Serious Gender Roles / Androgyny

[Ampharos]

I've been thinking about transgenderism and the concept of gender roles a lot lately, given that my roommate for the past year (who happens to also be my cousin) came out as trans a few months ago (just to me + our friends, idk if her side of the family knows but mine certainly doesn't). Because of that this post is probably gonna be an incoherent jumble of thoughts but bear with me.

TBH it's led me to reevaluate how I feel about my own gender a little bit - I'm perfectly comfortable identifying as male as a real life person but in the vast majority of fictionalized settings I visualize myself as female (there's a couple of other things too but I don't feel like getting into that). In the end there's a good chance that's just me being a giant weeb though, and I really don't feel the need/desire to explore it any further, partially for reasons that may become clearer later in this post.

I can see both sides of the drag argument and I'm really not informed enough on the topic to really speak about it, but I think I'd have to agree with the notion that it's an acceptable way for transwomen to express their identity without being completely ostracized by society. It would be like publicly presenting as a stereotypical "flamboyant" gay man or "butch" lesbian (terrible terms but w/e) - sure, it's demeaning, and probably doesn't help society's view of your particular minority, but if it allows you to express your identity even a little bit in an age where publicly outing yourself as a sexual/gender minority invites large amounts of discrimination, then I say go for it.

Boys are boys and girls are girls most girls are into things considered feminine though years of evolution and boys masculine through evolution and masculinity was determined by traits that attracted women to mates like being durable enough to hunt, work in mines to provide for family etc. while men wanted nice fertile women with nice breasts and hips for better baby making and who could take care of the child while said man was out hunting.

Obviously men and women are interested in some things masculine and some things feminine but there is a general ruleset that affects the average male and female so you can't ignore it and shouldn't be discouraged but if you're genuinely deviant from the subject please go ahead nobody really will care unless you're being a cunt.

because using the evolution argument to justify social constructs worked so well for us before >_>

My thinking is that a large contributor to modern gender roles would have to be religion; after all, the Bible starts with two individuals who are explicitly male and female, marriage is defined as being between those two genders, etc. etc.

I bring this up because, living in Texas, a lot of the opposition I hear to LGBTQ individuals in general, and trans people most specifically, is that it's somehow against what's natural, or that it defies what God intended. They don't see gender roles as a social construct, because they're a Biblical construct, and thus are unshakable truths. Someone coming out as transgender is in defiance of God's plan for them because gender roles are so strictly tied to biological sex in the Bible - men are the providers, women are the nurturers. In the minds of these people, gender and sex are one and the same, and to try to modify that is unthinkable.

I can't speak personally on the condition of those who fall outside of the gender binary because around here it just doesn't happen, or if it does those individuals choose to pass as male/female in everyday life. My older relatives who talk about sociopolitical issues a lot (not usually in a context I would agree with but whatever) never even bring it up, because the Bible enforces the gender binary just as strongly as it enforces traditional gender roles. Honestly someone who identified as androgynous would probably just get accused of being gay, which doesn't even make sense in this context zzz

Basically what I'm saying is that, at least in the United States, there's a giant wall of religion to break through before we'll start seeing more acceptance for transgender and nonbinary individuals, or even those whose biological sex matches the gender they identify with but who exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with the opposite gender. And honestly, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that other than time.

At that stage in life, the concepts of "gender" and "gender roles" don't really exist yet

Absolutely not true. The first thing every doctor says upon delivering a baby is "Congratulations, its a [boy/girl]!" The child is then brought back to a nursery that's either entirely baby blue or entirely pastel pink and made to wear clothes that match the gender roles associated with its biological sex. A baby boy is going to be gifted firetrucks and dinosaurs, whereas a baby girl will receive almost exclusively dolls of some sort. The entire infant/toddler product market is so hilariously gendered it's absurd.

Finally, I think my initial reaction is actually to disagree with pluff re: assigning sex at birth. I'm not super learned on the matter, and I understand that there's a lot of different metrics by which sex is defined (chromosomes, hormones, secondary sex characteristics) which are sometimes in conflict with one another, but I think in the majority of cases biological sex can be fairly easily identified at birth. Of course, we shouldn't start enforcing gender roles right from birth based solely on biological sex, so that's something we as a society definitely need to work on.

That being said, assigning an arbitrary sex (and thus by extension an arbitrary gender) to someone who is intersex/expresses some conflicting combination of sex characteristics is not a practice I agree with given how it would be very likely to lead to gender identity issues later in life. Again, however, we run into the deeply-rooted gender binary that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so what're you gonna do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

wow i rambled a lot more than i meant to am i good at cong yet

 

[Chou Toshio]

Study on how Monkeys not exposed to human culture show near-perfect gender conformity to toy selection (males attracted to moving parts of toy trucks, females like to interact with the toy dolls); has been repeated several times with similar results.

I couldn't find the full documentary, but bbc's gender documentary exploring the differences in male and female brains is really interesting.

Nature and nurture both play a role. Men and women are far more similar than different, but there are inherent differences that hold true broadly and can be significant.

I think we need a society with an accepting understanding of gender that fosters and treats individuals with flexibility--

But also is comfortable ackowledging those differences that do exist and play a role in our lives.

 

[HailFall]

ugh i almost forgot this thread existed, that would have been nice

Do you have any evidence that drag contributes to transphobic violence, or is it just one of those things you have to accept at face value?

How do you explain all the drag performers who come out as trans later on? Is it acceptable to erase their identities by calling them cis because they've done something that you've decided is problematic? I mean, von's wrong re: calling drag a gender identity, but... you're absolutely labelling people, and not only that, you seem to be revelling in the chance to be a turd about random minority group because you've decided their form of gender non-conformity is inherently toxic, based on... I wouldn't even know. You've put forward no evidence and have basically just been blustering this whole time about things you seem to believe are self evident but really aren't. How many drag performers or people who love watching drag are involved with transphobic violence vs your stereotypical cishet dude who don't like no (BAN ME PLEASE) and thinks drag queens and trans women are synonymous due to his own ignorance? Do the former represent isolated incidents or a significant community-wide problem?

so i know its "cool" to shit on trans people and get Lots Of Likes but i hope people at least find it somewhat curious that people in this thread are SO much more dedicated to fighting oppression faced by the poor cinnamon roll drag queens than that of trans people who are afraid to leave their house at risk of being fucking murdered. Theres no need to provide evidence that drag contributes to transphobic violence when their entire medium capitalizes off of and encourages transphobia. Go back and look at the posts i made earlier if you want more explanation because im not going to keep rewriting the same thing.

