the same time we're not just talking Tudor England. Ideas surrounding essentialist attitudes of the 'misunderstandings' of sex and gender expression date back well before then. Like Roman and Greek ideas of homosexuality not really being homosexual if you were whatever they considered to be a 'dominant' sexual participant. Which was kind of a ludicrous idea of 'penis > orifice'... as if having moral dimensions as to what is 'manly' and thus positive in alignment.

It's a bit hard to just say; "A persistent 2 millienia long insanity."

There is a reason why I brought up Aristotle before. You could literally disprove his entire theories about the moral and social worth of women by forcing him to recount teeth. It literally comes down to participant count. But despite this nobody bothered to fact check him for 2 thousand years rather than take it on faith that females and femininity were somehow a 'deformed' and 'lesser' idea of maleness and masculinity?

Really?

I get it, the rise of empiricism wasn't until much later ... but Aristotle's specific brand of poison wasn't actually a fixture of Greek philosophy of the past. You actually had philosophers, and arguably the parents of Western philosophy, arguing ideas of atomisation of matter and just what the universe would look like if various metaphysical understandings of nature are taken as universal laws.

But then again, they weren't the philosophers that the West decided to run with for millenia.

The thing is that even the Vatican accepted Galileo was right. So even religion itself was willing to upend its spiritual narratives of the relationship of humanity to the celestial. It wa Martin Luther, not the Roman Catholic Church, that chucked a hissy fit over Galileo's findings. And we know that from how they treated Kepler. What landed Galileo in the hot seat was Eucharistic doctrine. Which, in my opinion, is more fucked up ... but regardless, neither here nor there.

Point is, the Vatican at the time was willing to toss aside the Ptolemaic School.

So even with the rise of empiricism, the most patriarchal global institutions were willing to contradict Aristotle on everything but females and femininity. It's kind of dangerous to call that anything but social engineering.

These were not stupid people. The assumption they didn't know better compared with; "Well, this is orchestrated misogyny..." is kind of dangerous, because its shadows still exist in the modern world. You do get people legitimately calling for a Romanesque re-apprehension of patently fucking stupid concepts and calling it unique buzz terms in MRA groups as a return to 'classical masculinity' ... which is patently anti-empirical in nature.

Samtemdo8:
Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives? What is the overall cultural attitudes? And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

That depends on a lot of different things.

Bisexuals, almost by definition, are invisible. They are literally everywhere, but noone notices because they either come off as gay or straight unless they are engaging in some kind of non-monogamy or group sex (which does happen). Culturally, bisexual people tend to adopt the lifestyles of either gay or straight people of the same sex. There isn't really a distinct "bisexual culture" in the way there is a gay or lesbian culture.

One thing to bear in mind that bisexuality is much more accepted in straight female culture than straight male culture, so bisexual women are less likely to be involved in the lesbian community than bisexual men are to be involved in the gay male community. Openly bisexual men are also much rarer than openly bisexual women. This leads to a common biphobic myth that all bisexual men are just gay men who haven't come to terms with their sexuality yet, and that all bisexual women are straight women who are trying to get men to like them by engaging in performative lesbianism.

Ultimately, within a generation or two things are going to radically change in regards to bisexuality and the general perception of human sexuality. Around half of British teenagers, for example, identify as something other than straight, and the vast majority will be some degree of bisexual, pansexual or queer. Most people at some point in their lives will have some kind of bisexual feeling or experience. It's incredibly common, which makes it so strange that it's almost invisible.

evilthecat:

Samtemdo8:
Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives? What is the overall cultural attitudes? And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

That depends on a lot of different things.

Bisexuals, almost by definition, are invisible. They are literally everywhere, but noone notices because they either come off as gay or straight unless they are engaging in some kind of non-monogamy or group sex (which does happen). Culturally, bisexual people tend to adopt the lifestyles of either gay or straight people of the same sex. There isn't really a distinct "bisexual culture" in the way there is a gay or lesbian culture.

One thing to bear in mind that bisexuality is much more accepted in straight female culture than straight male culture, so bisexual women are less likely to be involved in the lesbian community than bisexual men are to be involved in the gay male community. Openly bisexual men are also much rarer than openly bisexual women. This leads to a common biphobic myth that all bisexual men are just gay men who haven't come to terms with their sexuality yet, and that all bisexual women are straight women who are trying to get men to like them by engaging in performative lesbianism.

Ultimately, within a generation or two things are going to radically change in regards to bisexuality and the general perception of human sexuality. Around half of British teenagers, for example, identify as something other than straight, and the vast majority will be some degree of bisexual, pansexual or queer. Most people at some point in their lives will have some kind of bisexual feeling or experience. It's incredibly common, which makes it so strange that it's almost invisible.

What is Pansexuality and Queerness?

And I thought the word Queer these days was an insult. (I know that Queer in the British language was just another way of saying Strange so its not exclusive to gender/sexuality)

Samtemdo8:
And I thought the word Queer these days was an insult. (I know that Queer in the British language was just another way of saying Strange so its not exclusive to gender/sexuality)

Depends who you ask. Some people have adopted the word, some people still view it as an insult. I believe it also depends on where you happen to live, different parts of the English speaking world view the word differently.

And, of course, because some people have adopted the word, some people who view it as an insult are demanded to stop objecting to it.

