Gender Identity, Gender Expression, & Gender Traits

[Valeria]

What i am curious about, is whether you are reflecting the mainstream view of Gender psychology. I have always had a bee in my bonnet about the way people with some gender dysphoria have been treated by the medical establishment. By and large, they seem to think you must be one thing or the other (2yr life test etc), but i find that kind of thinking to be at odds with what you write.

The portions of my post that deal with gender traits and gender differences are very much reflective of current mainstream psychology.

The other sections are certainly influenced by psychology, feminism, and gender theory, but they are largely my own opinions. In my experience, people really do vary independently in all those different aspects, so any analysis that treats them monolithically is going to be inherently flawed. Mainstream psychology is still trailing behind some in this area.

I've also been heavily influenced by being an active member of lesbian culture. Gender analysis tends to be very important to a lot of queer women - doubtless because our subculture has so many ways in which people can engage in gender performance. For instance, there are queer women that prefer to express their gender in a feminine fashion, but who are sexually attracted only to butch women. Stone butches are fascinating - their butch identity goes well beyong just preferring masculine gender expression, but they do not tend to identify as men. Anyway, I've seen a lot of gender variability along various axes, and that has greatly influenced my thinking.

Your post is very slanted towards you, your major in college notwithstanding.

Absolutely. My post is based upon my observations about the world, and my current level of understanding of various things. Contrary to your assumption, much of it is not drawn straight from a text book - just things like the consensus groupings for "masculine" and "feminine" traits, and how they are distributed across men and women (IOW, things that are easy to collect data on and statistically analyze). The rest is influenced by a lot of different sources and experiences.

I think you are being somewhat vitriolic and hope you will consider another academic viewpoint

I really don't think that I am being vitriolic, and I've conceded that Marla (for instance) may be closer to the truth than I am on some points. This is just one attempt to explain a complex subject. A working definition of gender identity is that it's entirely self-defined (so as long as you are happy, no more thought is required), but actually describing and analyzing gender (or identity) it is tricky. My post, even though it has been criticized by some as overly complicated, is if anything an oversimplification of a complex topic.

I also don't know anyone here who sees any of this as one-dimensional. Just about everyone who participates on this forum seems, IMO, to readily understand that gender identity exists, and that it goes well beyond socialization!!!!!!! Acceptance may be muddled for a few, but understanding that "it does exist" is clear. To go a step further, many who who post here know this instinctively, sans formal studies -- and are quite passionate and articulate!!!

My post is not an attack on the members of the forum, nor does it imply that no one else here has a well-developed view on gender (or that formal studies are required to form an opinion). Your assertion that *everyone* that posts here thinks of gender (not just sexuality and biological sex, but gender in isolation from those two areas) as a complex multi-dimensional construct does not match my experience in reading posts here. There are people that post that gender is just a social construct. There are people that post that gender (while independent of birth anatomy) is just a one-dimensional spectrum between "man" and "woman". There are people that assert that liking men is just a necessary consequence of their identifying as a woman. There are people that believe in biological essentialism, and post that our gender is determined solely by our birth anatomy (as manifested by our genitals). I've seen all of those viewpoints expressed in this forum, so we've clearly been reading different posts...

A great deal of the motivation for my original post was because I've seen people in other threads conflating (for instance) gender expression with gender identity, or gender identity with sexual orientation. I've never said that everyone here makes those assumptions, but they do occur.

Anyway, I really think that this forum is big enough to handle a thread specifically devoted to discussing gender on a little more of an academic level, for those interested in such things...

With all due respect -- and I truly mean no disrespect at all -- you write like you swallowed a survey textbook and highly selected abstracts. It is one thing to swallow a survey text or certain selected readings, it is quite different to analytically use comprehensive knowledge gained from years of comparative study, real-life experinces, etc.

Gee, how could I possibly find being told that I'm just regurgitating a text book, and that my reasoning lacks real world experience, as offensive or disrespectful?

Have you ever noticed how the phrase "with all due respect" is used almost exclusively by authors who know that what they are about to write is disrespectful? The implication being that the amount of respect that is "due" is relatively low.

In any case, I've been conciously dealing with and exploring gender issues for decades. I started dating as a woman more than 25 years ago. Yes, I've read books on the subject - in fact, I belong to a feminist book discussion group (with several trans guys and lesbians as members) devoted exclusively to exploring gender issues. I also belong to a queer women's social club whose primary purpose is to allow us to have fun with gender expression - including being as femme as we want to be. I also know several drag kings and lesbian burlesque performers in real life. I'm also a mod at a TS forum, and I have a bunch of close friends that are TS. And there is that little detail of actually having lived socially as both a man and a woman at different stages of my life. Telling me that I lack real-life experience (or that I've failed to integrate it into my opinions about gender) is pretty condescending, IMO.

IMO (b/c I do not presume to speak for them) this is why great sisters like Toyah and Karren, et al, get understandably tired of attempts to "over analyze, box and tag it."

The nature of the thread should have been pretty clear from the title, IMO - and last I heard we were all gifted with the freedom to not read threads that don't interest us! I'm not that interested in reading *lots* of the threads around here, but as a rule I don't post in them to question the point of the thread, or criticize the poster for wanting to talk about whatever they felt like discussing.

This post was for people that are exploring their gender (and who aren't as certain as Karren), and for people (like myself) who enjoy analyzing gender. I've received several PMs thanking me for this post, and saying that it was helpful to them in sorting through some issues, so I think that it was worthwhile even though you clearly disagree.