Are rates of transphobic violence consistently lower in places that don't have drag?

How am i supposed to provide evidence of this??? Where in the world does drag absolutely NOT exist that isnt somewhere trans people are executed just for existing?? (before anyone tries to pull a Gotcha! with this and say theres more transphobic violence in these places without drag, consider that being mistaken for a trans person can cost you your life.)

Does this research even exist, or did you think that reading a few posts on Tumblr about how much some people hate it was sufficient?

Side note that this whole "what, did you get this off of TUMBLR" thing is basically as ridiculous as calling me a "sjw" and then refusing to listen to any of my arguments.

"Drag is what I do; trans is who I am." Monica Beverly Hillz: Trans-murdering cis drag queen, or pure cinnamon roll trans woman who would never do drag? You've made it clear it's one or the other.

What on earth does this even mean are you seriously implying that trans women are capable of being drag queens? If so, then can cis women be drag queens too? If not, what is the difference between the two? because i have a sneaking suspicion that its "trans women arent real women like cis women, so they can be a drag queen".

 

[Pyritie]

Absolutely not true. The first thing every doctor says upon delivering a baby is "Congratulations, its a [boy/girl]!" The child is then brought back to a nursery that's either entirely baby blue or entirely pastel pink and made to wear clothes that match the gender roles associated with its biological sex. A baby boy is going to be gifted firetrucks and dinosaurs, whereas a baby girl will receive almost exclusively dolls of some sort. The entire infant/toddler product market is so hilariously gendered it's absurd.

Finally, I think my initial reaction is actually to disagree with pluff re: assigning sex at birth. I'm not super learned on the matter, and I understand that there's a lot of different metrics by which sex is defined (chromosomes, hormones, secondary sex characteristics) which are sometimes in conflict with one another, but I think in the majority of cases biological sex can be fairly easily identified at birth. Of course, we shouldn't start enforcing gender roles right from birth based solely on biological sex, so that's something we as a society definitely need to work on.

I meant from the baby's perspective. All babies act the same regardless of sex, and it's everyone else who starts putting gender roles on them at that point in their lives. The babies themselves couldn't give a shit what color the room they're in is painted. This stays until roughly the toddler age, which is when kids start asking questions and forming their own opinions.

I agree that the whole boys/girls toy aisle thing is stupid.

 

[jumpluff]

I've been thinking about transgenderism and the concept of gender roles a lot lately, given that my roommate for the past year (who happens to also be my cousin) came out as trans a few months ago (just to me + our friends, idk if her side of the family knows but mine certainly doesn't). Because of that this post is probably gonna be an incoherent jumble of thoughts but bear with me.

TBH it's led me to reevaluate how I feel about my own gender a little bit - I'm perfectly comfortable identifying as male as a real life person but in the vast majority of fictionalized settings I visualize myself as female (there's a couple of other things too but I don't feel like getting into that). In the end there's a good chance that's just me being a giant weeb though, and I really don't feel the need/desire to explore it any further, partially for reasons that may become clearer later in this post.

I can see both sides of the drag argument and I'm really not informed enough on the topic to really speak about it, but I think I'd have to agree with the notion that it's an acceptable way for transwomen to express their identity without being completely ostracized by society. It would be like publicly presenting as a stereotypical "flamboyant" gay man or "butch" lesbian (terrible terms but w/e) - sure, it's demeaning, and probably doesn't help society's view of your particular minority, but if it allows you to express your identity even a little bit in an age where publicly outing yourself as a sexual/gender minority invites large amounts of discrimination, then I say go for it.


because using the evolution argument to justify social constructs worked so well for us before >_>

My thinking is that a large contributor to modern gender roles would have to be religion; after all, the Bible starts with two individuals who are explicitly male and female, marriage is defined as being between those two genders, etc. etc.

I bring this up because, living in Texas, a lot of the opposition I hear to LGBTQ individuals in general, and trans people most specifically, is that it's somehow against what's natural, or that it defies what God intended. They don't see gender roles as a social construct, because they're a Biblical construct, and thus are unshakable truths. Someone coming out as transgender is in defiance of God's plan for them because gender roles are so strictly tied to biological sex in the Bible - men are the providers, women are the nurturers. In the minds of these people, gender and sex are one and the same, and to try to modify that is unthinkable.

I can't speak personally on the condition of those who fall outside of the gender binary because around here it just doesn't happen, or if it does those individuals choose to pass as male/female in everyday life. My older relatives who talk about sociopolitical issues a lot (not usually in a context I would agree with but whatever) never even bring it up, because the Bible enforces the gender binary just as strongly as it enforces traditional gender roles. Honestly someone who identified as androgynous would probably just get accused of being gay, which doesn't even make sense in this context zzz

Basically what I'm saying is that, at least in the United States, there's a giant wall of religion to break through before we'll start seeing more acceptance for transgender and nonbinary individuals, or even those whose biological sex matches the gender they identify with but who exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with the opposite gender. And honestly, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that other than time.



Absolutely not true. The first thing every doctor says upon delivering a baby is "Congratulations, its a [boy/girl]!" The child is then brought back to a nursery that's either entirely baby blue or entirely pastel pink and made to wear clothes that match the gender roles associated with its biological sex. A baby boy is going to be gifted firetrucks and dinosaurs, whereas a baby girl will receive almost exclusively dolls of some sort. The entire infant/toddler product market is so hilariously gendered it's absurd.

Finally, I think my initial reaction is actually to disagree with pluff re: assigning sex at birth. I'm not super learned on the matter, and I understand that there's a lot of different metrics by which sex is defined (chromosomes, hormones, secondary sex characteristics) which are sometimes in conflict with one another, but I think in the majority of cases biological sex can be fairly easily identified at birth. Of course, we shouldn't start enforcing gender roles right from birth based solely on biological sex, so that's something we as a society definitely need to work on.