Thaluikhain:

Samtemdo8:
And I thought the word Queer these days was an insult. (I know that Queer in the British language was just another way of saying Strange so its not exclusive to gender/sexuality)

Depends who you ask. Some people have adopted the word, some people still view it as an insult. I believe it also depends on where you happen to live, different parts of the English speaking world view the word differently.

And, of course, because some people have adopted the word, some people who view it as an insult are demanded to stop objecting to it.

Pretty much the same case when Black people adopt the word Nigga, and there are people who objects to its adoption?

Samtemdo8:

What is Pansexuality and Queerness?

Pansexuality is probably best described as a sexual attraction to people regardless of expression and sex. Also 'queer' represents an attempt to own and normalize a descriptor that at one time meant outside the norm, by recontextualizing its use in terms of; "And thus what is the norm?"

It's a self-referentiality and ownership of a term that once used as if in an offensive capacity to sort of identify and undermine conformityof individuals.

Hence LGBTQ and queer represents people that might otherwise in any normative context of conformity might exist. So 'queer' is an umbrella term to represent people that might simply not fit in a category within the LGBT community, yet still marginalized by conventional standards of that native environmental community that define them as existing outside conventional attitudes to sexual conduct and gender expression.

In a lot of ways it makes sense, becauser a loving heterosexual couple might be engaged in some pretty outlandish stuff that is not the conventional attitudes or ideas you might have about sexuality or gender expression.

Like a wife pegging her husband with a 10 inch strap on, while he's in a gimp suit. And while I would argue that's not exactly what they mean by queer, it's also a useful demonstration of how people might break conventional ideas of relationships even in terms of conventional ideas of romantic couplings. Regardless of what you say it's still a heterosexual relationship.

Honestly I'd be fine with 'straight pride' parades if they demonstrate every aspect of what it means to be heterosexual. That would be a fun parade to go to. Or at least parts of it would be fun ... <.<

I have a feeling that anybody who orchestrates a 'straight pride parade' doesn't have that in mind, however ... and that's a shame. Fortunately there's always the Hellfire Club and the private party events ^_^

Lil devils x:

That is very interesting, thank you for sharing. ^^
The Aztec I meant more in the sense that they are more militaristic than the Hopi seem to be, their bloodsacrifices (though obviously overblown by terrified European explorers) seriously clashing with the Hopi's more pacifistic ideals.
They remind me a lot of the Buddhist monastery settlements that rely on trade and craftsmanship to become a boon to their neighbors as opposed to a rival or contender, "Good neighbors" if you will.
I think it is worth noting that the environment wherein this culture exists is also very different with a more nomadic influence and less great cities or city states.

I have a hard time imagining western people at a time of famine to be so at ease with their suffering (for lack of a better word) and would rather resort to desperate violence to provide food for their families and community, it's what inspired the great migrations into Roman territory during the mini ice age of the 6th century, it's a different mindset to be sure.

Hopi courtship is actually not so different from western "commoner" courtship, albeit with less family involvement, the kind of super formal courtship most people know is the emulation of aristocracy and their warped ideas of prudence, virtue and dignity.

Lil devils x:

Western view of " well being of women" though is skewed by viewing women as being too weak and incapable to care for themselves, so the "Strong and fearless" man has to take care of them, not because they care about what the woman wants or is actually capable of. It was always about what the man wants the woman to be instead. Women were treated as property, not an equal person whose opinions and desires were just as important as their own. It has taken western women a great struggle to even be considered a person and not property in the first place.

https://www.askmen.com/news/sports/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity.html

EDIT: More on the 500 yr old promise fulfilled:

Women were never a man's property unless she was an actual slave, a woman was a man's responsibility to the point where society considered a woman outside of a man's stewardship to be a great grievance against their own society.
Unless she was a queen or empress, of course, then it was cool, BUT SHE BETTER START THINKING ABOUT MAKING AN HEIR!

The quintessential traditionalist mindset is "Women are weak, men are bad", any morally conscious person would conclude that women must therefor be protected from these bad men by "good men" or "real men", men that labour for the protection and provision of women, in particular those of their family.
And yeah, this approach can get incredibly infantilizing to the point that the woman in question is deprived of agency, but likewise is the man obligated to his duties to her, further than that, these societies call on men's sacrifice collectively in times of crisis by means of levies or drafts.

Lil devils x:

Men defined what it was to "be a man" and then enforced that upon other men, otherwise it would be considered " manly" for men to talk about their feelings, to be respectful of women, even "in the locker room" , and to help women around the house, as that is what women WISH men would do. Even " The Rock" takes issue with man's definition of what it is to be a man.

What would a woman rather have in a man? someone that puts food on the table, or someone that helps around the house? he can only be in one place at a time, besides, it's not like there is a shortage of sensitive men that help around the household but the most attractive bachelor men still are the big earners of high social status, so how is a man supposed to interpret that?
The obvious answer is a healthy balance of course, I've always advocated for an even work-life balance for both sides but some men do feel trapped by the demanding job that made them viable on the dating market in the first place.

As far as mental health goes, The Rock is not a psychologist, nor is toxic masculinity something I subscribe to, the issue of men "not talking about their issues" stems from a misunderstanding of their psychology, a lot of men feel the pressure to perform and pressuring them into "talking about it" may harm more than help them, on top of that, they may feel that they can not be vulnerable with a vulnerable with a person that would view their behavior as something "toxic".