That being said, assigning an arbitrary sex (and thus by extension an arbitrary gender) to someone who is intersex/expresses some conflicting combination of sex characteristics is not a practice I agree with given how it would be very likely to lead to gender identity issues later in life. Again, however, we run into the deeply-rooted gender binary that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so what're you gonna do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

wow i rambled a lot more than i meant to am i good at cong yet

I mean, it's not a thing you agree or disagree with, because the fact that biological sex in humans is a set of criteria designed to be simplistically and easily identified and isn't the most meaningful thing in the world is exactly the thing

And this is partly why I don't reserve my hatred for religion -- I think a lot of positivist secular thinking is similarly used to justify reactions to trans people as rational and even morally okay, including and especially the binary. But in some areas, religion is definitely a huge force behind it, whereas I live in a country that is ostensibly secular but very influenced by lowkey religious norms, so I do agree and empathise with everyone who has to live in Texas or with conservative religious people. And there are many secular forces which work in tandem with religious forces because they're useful cultural norms, for example as I described gendered division of labour has worked out fantastically for various societal systems of production like capitalism, etc. Religious and secular people are both capable of a belief in what is 'natural' or 'right' or 'logical' that is ill-justified, so I don't like shoving it all on religion as a scapegoat for lack of secular self-examination

I don't think it's just a weeb thing, and I apologise if I'm overriding you in an unpleasant way; it's not only weebs who idealise themselves, it's perfectly natural, and so I wouldn't say that has bearing on it pertaining to your gender. I think it's often useful for people to think about their own gender because it helps at the very least sort of solidify what gender feels like, if that makes sense? So whatever you come out with, it's sure to matter. Glgl I'm always here to talk about gender.

I'm not going to address the neuroscience argument again unless I feel like bringing out specific examples but I would caution everyone to remember that nurture is important in shaping nature, and vice versa, when talking about genetics

 

[jumpluff]

Anyway I mainly posted in here again because Walrein did and because I finally felt like sharing a few personal experiences; I can't repeat again how moving myzo's post was for me, but I'm often hesitant about talking about my gender identity publicly on Smogon, since it's difficult for me to escape the conflation of femme with woman on a site where I have so much to shake off

But one thing that's always marvellous to me is how I feel more comfortable (wrt. dysphoria) being femme from what I find a more 'androgynous' and flexible base: as if it reifying its layered aspect, as if I can properly live the divorce between the 'womanhood' that makes me want to die and the femme roles that I like to adopt. I never understood what gender was until I really actually felt that I was behaving it; I struggled for a long time with the concept and understanding how it could feel to identify as anything, despite feeling very 'gendered' so to speak as opposed to genderless, when I believed it was something more innate; finding gender semiotics of my own was the most liberating thing. And I think that's maybe the hardest thing to understand, the conflict and tensions between my own gender semiotics and the collective unconscious, but I know I'm a lot happier and a lot less uncomfortable now. I used to literally wish to be incorporeal because I couldn't admit to myself I was trans; it was more plausible to me that I could be a concept than not purely male or female or other, so deeply was it embedded

Because of my illness I mostly live in and out of isolated periods though and I often get a slap in the face when I start having to socialise with people in the flesh; it's like I become an alien and there's a weird duality in how people address me and how I feel, a latency in my reactions, a feeling of almost infiltrating that makes me uncomfortable. I wish more than anything I could physically be read as androgynous offline at least, but then again, androgyny is so cultural (and racial) that it might not be an androgyny I wanted. I don't fear my behaviour or mannerisms or slight tics but instead my appearance, my voice, and my documents. I can pass as relatively androgynous at home but it's not something I think I could sustain in person safely (or without great hazard in the fields I've chosen, it's no coincidence that I care so much about the genetic and neuroscientific arguments about gender) outside

I think it's been healthier though in all environments in that I feel less compelled to adopt feminine roles that are unhealthy where I've been socialised into them or whatever to 'pass' to myself and others, and so I feel like both my behaviour and my growth as a result is more sincere, not coming through a warped perspective that wore awkwardly on me

 

[elcheeso]

so i know its "cool" to shit on trans people and get Lots Of Likes but i hope people at least find it somewhat curious that people in this thread are SO much more dedicated to fighting oppression faced by the poor cinnamon roll drag queens than that of trans people who are afraid to leave their house at risk of being fucking murdered. Theres no need to provide evidence that drag contributes to transphobic violence when their entire medium capitalizes off of and encourages transphobia. Go back and look at the posts i made earlier if you want more explanation because im not going to keep rewriting the same thing.

I'm glad to see that evidence is not required in order to put forth a far reaching statement about minority violence, nor is a single example of transphobia in drag, which neither this post nor your previous ones go into. Did you think you could convince anyone of your position by just calling them transphobic? Do you know a single god damn thing about mine or anyone else's attitudes towards transgender activism? If someone disagrees with you about drag being transphobic, that means any support or defence of trans people made previously is cancelled and they are forever a disgusting transphobe who only cares about drag queens? Nice demonisation, dogg. It's super effective!

How am i supposed to provide evidence of this??? Where in the world does drag absolutely NOT exist that isnt somewhere trans people are executed just for existing?? (before anyone tries to pull a Gotcha! with this and say theres more transphobic violence in these places without drag, consider that being mistaken for a trans person can cost you your life.)

Well, I'd imagine that someone who feels so strongly about this subject and "knows" it's responsible for increasing violence against trans people would be able to prove SOME sort of evidence beyond, 'It's transphobic because I said it is'. Though to be fair, that question may be impossible to answer just because drag (or just performative cross-dressing) is pretty much everywhere. Your best bet would be looking up the stats in Iran, where cross-dressing is hella illegal while (hetero) trans people have legal protections re: gender status. Of course, that's... also not a great example since those protections only extend to people getting SRS, and there are a considerable number of cis gay men and women doing it due to widespread discrimination. Plus, drag exists underground in Iran anyway.

Side note that this whole "what, did you get this off of TUMBLR" thing is basically as ridiculous as calling me a "sjw" and then refusing to listen to any of my arguments.

It's hardly ridiculous, I've seen this exact argument played out dozens of times on Tumblr (since most of the people I follow are trans and disagree with the "common knowledge" of drag/cross-dressing/gender-bending = murdering trans folks), and there is absolutely zero difference between your statements here and the typical argument there. You offer no evidence, just outrage, consider saying, 'It's based 100% around transphobia' sufficient to convince people without even a single example, then start claiming that people who disagree are transphobic, complete with the "wow why aren't you helping trans people, you only care about cis men!!!1" BS.