Coming back to the virtue of self-sacrifice as understood by the Hopi, this ties in with the western understanding of stoicism, that is to say, to act with reason as opposed to emotional impulse which is considered to be quite closely tied to masculinity, it allows them to act calmly in the face of crisis and put their own fear and pain aside for others, this may very well also be a factor in their reluctance to share their emotional or mental woes and shaming them for it may, again, do more harm than good.

Thaluikhain:

Yes, flaws in the US system put trump in power, but slightly less than half of US people that voted voted for Trump. Are these 60 million+ people all outliers?

Yes, there is concern from part of society about women's well being. A large part, even. It is far from being the "moral imperative above all" for society as a whole. If it was, we'd not be seeing the constant pushback against that part.

People don't vote for Trump because they hate women, and the reason you see pushback so often is because A) they think it won't benefit women or B) don't view it as a women's issue, even though some would conflate it to such.

Thaluikhain:

So...society is keeping women weak? That's sorta the problem.

Yes, it is.
So why do we focus so much on repeatedly telling them they are historically oppressed by those "bad men" and show them what their social influence can achieve, and HAS achieved?

Combustion Kevin:
People don't vote for Trump because they hate women

But they voted for him for some reason, whilst knowing he bragged about sexually assaulting women. The "moral imperative above all" did not apply to 60 million+ voters 2 years ago. It happens to not apply all the time.

Thaluikhain:

Combustion Kevin:
People don't vote for Trump because they hate women

But they voted for him for some reason, whilst knowing he bragged about sexually assaulting women. The "moral imperative above all" did not apply to 60 million+ voters 2 years ago. It happens to not apply all the time.

At least as many people also voted for Hillary despite being a domestic abuser to her husband, am I to take it those people condone domestic violence? gimme a break.

Fix your democratic process, maybe then you won't get candidates you'll be utterly ashamed of.

Thaluikhain:

Combustion Kevin:
People don't vote for Trump because they hate women

But they voted for him for some reason, whilst knowing he bragged about sexually assaulting women. The "moral imperative above all" did not apply to 60 million+ voters 2 years ago. It happens to not apply all the time.

I thought the Russians hacked the election ballot to give Trump fake voting numbers?

Combustion Kevin:

Thaluikhain:

Combustion Kevin:
People don't vote for Trump because they hate women

But they voted for him for some reason, whilst knowing he bragged about sexually assaulting women. The "moral imperative above all" did not apply to 60 million+ voters 2 years ago. It happens to not apply all the time.

At least as many people also voted for Hillary despite being a domestic abuser to her husband, am I to take it those people condone domestic violence? gimme a break.

Fix your democratic process, maybe then you won't get candidates you'll be utterly ashamed of.

I actually didn't even know that about Hillary Clinton. I'm...disappointed, to say the least, and her championing the Violence Against Women Act now seems like a completely hypocritical move.

That said, I feel like, if the incidents of domestic abuse got caught on tape and made much more public, I'd agree more on your comparison. With Trump, there is no way that I can conceive of supporting Trump while being unaware of his bragging about what he did. With Clinton, the claims seem to stem from a single book, The Clintons' War on Women, which is much less media-friendly than a convenient tape, so it got publicized a lot less. I'm not arguing that is a good thing, mind you. I feel quite let down that her hypocrisy was never made a point in debates. I'm simply pointing out how comparing Clinton's domestic abuse to Trump's sexual assault in terms of voter support is not completely an equal comparison.

Combustion Kevin:
At least as many people also voted for Hillary despite being a domestic abuser to her husband, am I to take it those people condone domestic violence? gimme a break.

You can take it that there's no "moral imperative above all" against domestic violence. And/or people weren't familiar with that rumour, she didn't brag about it like Trump did.

So where does breeding the human species and family come into play when people self identifies as a different gender?

You can't expect me to believe that a transman thinks he is a women and expects to act like a mother and have her own children, and in the case of adoption, children who are not of his blood.

Samtemdo8:
Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives? What is the overall cultural attitudes? And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

Lets just say I never seen a true bisexual person portrayed as a normal person and not treated as just some kinky fetish like in the case of women swining both ways in porn and what not.

As a general rule, porn is a terrible reference point for sexuality.

Bisexuality is essentially a preference for either gender as a sexual and/or romantic partner (things get way more complicated when you start to understand that sexual and romantic feelings can be distinct). Most bisexuals are no different than their hetero- and homosexual counterparts, although you'll find in many cases that there is often a 60/40 preference one way or the other rather than 50/50.

I will say that there is occasionally some tension with sexual or romantic urges in those cases if their partner is unable to fulfill them. How that's addressed depends on the couple and can range from monogamy to open or poly relationships to three-ways or swinging, etc. Infidelity can occur as well, but on par their respective hetero- and homosexual counterparts.

Samtemdo8:

Thaluikhain:

Combustion Kevin:
People don't vote for Trump because they hate women

But they voted for him for some reason, whilst knowing he bragged about sexually assaulting women. The "moral imperative above all" did not apply to 60 million+ voters 2 years ago. It happens to not apply all the time.

I thought the Russians hacked the election ballot to give Trump fake voting numbers?

There's actually been no evidence of a successful breach of US voting machines/counts during the 2016 election. What the Russians did was essentially pepper key voting demographics with propaganda and selected leaks or boosting through social media (notably Facebook and Twitter) that was designed to elicit support for Trump or depress Clinton turnout.

Think of it like being peppered for ads for Pepsi, Coke, and other beverages. If you're just a bit thirsty, it would enhance that predilection towards getting a drink. The Russians did that, but instead of thirst, they mainly targeted the existing racial fault lines and exacerbating tribal feelings along those lines.

Intelligence sources have been steadfastly clear that they have not officially determined whether or not the US election was affected by the hacking, although former CIA director Brennan has personally claimed that the likely did.

Samtemdo8:
So where does breeding the human species and family come into play when people self identifies as a different gender?

You can't expect me to believe that a transman thinks he is a women and expects to act like a mother and have her own children, and in the case of adoption, children who are not of his blood.

I would avoid the term "breeding" regarding humans if I were you. There's a lot of negative connotations with it. I recommend "reproduction" or "family planning" as applicable.

Assuming you're referring to a transman as in a man who was born into a female body, they would take the role of parent similar to any other man. In some rare cases if their reproductive system is capable, they may be able to carry an embryo to term, though I've never personally heard of this actually happening.

And there's nothing wrong with adoption nor any indicator that it makes for a weakened parent-child dynamic, mainly because the child is wanted and cared for.

Samtemdo8:
Can I ask how do Bisexuals live their lives? What is the overall cultural attitudes? And how does thier bisexuality fit into having romantic and sexual relationships with thier significant other?

Lets just say I never seen a true bisexual person portrayed as a normal person and not treated as just some kinky fetish like in the case of women swining both ways in porn and what not.

I'm bisexual. I live my life in much the same way I imagine most people do-- I sleep, work, drink coffee etc. Last time I was in a long-term relationship, my sexuality was not an issue (though I know this is not always the case with everyone).

The only thing that's different is that I'm attracted to both sexes. That's all it is. I have a relatively low sex-drive, and haven't been in a relationship for quite a while, which I suppose means that the topic doesn't have much chance to arise very much.

Combustion Kevin:

Lil devils x:

That is very interesting, thank you for sharing. ^^
The Aztec I meant more in the sense that they are more militaristic than the Hopi seem to be, their bloodsacrifices (though obviously overblown by terrified European explorers) seriously clashing with the Hopi's more pacifistic ideals.
They remind me a lot of the Buddhist monastery settlements that rely on trade and craftsmanship to become a boon to their neighbors as opposed to a rival or contender, "Good neighbors" if you will.
I think it is worth noting that the environment wherein this culture exists is also very different with a more nomadic influence and less great cities or city states.

I have a hard time imagining western people at a time of famine to be so at ease with their suffering (for lack of a better word) and would rather resort to desperate violence to provide food for their families and community, it's what inspired the great migrations into Roman territory during the mini ice age of the 6th century, it's a different mindset to be sure.

Hopi courtship is actually not so different from western "commoner" courtship, albeit with less family involvement, the kind of super formal courtship most people know is the emulation of aristocracy and their warped ideas of prudence, virtue and dignity.

Lil devils x:

Western view of " well being of women" though is skewed by viewing women as being too weak and incapable to care for themselves, so the "Strong and fearless" man has to take care of them, not because they care about what the woman wants or is actually capable of. It was always about what the man wants the woman to be instead. Women were treated as property, not an equal person whose opinions and desires were just as important as their own. It has taken western women a great struggle to even be considered a person and not property in the first place.

https://www.askmen.com/news/sports/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity.html

EDIT: More on the 500 yr old promise fulfilled:

Women were never a man's property unless she was an actual slave, a woman was a man's responsibility to the point where society considered a woman outside of a man's stewardship to be a great grievance against their own society.
Unless she was a queen or empress, of course, then it was cool, BUT SHE BETTER START THINKING ABOUT MAKING AN HEIR!

The quintessential traditionalist mindset is "Women are weak, men are bad", any morally conscious person would conclude that women must therefor be protected from these bad men by "good men" or "real men", men that labour for the protection and provision of women, in particular those of their family.
And yeah, this approach can get incredibly infantilizing to the point that the woman in question is deprived of agency, but likewise is the man obligated to his duties to her, further than that, these societies call on men's sacrifice collectively in times of crisis by means of levies or drafts.

Lil devils x:

Men defined what it was to "be a man" and then enforced that upon other men, otherwise it would be considered " manly" for men to talk about their feelings, to be respectful of women, even "in the locker room" , and to help women around the house, as that is what women WISH men would do. Even " The Rock" takes issue with man's definition of what it is to be a man.

What would a woman rather have in a man? someone that puts food on the table, or someone that helps around the house? he can only be in one place at a time, besides, it's not like there is a shortage of sensitive men that help around the household but the most attractive bachelor men still are the big earners of high social status, so how is a man supposed to interpret that?
The obvious answer is a healthy balance of course, I've always advocated for an even work-life balance for both sides but some men do feel trapped by the demanding job that made them viable on the dating market in the first place.

As far as mental health goes, The Rock is not a psychologist, nor is toxic masculinity something I subscribe to, the issue of men "not talking about their issues" stems from a misunderstanding of their psychology, a lot of men feel the pressure to perform and pressuring them into "talking about it" may harm more than help them, on top of that, they may feel that they can not be vulnerable with a vulnerable with a person that would view their behavior as something "toxic".