I actually knew you were going to post that sort of shit if you decided to come back here(re: more interested in fighting oppression faced by drag queens), just because it's so god damn typical of that argument. Only thing missing is suggesting that I'm not a real trans person, though I'd imagine that's only because you don't know a thing about my gender status. Please provide some evidence that drag encourages transphobic violence, I promise I will be convinced if it's not just pointing at RuPaul being a transphobic shithead (and he is, but not really evidence of drag queens causing violence).

What on earth does this even mean are you seriously implying that trans women are capable of being drag queens? If so, then can cis women be drag queens too? If not, what is the difference between the two? because i have a sneaking suspicion that its "trans women arent real women like cis women, so they can be a drag queen".

I'm not implying anything, I am quoting an actual, real-life trans woman who does drag. Her name is Monica Beverly Hillz, and of course she's a fucking real woman. You have a seriously ass backwards view of things if you think that just because drag isn't the ONLY way to explore gender roles and gender in general these days that it's completely obsolete for all trans folks. She's a trans woman and still takes part in drag performances, so... up to you if you want to misgender her due to what she does, but that's fucked up. And of course cis women can be drag queens. That's actually a thing, you know. You don't seem very educated on drag.

 

[vonFiedler]

Isn't RuPaul transphobic because he refuses to let the trans women who want to be on his drag show to do so? Because he thinks that trans women can't do drag? Didn't that start all this? So how did we get to a place where people with absolutely no evidence or good arguments on their side are actually saying the same thing in order to condemn RuPaul?

Nobody here is defending underprivileged gay men (stop using the word cis as if you are talking about privileged people) MORE than trans people. We're defending people's right to diverse lifestyles and freedom to explore gender/sexuality as they see fit, you know, the underlying foundation of the LGBT movement.

HailFall you can ignore me tbh, but please put up a real argument if you respond to elcheeso. Your circular logic, refusal to show evidence for your claims, and eagerness to call those who disagree with you transphobic (an eagerness that seems to be the basis for your entire rant) are not making this a good thread.

Did you see youtube's big trans thing yesterday? Did you see the dislike ratios on those videos? There's too many transphobics in the world to have to make more up.

 

[TheValkyries]

Jesus I'm confused as to how one proves that cultural attitudes of hatred lead to or contribute towards violent manifestations of those attitudes in a succinct way. Do you need a scientific process examining what drives people to violence? Do you need to be walked through specifically how in this instance it leads to events of violence directly or could you maybe self examine and think critically of yourself and your own preconceptions and not just people you disagree with.

Is it really so hard to see how drag performances historically views transness. It's heavily rooted in the idea of sexual deviancy and an attack on cultural norms. Like some John Waters level shit. Hint: being a trans person is not done as a cultural attack nor is it an act of sexual deviancy. Drag Queens are a symptom of the hypersexualization of trans persons, the kind that associates a trans person with being so violently sexually deviant that they could potentially enter bathrooms of the "other" gender to prey upon children.

Yes there is positives to the drag scene in allowing trans people an area to explore ideas that they otherwise can't, but you don't say segregation was totally good for black people because they were allowed to be kept safe from racist white people. Trans people finding personal positivity does not exonerate the overall decidedly blatant negative context surrounding drag.

 

[vonFiedler]

As far as I can tell, drag is supposed to parody women, not transexuals. If you decide otherwise, that's probably subjective. Hence the circular arguments where you've decided your right and won't listen to anyone else (but didn't you just say that's a bad thing???).

And transexuality isn't an attack on cultural norms in and of itself, but what exactly is wrong with attacking cultural norms if those norms are broken? What exactly is wrong people choosing to be hypersexualized? If people in the wrong decide that bathrooms are an issue, fuck em. Why are you pandering to them all of a sudden?

 

[Execute]

The following is NOT in anyways 100% fact and is my own personal opinion, if you disagree with me in anyway, shape, or form, feel free to tag me and hopefully we can have a civilized conversation about this.

Let me start off with my opinion about Jadan Smiths decision, I feel that he is entitled to where whatever he wants, wether it be designed for males or females. For so long our society had strict visions on what a male can and cannot wear. Males for the longest of times weren't expected to wear skirts, Leggings, Tights, Panties, Bras, croptops, and anything of that sort. The majority of males and females find those to be appropriate for women but not males, which is understandable in its own right. I personally never minded this because well, it personally didn't affect me. My philosophy behind a lot of controversial topics is that if it doesn't directly affect me or someone else in a negative way, I see no harm in it. If a male decides to start wearing leggings, a croptop, and high heels one day and decides to walk out of the house fully confident in himself in his appearance, then he should be allowed to do so and be treated as a normal member of society. The same goes for girls, if they suddenly decide they want to go in a boys crewneck, some yeezy boost 750's, and a BAPE shark, why should we stop her? But wait, you might be thinking to yourself, "I've seen girls come out of their house with male clothing and they don't get shit for it", and you are 100% right. Its not arbitrary for someone to see a girl in whats thought to be male clothing, so my argument is why is it so bad for a male to do the same? I personally gained alot of respect for Jadan because not many boys will go out and do what he did, especially if they were as famous as him. He showed me that he isn't afraid to express himself with his clothing and that shows confidence in himself.

As for gender roles, In my personal experience, boys girls transgenders and homosexuals have all been treated the same. Whether it'd be a teacher, a student, a staff member, or just a friend of someones, everyone has been treated equally in my school and I think thats amazing for the LGBT(Q)(im not sure what the stance is with the Q) Community. They are a community i respect heavily for their ability to stand up for themselves and the individuality of humans. I think people should be free to feel however they want, and the US is taking steps to help them. I do know however, that in many parts of the world, these people aren't given the same respect or rights they are given in my neighborhood, which makes me quite sad for them. They are doing nothing wrong but expressing themselves, why should they be discriminated? this is one of the things that gets me so heated up. While I am a straight 16 year old male who has a girlfriend, I find it hard to believe others are trying to take freedom in sexuality away from others, and i think thats disgusting. I also think the argument about how god made us to be attracted to the opposite gender, because some people don't believe in god and not everyone is entitled to believe in god, so we have to respect their decision.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I've been thinking about transgenderism and the concept of gender roles a lot lately, given that my roommate for the past year (who happens to also be my cousin) came out as trans a few months ago (just to me + our friends, idk if her side of the family knows but mine certainly doesn't). Because of that this post is probably gonna be an incoherent jumble of thoughts but bear with me.