Coming back to the virtue of self-sacrifice as understood by the Hopi, this ties in with the western understanding of stoicism, that is to say, to act with reason as opposed to emotional impulse which is considered to be quite closely tied to masculinity, it allows them to act calmly in the face of crisis and put their own fear and pain aside for others, this may very well also be a factor in their reluctance to share their emotional or mental woes and shaming them for it may, again, do more harm than good.

No, women who were not " slaves" were/ are considered property rather than a person who is seen as a equal. You have families trying to sell them off, the father of the bride to "give their daughter", asking for the fathers hand in marriage, allowing people to " tell the woman what is best for her" , men telling women what they should wear, where they can go, who they should talk to, how they can spend their money.. it is so deep in society at so many levels to pick away a person like they are not capable of determining these things for themselves and anyone else should have a say in it at all. They remove her choice about everything and try to influence or undermine her decisions at every turn. Even the church here tells women they should stay with men who beat or abuse them. It is disgusting.

I don't even understand why anyone would begin to think this an " either or" question to begin with, or that the question is even relevant to what you view in a mate. In Hopi culture, women are capable of working and caring for the home and children, JUST AS MEN ARE the very idea that there is somehow a divide between putting food in the table and helping around the house is absurd. There isn't, people do both every day and that is just a part of life. Women do both and that isn't what a woman needs/wants in a man regardless. That is irrelevant to a relationship. A relationship is about the person, their personality, their compassion, humor, compatibility, not about " putting food on the table". In Hopi culture EVERYONE takes care of each other, no one needs a man to do that in the first place. Every evening, the women go from home to home to make sure everyone has enough to eat and everyone is okay in every home. It is a core part of what it means to be Hopi in caring for each other and all things. Everyone is treated as family, Hopi share most everything. Material possessions have no impact on love or relationships in Hopi culture to begin with, as they mean nothing and do not hold value to people. From an outside view of the idea of increased social status due to materialism, is it is harmful to both the people and the environment and is not something that should be promoted. It takes away from the relationship between the people and places more value on inanimate objects than it does the friendship and bond between the individuals. It is not even really viewed as a real relationship at that point at all really.

Toxic masculinity IS huge issue, and rampant in " jock culture" where they try to enforce " male codes" of toughness upon other males and torment those they perceive as weaker. The whole thing is pretty gross tbh. When the football team put a trashbag over that guys head and beat and kicked him for no other reason than he " looked different" so they wanted to show him what he gets for being weird it shows the lengths of just how toxic this can be. It is horrific and promotes extremely toxic behavior to society.

In Hopi culture, people are encouraged to share emotional woes, and they do not hold back their feelings, it is just a matter of constructive and non constructive ways to do so. Instead of pointless animalistic fits, one is taught different means to express and release those same emotions, but in a more positive and helpful manner that they can help resolve their problems rather than just throwing tantrums and solving nothing. This should not be misunderstood as holding feelings in or suppressing them, but instead it is a means to work through them to actually resolve them and solve the underlying problems. In most all things in Hopi culture, the objective is to turn bad into good. I think it is different than in western culture, because in Hopi Culture, everyone does actually care about how you feel. In western culture they teach people " no one cares about you but you", in Hopi culture it is the opposite. " we all care about each other". The idea of letting people be homeless, or go without necessities so they can have more for themselves is unthinkable. No one is ever told" that's your problem, not mine." instead it is " let's work this out together."

Lil devils x:
Every evening, the women go from home to home to make sure everyone has enough to eat and everyone is okay in every home. It is a core part of what it means to be Hopi in caring for each other and all things.

I'm curious- did the men not care? Were they not allowed go from home to home to help others as well, or even to show initiative and go their own?

Lil devils x:

No, women who were not " slaves" were/ are considered property rather than a person who is seen as a equal. You have families trying to sell them off, the father of the bride to "give their daughter", asking for the fathers hand in marriage, allowing people to " tell the woman what is best for her" , men telling women what they should wear, where they can go, who they should talk to, how they can spend their money.. it is so deep in society at so many levels to pick away a person like they are not capable of determining these things for themselves and anyone else should have a say in it at all. They remove her choice about everything and try to influence or undermine her decisions at every turn. Even the church here tells women they should stay with men who beat or abuse them. It is disgusting.

I'm sorry if I upset you (or mistake you for being such, this is text speak after all), I do intend to learn more about your culture and try to relate it to my own in comparison, but I feel your view of what was considered "normal" in western societies is a little inaccurate, enslaving our own daughters, sisters, mothers and wives would not only be grossly sociopathic, it'd be downright dysfunctional, on top of the fact that no woman in her right mind would go along with it anyway so the whole system would fall apart anyhow, as far back as the middle ages do poets swoon of strong-willed (and pious) women inspired by tales that are far older then they are themselves.
And again, forcing them under threat of harm would be unacceptable, men who thought that way were ostracized or even ousted from the community if they went too far.
The church did encourage people to stay in abusive relationships though, and I agree that shit's fucked up but the church as a whole was hardly really invested in the well being of individual couples and more in the overall social cohesion of it's "flock".

Going back a little to courtship though, I agree that relationships should not be as materialistic as they are, but as a society we are incredibly individualistic, far more now than we ever were, starting a family requires a material necessity to be met as a result and people who can acquire and manage those, throughout all of history have men come up with little contests or trophies to try and woo the ladies, it's human mating nature, and as the tastes of the time change, so too do these contests, from sprinting to wrestling, to horse riding, to music and art, fencing, but food and resource gathering has always been a classic, everyone likes getting gifts, right?