TBH it's led me to reevaluate how I feel about my own gender a little bit - I'm perfectly comfortable identifying as male as a real life person but in the vast majority of fictionalized settings I visualize myself as female (there's a couple of other things too but I don't feel like getting into that). In the end there's a good chance that's just me being a giant weeb though, and I really don't feel the need/desire to explore it any further, partially for reasons that may become clearer later in this post.

I can see both sides of the drag argument and I'm really not informed enough on the topic to really speak about it, but I think I'd have to agree with the notion that it's an acceptable way for transwomen to express their identity without being completely ostracized by society. It would be like publicly presenting as a stereotypical "flamboyant" gay man or "butch" lesbian (terrible terms but w/e) - sure, it's demeaning, and probably doesn't help society's view of your particular minority, but if it allows you to express your identity even a little bit in an age where publicly outing yourself as a sexual/gender minority invites large amounts of discrimination, then I say go for it.


because using the evolution argument to justify social constructs worked so well for us before >_>

My thinking is that a large contributor to modern gender roles would have to be religion; after all, the Bible starts with two individuals who are explicitly male and female, marriage is defined as being between those two genders, etc. etc.

I bring this up because, living in Texas, a lot of the opposition I hear to LGBTQ individuals in general, and trans people most specifically, is that it's somehow against what's natural, or that it defies what God intended. They don't see gender roles as a social construct, because they're a Biblical construct, and thus are unshakable truths. Someone coming out as transgender is in defiance of God's plan for them because gender roles are so strictly tied to biological sex in the Bible - men are the providers, women are the nurturers. In the minds of these people, gender and sex are one and the same, and to try to modify that is unthinkable.

I can't speak personally on the condition of those who fall outside of the gender binary because around here it just doesn't happen, or if it does those individuals choose to pass as male/female in everyday life. My older relatives who talk about sociopolitical issues a lot (not usually in a context I would agree with but whatever) never even bring it up, because the Bible enforces the gender binary just as strongly as it enforces traditional gender roles. Honestly someone who identified as androgynous would probably just get accused of being gay, which doesn't even make sense in this context zzz

Basically what I'm saying is that, at least in the United States, there's a giant wall of religion to break through before we'll start seeing more acceptance for transgender and nonbinary individuals, or even those whose biological sex matches the gender they identify with but who exhibit characteristics traditionally associated with the opposite gender. And honestly, I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that other than time.[/rank]

I think that society should structure itself to reflect the needs of the population it services. There is an objective difference between the sexes (besides just their privates) but this is based on biological realities, and those differences have driven the evolution of our bodies as well as religious social structures. However, the operative words their are "driven", and "evolved", in contrast to "reflect"-- social structures/religion have been influenced by (driven by) biology, but they have evolved organically-- and nothing that "evolves" is "perfect", but only better suited than its predecessor. Having a Christian moral intellectual society that also organizes people based on gender roles is "better" (more productive anyway) than primitive hunter/gather society, but that doesn't make it correct or reflective of human needs.

The thing about human design is the fact that when you design something intentionally with the end user in mind, you can make something that works better what evolves naturally. Societies are hard to change, but when we talk about "ideals", we talk about something that would be designed to better reflect actual human needs.

In this case, the biological reality, I would sum it up as-- Humans are all essentially of the same nature regardless of gender; in the wider spectrum of organisms, we're basically all made of the same stuff and capable of feeling ad thinking the same things. However, within the narrower view of human experience, it's easier to for us as humans to "feel" the small difference as bigger ones, and these differences do find their causes in biological realities-- biological realities that result from both nature AND nurture. Genes, Hormones, and Experiences all have an influence on individual development; and that development usually produces individuals that conform to society's gender binary. Both because the binary has had its evolution driven by biological realities and therefore has a high synergy with those realities, AND because those social structures are self-cultivating and result in experiences that drive higher conformity. There is a very small population whose own biology (again biology driven by nurture and nature) will develop them in such a way to feel a diversity of types of disconnect with the social construct in place.

So I would desire a society that recognizes that men and women are largely the same but still different-- one that can treat people fairly while also putting in place services, structures, and culture that support needs resulting from substantial differences. And also a society with the flexibility and acceptance that recognizes that not everyone fits the major molds, and can support those individuals as best as possible.

To note some observed differences (all stuff I learned from the aforementioned BBC documentary):

Hide

1) Adult females have brains that are better connected cross-area (left-to-right) than males-- this means that females are generally better at utilizing multiple areas of cognitive function simultaneously. For instance, being better at making an artistic or social association/decision while considering a logical problem. In simplistic terms, this ability to think about one thing from multiple aspects simultaneously is part of what makes women better at empathy and multi-tasking, but also enables something like design/engineering that better considers aesthetic, human usage, and structural concerns simultaneously.
2) Adult males have brains that are generally more wired front to back-- meaning that they have a tendency to be better at focusing on a problem deeply from one perspective, and also process a problem more quickly with greater decisiveness (they are only thinking with one side, so use that side more deeply and don't take the time to consider the same problem from as many different perspectives). The "autistic genius" and the super decisive executive are both influenced by the higher testosterone in their systems, but also shaped by the expectation society has for "male" thinkers.
3) One study showed that females that, by random fate or simple biological/physical happenstance, were exposed to higher testosterone levels inside their mother's womb, had a much higher propensity to show "male" characteristics-- like having autism or ADD, a greater interest in mechanical/moving toys, more rapid development for mathematics and sciences, etc. I think this is interesting because those women are obviously shaped by society with typical female expectations, but higher testosterone levels trends those behaviors.
4) Females are equal or better than men at mathematical/logical problems IF those problems are framed within the context of human perspective. Exp:
Q1: Look at this structural configuration - which of these graphs (A, B, C, or D) is the same structural configuration?
^Men do significantly better at this one
Q2: Sally, Harry, Emily, and Verona are looking at pictures of a structural configuration. Which of them is looking at one that is the same as this one?
^It's the exact same question substance-wise, but women do slightly better at it!
I would interpret this as simply context/framing that draws greater interest in the problem stimulates cognitive activity to come up with better accuracy-- a greater interest leads to a better study.
5) Generally speaking, like the monkeys, boys show a higher propensity to play with/be interested in mechanical toys like cars and trucks, while girls show a greater interest in empathy toys like dolls
6) HOWEVER-- both genders are EASILY influenced by adults. When the genderized clothing of the baby is switched to the opposite of their biological gender, and they are made to play with adults who doesn't know it, girls will always come to show a much higher interest in the mechanical toys pushed on them by the unknowing adult, and likewise the male baby will come to prefer the dolls pushed on him by those adults.