Maybe I've made out the exchange to be far more mercenary than they really are, anyone who's ever had a relationship can tell you as much, but arranged marriage as you describe was only for the aristocratic layer of society, it was loveless, political and often quite Machiavellian, but it was what it was, even so, lord and kings alike spent fortunes for their daughters educations to give them an "edge" in the courtship game over other ladies, every lord likes a useful wife.
For commoners, all they want is someone that makes them happy and they can make happy in kind, someone with whom they can be a boon to their community, have kids and grow old, the machinations of politics are of no concern to them, they will keep living in the house their kids will inherit anyway.

I suppose the Hopi are so much communal because their communities are so much smaller, faces are much more familiar and you are more invested in your neighbor as a result, everyone is needed so there's no real competition for specific jobs, everyone organically grows into who they are meant to be, perhaps humans are meant to live that way, but alas, we have sprawling metropoli and grand nations of which the scale is difficult to fathom as a social network, it is simply a fundamentally different environment.

Lil devils x:

Toxic masculinity IS huge issue, and rampant in " jock culture" where they try to enforce " male codes" of toughness upon other males and torment those they perceive as weaker. The whole thing is pretty gross tbh. When the football team put a trashbag over that guys head and beat and kicked him for no other reason than he " looked different" so they wanted to show him what he gets for being weird it shows the lengths of just how toxic this can be. It is horrific and promotes extremely toxic behavior to society.

Bullying, even in such extreme and aggressive forms, is not a typically male behavior, nor is it normative between any group of people besides the criminally inclined, taking it as an example of "masculinity" seems neither fair nor accurate.
I will say though, there definitely seems to be an issue surrounding a modern "male identity", time are a-changing and a lot of boys are looking for guidance, however, more and more of them lack a father in the home to relate to and clinging to traditional archetypes just doesn't seem viable in an age of rapid modernization, some are told that being male shouldn't be and isn't relevant to who they are as a person though they can clearly see people respond to them differently than girls, have different assumptions and expectations of them, so it must mean something, right?

I bet there is a clear meaning to "being a man" even in Hopi culture, and honestly, I wish I could go and see it with my own eyes, but my meager student life ties me here, perhaps later.
What you describe to me at least sounds to an intensely more communal people where there is a far greater sense of trust and far less fear for social reprisal, it only makes sense, but this trust is key to tackling one's social or emotional woes and I'm often getting the feeling that men won't talk because they don't feel safe, that their words will be taken in a wrong way, that they'll be misunderstood or worse, interpreted maliciously or dishonestly.
An accusation of weakness would at least acknowledge their problem, as dismissive as it may be.

I've always found the multitude of genders thing to be a bit of a paradox because the strongest proponents of it seem to have the same beliefs that should make the notion obsolete. If someone had a very rigid sense of what it meant to be a certain gender and what roles people of that gender should fill, then it would make sense that they would seek out a particular gender identity if they felt they aligned with it more than another. But if you believe all genders are equal, and that one's gender shouldn't determine the role they should play in society, then why would you feel the need create or adopt a new gender identity when it should be meaningless? It makes about as much sense to me as a blind person obsessing over what shade of white to repaint their closet. Or someone who doesn't believe in horoscopes but still insists that they be considered a Taurus even though they were born a Scorpio.

I still treat people with respect regardless of how they identify. I just can never seem get my head wrapped around the seemingly contradictory logic that gender identity is incredibly important and to be respected, while simultaneously being a baseless social construct that shouldn't affect how you treat or view people.

Silent Protagonist:

I still treat people with respect regardless of how they identify. I just can never seem get my head wrapped around the seemingly contradictory logic that gender identity is incredibly important and to be respected, while simultaneously being a baseless social construct that shouldn't affect how you treat or view people.

A: Because trans people exist
B: That regardless of social evolution thatconstantly sees the relationship of people to society change over time, trans people still exist.

For starters, there's no such thing as 'being a proponent' of gender as a spectrum. It's just a fact. No one can tell you how to be a man or woman, they can't back it up by empirical measure how a man or woman should be. Nor can they guarantee that that answer is applicable toanyone, gender non-conforming or not, that exist.

When people say 'gender is on a spectrum' what they're actually saying is; "You only need to look at humanity's relationship to gender across the world and how it is expressed and changed over time to see that." The breakneck speed by which cultures have transformed, changed, and ideas of the human condition surrounding that do not allow for any other answers but the fact that it is predominantly environment, not traditional concepts of evolution.

So if it's environment, then what does that say about us now? Moreover it's not accurate to say trans people are trans people only because of social prescription... no in fact, there are numerous predictor flags of gender identity and sexual alignment .. genetic and womb conditions are the big two, because of course it is ... humans are not built by design, they're built by circumstance ... but then again, people's ideas of being trans in a performative sense is still built by environment much like everyone else is.

But then again it could also have an experiential basis of instruction despite being unelective. For example, if you're 'bi-curious' you might have had a wonderful same-sex relationship, and stick with it, and over time you consider you're simply more happy in same sex relationships. And honestly part of that is true of trans people... certainly was the case for me.

I would have considered myself genderqueer while transitioning, but then I just got comfortable and presenting fulltime as I do now, and honestly it's kind of what I decided on ... especially given that it's a pain in the arse to attempt to do anything but after awhile, but also because it's on a baseline easier and everybody knows me as I present now in a professional and social context. And I'm moreor less contentwith how my life is going now.