All of the above observed differences are general truths-- they hold true for the groups overall, but not for individuals. Because Men and Women (and other) are largely the same, the wider group of humans overlap on many/most dimensions of cognitive/emotional faculty, and there are big individual outliers as well. These are just things that generally hold true for men/women on average.

Absolutely not true. The first thing every doctor says upon delivering a baby is "Congratulations, its a [boy/girl]!" The child is then brought back to a nursery that's either entirely baby blue or entirely pastel pink and made to wear clothes that match the gender roles associated with its biological sex. A baby boy is going to be gifted firetrucks and dinosaurs, whereas a baby girl will receive almost exclusively dolls of some sort. The entire infant/toddler product market is so hilariously gendered it's absurd.

Finally, I think my initial reaction is actually to disagree with pluff re: assigning sex at birth. I'm not super learned on the matter, and I understand that there's a lot of different metrics by which sex is defined (chromosomes, hormones, secondary sex characteristics) which are sometimes in conflict with one another, but I think in the majority of cases biological sex can be fairly easily identified at birth. Of course, we shouldn't start enforcing gender roles right from birth based solely on biological sex, so that's something we as a society definitely need to work on.

That being said, assigning an arbitrary sex (and thus by extension an arbitrary gender) to someone who is intersex/expresses some conflicting combination of sex characteristics is not a practice I agree with given how it would be very likely to lead to gender identity issues later in life. Again, however, we run into the deeply-rooted gender binary that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so what're you gonna do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

wow i rambled a lot more than i meant to am i good at cong yet

The stuff in my hide tag is pretty relevant to the stuff you mentioned above!

However, I would like to make a comment on how I am choosing to look at this from my own daughter's early care-- as a very typical young cis Hetero middle class couple from traditional backgrounds raising a daughter in this era.

For my stance as a parent-- I want to allow my daughter to experience the gender binary and engage with that framework organically in order to foster an understanding of society's expectations, while not impressing those values forcefully and expecting compliance.

It's a tender balance, but the vast majority of people grow up to be comfortably gender conforming, and as a parent who wants the best for my daughter, I want her to develop into that organically if she does fit the common mold-- thinking about her own future happiness in an imperfect world, giving her the opportunity to conform where comfortable is something I view as best for her as her parent. BUT at the same time, I want to create the expectation for leeway, such that as much as possible she would expect acceptance and flexibility from us if she were to find herself otherwise，and can minimize trauma to her in the greatest degree I can so that she can accept herself is she shouldn't conform. I also want to MINIMIZE the impact of culture's expectations on her self-image; ie. instilling a strong message that models and barbies are not things that need to be aspired to or impressed on one's person. There's only so much a parent can do, but I think even knowing your parent is flexible in thought is great unburderning for someone struggling with their identity.

^You might think that this is a mostly self-serving approach--a stance that is all about my daughter's happiness and deprioritizes societal impact--but that is my choice as a parent, and I would say that my daughter's happiness and her ability to accept people flexibly are not unrelated.

Observing my daughter closely, I would say she's very typical-- she definitely has a much higher natural interest in typical girl toys such as dolls and stuffed animals-- but it's also obvious to me that adult influence takes the bigger priority. Because I, in play, command her attention to toy trains, cards, blocks, and the like, it has driven her to show a deep interest in those objects. What I've seen is that, despite my efforts, she's not too interested in building things with blocks or figuring out how physical pieces work together, she has shown a great interest in vehicles and mechanical objects like household tools, and a keen attention to detail in categorizing them-- (correctly identifying trucks, trains, cars, taxis, police cars, planes, etc. is one of her favorite activities, and she loves riding vehicles). Like all children of her generation, she loves screens and devices, and at 2 years old is a master of many iphone functions... lol But influencing an interest in technology, science, math, and art all high on my agenda.

Of course you can't stamp on her natural interest in dolls and plushies, and I encourage those empathy/social-enforcing toys as well; but as a general rule, I'm highly critical of strongly gendered toys that could heavily influence self-image. So basically, know "girl dolls". My daughters toys are mostly stuffed animals (non-human), or characters like Elmo, Anpanman, and Shimajiro that make minimal emphasis on gender roles, but have that implicit context. These last 3 are her favorite, which is no surprise when visual content (videos) is enforcing interest in the toys.

For Benesse's part (the Japanese company that runs the educational content program my daughter does, and creates the aforementioned Shimajirou toys), I have to give them credit. My daughter is using the "Children's Challenge" program where Benesse provides both toys and DVDs on a decided schedule, with the DVDs also having commercials to teach the kids how to play with the toys that follow. What I've seen is that provide all children (both genders) with a schedule of toys and play types that cater to both gender roles (blocks, trucks, dolls, and kitchen sets)-- and show commercials with both genders playing with both types. The commercial for "baby Hana-chan", the little baby girl tiger who comes with her own care set was introduced to my daughter with a little boy playing with it. The commercial for the "train block set" had a girl putting together the Bullet Train. The design of both types of toys has an implicit gender context, but isn't something like Barbey or Transformers where you're looking at something intensely influential.

Of course, keeping this balance is a lot easier at the age of 2 than the age of 5, 6, or 7, but we'll play it by ear... Thinking of how to best raise your kid for an accepting future is difficult; considering the degree of understanding culture to give them a better anchoring in an unaccepting and imperfect world, while also trying to foster the acceptance and flexible mindset to be ready for a more ideal future should it come.