Which is always a bonus. For some reason one group of people would try to take away from me because [insert any number of reasons here]...

I like to call it 'the triumph of imprecision' ... we're not really machines as much as all of us are a Jenga tower of blocks balancing precariously on the precipice of irredeemable chaos of mutable expressions and juggling eternally our existence on the brink of utter catastrophe of death or the loss of self ... and it's beautiful and none of it is truly explainable beyond social contexts and environmental instruction.

Genetics and womb conditions can't even tell you the vein configuration of your body, which is a haphazaard mess ... and because of a near insatiable desire for self expression, monozygotal twins raised together have a greater number of divergent neuroses and mannerisms than monozygotal twins raised apart. Precisely because ofthat continued contact with someone who otherwise shared identical developmental habitats with. Same family home, same womb, same genetics ... and through simple proximity continually split apart in a conflict of the ego.

But on the flipside of that comes the problematic idea that none of what you are is built on stone... and owning that idea is not only a sign of maturity, it's just blatantly obvious.

So when people say that 'gender is on a spectrum', what they mean to say is just look atthe rateof change and how humans actually are.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

I wasn't really thinking about trans people, since that gets into body dysmorphia which can be a whole separate discussion in and of itself. I was more thinking of the people who are comfortable in their own bodies but still define their gender as a very specific place on the male to female spectrum or as a distinct other kind of gender separate from the spectrum. Even within the usual gender spectrum with male at one end and female on the other, if what we define as masculine and feminine is largely arbitrary and varies from culture to culture, and one should not be treated differently based on their gender, then the gender spectrum becomes largely meaningless. In some cases people seem to conflate gender with personality, and I don't really see the value of assigning different personality traits to a particular gender or even to a place on the gender spectrum. I just have a hard time understanding how if gender doesn't(or isn't supposed to)affect how you view and treat others, then why would it affect how one views oneself? I understand the desire to distinguish and separate sex(biological) from gender(societal expectations) since we don't want our physical characteristics that are beyond our control to dictate our place in society, but it seems like the solution would be to discard gender and the preconceptions that come with it rather than to create more and more specific gender subcategories.

I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to be hostile. Like I said before, I treat people with respect regardless of how they identify. If it helps to make your life a little bit better and doesn't hurt anyone, I'm not going to get in your way. I just get genuinely confused by the fixation on gender identity when gender shouldn't matter in any practical sense. I have a hard time trying to understand the perspective of someone with body dysmorphia because my personal sense of identity isn't tied to my physical characteristics. I have a hard time imagining how my body could feel "wrong" even if it was of a different sex or size. I usually pride myself in being able to understand other's perspectives even if I don't always agree with them, but I just have a hard time understanding how gender is so important to some people and their sense of identity when it is such a non-factor for me.

Silent Protagonist:
I wasn't really thinking about trans people, since that gets into body dysmorphia which can be a whole separate discussion in and of itself. I was more thinking of the people who are comfortable in their own bodies but still define their gender as a very specific place on the male to female spectrum or as a distinct other kind of gender separate from the spectrum. Even within the usual gender spectrum with male at one end and female on the other, if what we define as masculine and feminine is largely arbitrary and varies from culture to culture, and one should not be treated differently based on their gender, then the gender spectrum becomes largely meaningless. In some cases people seem to conflate gender with personality, and I don't really see the value of assigning different personality traits to a particular gender or even to a place on the gender spectrum. I just have a hard time understanding how if gender doesn't(or isn't supposed to)affect how you view and treat others, then why would it affect how one views oneself? I understand the desire to distinguish and separate sex(biological) from gender(societal expectations) since we don't want our physical characteristics that are beyond our control to dictate our place in society, but it seems like the solution would be to discard gender and the preconceptions that come with it rather than to create more and more specific gender subcategories.

I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to be hostile. Like I said before, I treat people with respect regardless of how they identify. If it helps to make your life a little bit better and doesn't hurt anyone, I'm not going to get in your way. I just get genuinely confused by the fixation on gender identity when gender shouldn't matter in any practical sense. I have a hard time trying to understand the perspective of someone with body dysmorphia because my personal sense of identity isn't tied to my physical characteristics. I have a hard time imagining how my body could feel "wrong" even if it was of a different sex or size. I usually pride myself in being able to understand other's perspectives even if I don't always agree with them, but I just have a hard time understanding how gender is so important to some people and their sense of identity when it is such a non-factor for me.

For starters it's not body dysmorphia. Gender dysphoria is different.

It isn't 'meaningless' precisely because people still get murdered, beaten, and made homeless over this. I personally suffered two of those by the time I was 16. And there isn't much more an overt mechanic of conformity and restriction on the articulations of one's relations than being murdered, made homeless, and tortured by bullies and thugs for it. People's preoccupations with gender, and the resistance to those mechanics of conformity exist, precisely because that resistance exists. It's patently fucking stupid to arbitrarily separate gender non-conformity from the fact that it exists as a response to the mechanics of conformity that pre-exists them.

Life is cruel and harsh precisely because of their gender expression. My 'gender identity' isn't important to me on its own. As I wrote down, I would have considered myself genderqueer... but there came a point where I personally just settled in my expression. I'm more or less happy presenting as I do now after transition. That being said, it's a bit hard putting behind you that from 13-14 bullies were legitimately torturing me over being 'a fairy' in school. That my own parents... the people that professed to love me... would make their 16 year old homeless because of it. Bully in high school? Teachers didn't do anything about it ... it ended only when driven to my absolute wits' end I took a cricket bat to one of them, broke two of their ribs, and fractured their jaw.