 

[Minwu]

I think it's really important to foster freedom of gender expression as an ideal, which cis people would also be included in. I earnestly admire a lot of crossdressers for what they do, and the hoops they've had to jump. If drag is intended to be humor it's pretty low humor though, and the old joke of a man who's terrible at acting like a woman is incredibly transmisogynistic. It's especially important not to step on any toes if you're doing drag.

 

[elcheeso]

You know what, I think it largely depends on the sort of drag you're looking at. There's definitely a distinct difference between drag performances at gay clubs and drag performed by mainstream entertainers (see: TV and movies). Given all the focus on cis gay men, I had assumed the focus was the former, but if you're thinking about the latter (where the jokes are usually just "haha man in a dress", or "woman with a dick = disgusting and also a man") then this argument makes far more sense. This is the reason Ace Ventura is unwatchable these days. I agree that that sort of behaviour is transphobic as shit and really needs to stop. I can't agree with 'all drag is transphobic and contributes to violence against trans people', but I can see the logic if your assumption that all drag is akin to the awful shit in Ace Ventura. Luckily though, it isn't. It is possible to support the positive parts while rejecting the negative.

TL;DR: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Myzozoa]

TL;DR: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

to me it is the same situation as when one is pointing to feminism as a cause of violence against trans people due to the existence of 'terfs'.

 

[KM]

the narratives created by straight television about men dressing up as women and then /tricking/ a straight guy or whatever really has no application on the world of drag, and is definitely transphobic.

in terms of REAL drag, i think it's tremendously unfair to isolate the idea of drag from the idea of gender identity and expression. while it's very convenient to say "drag queens are transmisogynists mocking trans people", the vast majority of serious drag queens have a personal connection to their drag character. Many prominent drag queens [see: Violet Chachki, Jinkx Monsoon] openly fall into the genderqueer / fluid spectrums, and many, many more are trans or have come out as trans. At the very least, most drag queens state that they feel their drag character is a sort of alter ego. Far from being a mockery, it is instead a lens that allows them to examine and think critically about their "boy self" and feels just as much a part of them as that "boy self".

I think we've seen enough mocking of trans people to draw a couple very important distinctions between traditional drag and trans mockery. Usually, an image mocking trans women attempts to portray a person who appears highly masculine while still having some sort of identifying clothing or makeup that denotes them as someone trying, and failing, to pass. On the contrary, drag queens either put hours and hours of effort into looking as beautiful and glamorous as possible, or they completely abandon the notion of passing and adopt a purposely genderfuck personality and aesthetic [Milk, Ryan Burke, James Majesty]. These things could not be farther than a straight white dude putting on lipstick and a shake-and-go 10$ wig to mock trans women, and to suggest that they're the same is akin to suggest that someone pouring a bucket of paint on a canvas and calling it "modern art" as a joke is equivalent to someone carefully studying different movements in modern art and then attempting to use those as a jumping-off point to create their own perspective and art.

Finally, i just want to address the use of the T-slur, because I think it's a complicated sort of issue that ultimately finds conflict due to the highly different worlds of the defined categories of "trans" and "drag" and the club / ball scenes of the last 40 years, in which ideas of gender expression and identity were progressive and language evolved in a way that, for many, words like "(BAN ME PLEASE)" were used as affirmative compliments on the realness/fishiness of someone's transition or impersonation. There's an obvious contrast between a scene in which words traditionally used as slurs [pussy, cunt, (BAN ME PLEASE), fish, f@gg0t] are used as affirmatives and compliments and a larger trans world in which those words have always and only been used as attacks, and it's a delicate issue trying to reconcile both of those worlds while respecting the culture of either.

 

[Agender Nerd]

I don't believe that drag is inherently transphobic, but there is a lot of transphobia (or at the very least, careless casual cissexism) throughout mainstream Drag. I understand that the history of certain words is complicated, but when just about every episode of RuPaul's had the line "you've got sh*mail" to make a pun out of a slur there's a problem.

Also the gender binary is completely a social construct, even with regards to sex. External Genitalia and the 23rd chromosome pair are two of many many factors that influence sex: gonads, hormones, and a number assorted genes outside of the 23rd chromosome pair are all factors that aren't clearly visible. Let's not forget that many doctors will perform surgery on intersex infants to make their external genitalia better fit their view of the sex binary.

 

[Pyritie]

Also the gender binary is completely a social construct, even with regards to sex. External Genitalia and the 23rd chromosome pair are two of many many factors that influence sex: gonads, hormones, and a number assorted genes outside of the 23rd chromosome pair are all factors that aren't clearly visible. Let's not forget that many doctors will perform surgery on intersex infants to make their external genitalia better fit their view of the sex binary.

Do you have a reliable source to back up either of these claims?

 

[Myzozoa]

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/spectrum

the science checks out, not that you can read or be asked to care since you didnt know the science to begin with and just desperately need to believe in the gender binary, just another way it has become essential.

im not even gonna dignify chou's video with a response, not only did the authors of the original study famously misrepresent their data in their conclusions (i.e their data is directly contradictory to their stated conclusions), the premise of the study doesn't even make sense as gender roles are obviously species specific, or maybe you don't care about 'real differences' in your science, only in the desperate presentation of your social norms.

Like why do you think this thread is about you? or about (androgynous) people proving to you that when we talk about ourselves we are actually making sense? Asking for sources? You can just google search 'gender social construct' or 'sex social construct'? So are you trolling or just dumb?

 

[Chou Toshio]

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943#/spectrum

the science checks out, not that you can read or be asked to care since you didnt know the science to begin with and just desperately need to believe in the gender binary, just another way it has become essential.

im not even gonna dignify chou's video with a response, not only did the authors of the original study famously misrepresent their data in their conclusions (i.e their data is directly contradictory to their stated conclusions), the premise of the study doesn't even make sense as gender roles are obviously species specific, or maybe you don't care about 'real differences' in your science, only in the desperate presentation of your social norms.

Like why do you think this thread is about you? or about (androgynous) people proving to you that when we talk about ourselves we are actually making sense? Asking for sources? You can just google search 'gender social construct' or 'sex social construct'? So are you trolling or just dumb?

Can people not casually think about, and post things and thoughts that interest them in an online forum that is predominantly about Pokemon, but they hang out in socially? lol
Because relaxing on a social forum and piecing together your thoughts is fun? Even if you disagree, enough people even like my posts for me to say that they are contributing to someone's day.