People can stand on their fucking soapbox and say 'violence is never the answer' only from the position of their privilege to be beyond it. They were over two feet taller than me, and had sent me to the NO 5 times.

I was convinced they were going to kill me one day, they had snapped one of my molars, tried to drown me at a swimming carnival, and the school did nothing to one particular-then senior.

So I decided not to wait for that and made my anger known and prove I will fucking destroy them if they try it again by ambushing them after learning their timetable and waiting for them outside their class. It was the only resort I had remaining. And the thing is if I was a mite a meeker person, a less angry person, any less capable of inflicting damage on another person... I would either have been killed by them or other bullies ... or be driven to suicide.

It's not that our gender identity is as if central to us, it's because everyone else will never treat us as normal people with normal lives and normal desires to simply engage with the wider society in our chosen means of expressing that fully. Or at least until you make a statement, suddenly they get to see a person driven by all unreasonable extensions to violence.

That's the point the bullying ends. That's the extents you have to go to for that 'meaningless thing' you were talking about.

evilthecat:

But yeah, distinguishing between identity, expression and orientation makes sense, and is something almost every psychological and medical approach to gender (especially in the case of trans people) now does.

Having sexual orientation seperate seems very obvious and i don't have any understanding problem with that one. It is only with the other two.

We all have gender identity, just as we all have identity more generally. It's a psychological attachment to being a particular kind of person. It is often argued that gender identity is in some sense preconditioned by hormonal or neurological factors present from birth and is thus a "physical" thing, and I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's not necessary to believe that in order to understand what it is. Most males like being male, they have a psychological attachment to being male.

I don't feel an attachment to being male. Which might be why i can't wrap my head around gender idendity. It is even worse when dicorced from gender expression. That would be an attachment to ... what exactly ?

If we took those males, put them in female bodies and clothes and brainwashed everyone to believe that they'd always been female, most of them (despite the obvious jokes) would not be happy, and would probably still try to live and behave as males.

Wait a moment, now you are suddenly switching bodies. But bodies are fundamentally biological, so don't belong to gender, they belong to sex. I can see people being attached to their bodies. which seems to be a pretty healthy thing. But wasn't the idea that gender is social and not biological and thus gender idendity can only be idendity based on social behavior roles and not idendity based on your body ?

And we are also suddenly neatless switching over to gender expression, with the whole "live and behave as males". Not that i have any idea what "live and behave as males" is suppossed to actually be in practice. Which leads me to my problem with gender expression and the main reason for this thread.

I don't want to straight up tell you you're wrong, but I believe that is almost certainly not true. It may seem like it would be true in an abstract sense, but in practice things would change a lot. The way people would treat you would change, the way you were expected to behave and act would change and the way you saw yourself would change, perhaps very subtly, but in ways that probably wouldn't be very comfortable for you. If you woke up with a female body, you wouldn't instantly feel that it was your body, it would just be a body you happened to be wearing, and maybe that's all you would need, but I think it would be more destabilising than you think.

I do believe you. There has to be some things, otherwise gender would not exist. But i can't imagine any examples at all (aside from stuff coming from different capabilities/needs of the supposedly switched body. But that would be biology again)

Satinavian:

Having sexual orientation seperate seems very obvious and i don't have any understanding problem with that one. It is only with the other two.

----

I don't feel an attachment to being male. Which might be why i can't wrap my head around gender idendity. It is even worse when dicorced from gender expression. That would be an attachment to ... what exactly ?

----

And we are also suddenly neatless switching over to gender expression, with the whole "live and behave as males". Not that i have any idea what "live and behave as males" is suppossed to actually be in practice. Which leads me to my problem with gender expression and the main reason for this thread.

What exactly is the problem here? Why exactly does it have to be devoided from biology? For starters we know there are biological attributions to things like transgender people. Moreover why would environmental and psychosocial interrelations be utterly devoid from biology? Why would this be such a point of ridiculous confabulation when we wouldn't apply it to other psychosocial and environmental phenomena like PTSD?

Guess what? I can biologically attribute anxiety related disorders.

What makes you think we can't also assess gender identity in other ways? For example, womb conditions on early development... there is a connection to transgender identification. And that is both biological and environmental.

It's impossible to distance humanity from its environment. Empirically we can see environment is important to all forms of human relations. You don't feel a connection to being a man, because no one is beating the shit out of for feeling no conflict with how you're treated and the vehicle of your expression. Not exactly rocket science.

People who are trans either feel trapped by social circumstances, or are many magnitudes at greater risk when they defy social conventions upon them. Many magnitudes more likely to be targetted for violence in any category of violent crime. So it's a bit fucking disingenuous when people say 'I have a problem with all this gender expression...' and then pretend to be ignorant of a society that treats people like garbage because of gender expression.

Biology alone is not destiny, because there's no means by which we can truly, singularly, pinpoint an idea of cross-gender identification.

Humans a hotchpotch of stimuli. Infinitely complex because that is the state of things. It is thoroughly ridiculous a notion gender can truly be separated from things like womb conditions, as it is to say that cross-gender identification is as if occulted from as if some ludicrous concept of biological essentialism that is as if a magic button.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here