I'm a full time professional with a family and lots of other hobbies-- is it a crime to post genuine thoughts in a social forum without having a degree in the topic, or back checking every reference myself? I think if you read my posts, it's pretty obvious I don't profess to be an expert in any of the topics we have in this forum.
For a casual poster to reference a source like BBC is a pretty fair level of rigor for a Pokemon forum.

As you said, if you only want to read completely informed opinions (by people with the knowledge base and intellectual/academic rigor to back), Google is there.

I've not claimed to be an expert.
I've not attacked anyone.
Every thread is loose enough for a bit of tangent, as we don't micro-manage the topics.

Also, if the thread, and gender discussions in general are only for the informed and affected--the minority--don't be surprised when you aren't able to get the broader society to appreciate your agenda (which I'd say my posts show a genuine effort at-- considering that this isn't my movement, career, or "thread"-- or otherwise anything I'd invest more of my time in than killing time in a shitty Tokyo train ride, like right now).

That is all.

 

[Myzozoa]

Ok, you told us about you, now I'll respond. Firstly, I was calling in pyritie not you.


Now wrt, 'oh no i attacked you', let me explain:


I have no chill, I'm like the opposite of chill. Chill is an affect that in my experience is actually opposed to the vital endurance of uncomfortable feelings that often accompany important dialogues that might lead to change on issues that are of life and death. Paradoxically, for someone who has no chill I usually keep in mind the contexts of each forum and so yeah, you don't see my going into firebot and making serious posts or responding to every little post that contains something that I might decide to be bothered by. I consider myself a master of shutting the fuck up (ive been oh-so well behaved to resist posting in the us election thread), and letting it go, but I don't see that as very productive these days. The tag of some of these threads is '(serious)', I don't claim to know what that means, but contrary to the attitude you suggest in your post when you say this posting involves a casual collection of thoughts, I think what we are saying is not that casual, I think when we talk about things like androgyny, trans* issues, and gender roles together: IT REALLY MATTERS (look i used caps, can you feel that lack of chill?).

Like, I am someone's daughter. Like imagine if your daughter was saying these things to you. Like maybe the fact that I think this matters, instead of being read as me taking things 'too seriously' should indicate that something important is actually going on, has actually taken place. Like does patriarchy sound like the best thing for your children?

All that being said, chou, I will repeat my first bit, I really haven't been bothered by your posts, I was just pointing out that study is pretty dumb and bad, and wasn't addressing you with the other things, but pyritie, who had asked for a source which I have provided, while simultaneously questioning whether to do so was actually appropriate.

Finally, notice how by characterizing me as not being chill, you are given an opportunity to focus on me rather than the source I just provided that shits on your casual collection of thoughts. but you dont like ad hominems right?


So yeah babes Pyritie Chou Toshio if you have a response to the article i linked as evidence of the scientific inaccuracy of your reasonings by all means. or sob at me more, i love tears.

 

[Myzozoa]

Theres also no point in responding if u've been wrong and didn't know and thought the evidence was there to support you, but it wasn't. so more on that please. remember the thing we are in disagreement about apparently is the scientific/medical existence of trans/androgynous people and even 'actual' (it's as hard to convince me that these exist as it is to convince you that androgynous people exist but w.e ) men and women. Sorry if in a thread about androgynous people you receive some shade when you go around asking people to link you to evidence for the existence of the topic like this is a thread about lochness monsters.

 

[jumpluff]

I have nothing to say that myzo hasn't said better

I'd note for people in general that you have primary sources in the thread who are intimately acquainted with the science and philosophy, whether from interest or from study, and who have posted so, despite obstinacy; not only is it of necessity for us, it is our very ontology; even before I started studying this stuff academically (which I don't profess to be very far in, except that it's an academic interest and I'm knowledgeable about my field), I read about it obsessively in secret trying to understand what I was, how I could exist in reconciliation with the world as it was, and who I could be

One should not do right because it is agreeable, but because it is correct; I realise this is an idealistic stance, and it's not one I hold to absolutely in practice because I trust in not only the persuasiveness of my ideas, but it is equally idealistic to absolve yourself of the obligation to understand and assist other people because society has pushed all understanding of them under the carpet, and you are in a position where you believe it doesn't affect you 'directly' (as far as you know). This is a thing that pierces the human condition besides

I've offered a reading list and I'll repeat that offer that if anyone wants a reading list they are welcome to it, but it'll mostly be books and stuff, not papers. I only have a few blog articles and stuff, most of it's books. Googling will find you lots of stuff though, it's true

 

[Icing On Da Cake]

unless you do some fucked up shit like eat babies, I give 0 fucks about what a random nigga on the street does dress the way you wanna dress, act the way you wanna act, and do whatever the FUCK you wanna do many aspects of society are shit anyway

also jaden smith is weird af I swear the Illuminati got him

 

[iPRODiGY VGC]

Warning: unorganized ramble ahead


I don't have a problem with breaking down gender roles, I do have a problem with the way some people attempt to demonize masculinity (i.e. radical feminists). I remember when that kid went on that mass shooting (can't remember his name, but he posted a YouTube video about how he was rejected and how much of a travesty it was), and a bunch of people came out and said that this was an embodiment of "toxic masculinity".

I don't really give a shit about what color people associate with what gender, or what clothes people wear. I'm just tired of being forced to go to consent classes because I'm a man and might rape somebody, or that I'm privileged so my opinion doesn't count because I fit into my gender role.

All this identity politics bullshit does nothing but divide people further into categories, therefore amplifying the problem they're trying to fix. When I talked about this with some people at my tech school, I was immediately shut down because I was born a straight white male, and was therefore privileged. I grew up in south mountain in Phoenix. As a kid, I saw SWAT teams raiding houses. I heard drive bys often. I would come home from school hoping there would the food in the cabinets. I clawed my way up through sheer force of will. So when I see these upper middle class black people telling me I've had it easy all my life it really gets to me.

I'm not denying there's racism, I'm just tired of people making EVERYTHING about races, gender, and sexuality. Anyways, this was probably incoherent and rambly, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Also just an add on to prevent a double post, just because gender roles are a social construct doesn't make them inherently immoral or even unbeneficial. That is, in my opinion, a kind of informal logical fallacy thrown around a lot by the social justice community, and it doesn't really constitute a real argument.