I also cannot help but note that most of your long post consists of you dismissing my opinions as naive, criticizing my posting style as vitriolic, and questioning the value of my having even started this thread - all without your making any serious attempt to discuss any of my ideas. This doesn't strike me as being a very positive contribution to this forum, but rest assured that due to time restraints I will soon go back to posting very little (especially outside of the TS sections).

IMO, she is representing her particular interest and slant, which is rooted, in no small part, in feminism.

Some of y'all act like "feminism" is a bad word around here!

But I do openly admit that my views have been influenced by feminism.

That's great -- but don't presume your audience's demographics, or hold yourself out as superior in education, research and study

Of course, I wasn't doing either of those things in that post. The person to whom I was responding stated that she didn't see the point in persuing such analysis, and I was merely explaining why it appeals to me. I also said that since she was happy with whom she was, she was completely correct that she didn't really need to engage in further analysis (did you just not read the first paragraph of my response to her?). I do it because I enjoy exploring the subject in more depth, and because I think there are important questions worth exploring. But most people are entirely correct to not care, just as I don't care about many other worthwhile academic fields.

Had yours measured lately? Seriously! Hormonal balances potentially play a significant role in transgenderism -- a medical area that is in its infancy.

Wow, what an offensive question! Seriously! Do you often question other people's hormone levels? Particularly after attacking them on other points?

Since you asked so nicely, my T levels were well within the normal range before I began HRT (though my body was mildly androgen insensitive). My pre-op T levels after I started HRT were exceptionally low - well below female norms (my body reacted very strongly to HRT). My T levels now are also quite low - something about the primary source of sex hormones having been surgically removed from my body. I know my estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin levels too, but I'm not inclined to share...

[PaulaJaneThomas]

Problem with your statement is the term 'gender'.

I didn't say gender, I said gender identity.

[Marla S]

I didn't say gender, I said gender identity.

Yes, you did. But if the term gender depends on outside influences (sometimes gender is called a construct) any combination of this term with any other term depends on outside influences. That's why I referred to the term gender only and 'gender identity' wouldn't change my statement.

I guess we might talk bit at cross-purposes though, having a different understanding of identity and Self.

[Toyah]

Well I did try to readit all but to be honest unless you are into "shrink" talk and self destructive paranoia about persona (bit of a common one that ) the only bit I got and understood was this :

How does all this relate to this forum? Well, a lot of people here have some strange concepts about some of these aspects of gender and identity. If you meet enough people (particularly queer people), you will find these components combined in pretty much every permutation imaginable. The mere fact that someone is high in "feminine" expressive traits does not mean they are a woman. The detail that someone is a woman does not mean that they ought to like men. Someone feeling happy dressing in a cross-gendered fashion does not necessarily imply anything about their gender identity or their sexuality.

That I totally agree with which is why I hate the TG nuts

[PaulaJaneThomas]

I guess we might talk bit at cross-purposes though, having a different understanding of identity and Self.

That seems likely.

[Carin]

Wow, another intellectual thread. If you keep this up the Admins are going to start charging $$$ to get on here.

This thread isn't for everybody, I know. But some of us really do appreciate the discussion. If everyone is on the same page, then the discussion is optional and academic. But when your real life situation with those close to you is challenging for yourself, your SO, you relationship etc., more information is better. I have a hard time when people say "You are what you are why analyse it - just enjoy it." If you do not have to factor this into a relationship - either because it is 100% accepted, or there is no relationship, then fine. Move on. But for those of us where the challenge of Gender Identity by itself rocks the core of the relationship, well I for one appreciate all the help I can get.

Wow.... Impressive!!
But call me shallow....

No, Ms. Shallow doesn't quite work somehow. I think we will stick with Madam President.

Thank you. This is informative and interesting. My partner is transgendered and on what she likes to call a "middle path" ~ but it has been challenging and difficult to understand because my brain wants absolutes and specifics. Your thoughts give me an alternative perspective.

That struck a cord for me. We may be in similar circumsances. It took me many years to get to the point (opening the door) where I could begin to understand what was going on for me. My SO also likes absolutes and specifics, and I wouldn't mind a few myself. The closer I get to understanding myself, the more I feel the need to understand the concepts of gender - identity, roles, traits etc. in order to have a rational discussion. I do not expect that we will ever get "the complete answer", nor is that necessary. But understanding comes from many places and information is one of them.

Why? It isn't all that complex or mysterious!!!

Are you kidding. Yes it is!!!

IMO (b/c I do not presume to speak for them) this is why great sisters like Toyah and Karren, et al, get understandably tired of attempts to "over analyze, box and tag it."

There is no "Required Reading" here. Use the "Next" button. I would love to see more discussion like this. It helps me. That it (one reason) why I come here. I am not trying to "box and tag it." I am trying to figure out how to continue a 25 year relationship.

[Sheri 4242]

Kehleyr,

Amazing the things I said that you left out -- or "altered." Hopefully the following will clear things up!!!

(1.) I did NOT attack you!!! I did (and do) take issue with portions of what you said and/or the way you said or presented your positions, all of which, though, is appropriate academic dialogue!!!

(2.) If I didn't think there were issues worth discussing -- with you and those who might be interested in your thread -- I'd have left it alone!!!

(3.) You do seem to be overtly angry. So, I will stand by my assessment that you come across as vitriolic. You also come across as a psychology prodigy, and you come across that you speak for the discipline; I agree with the former, but not the latter!!! Regarding the latter, I'd say you are positioning yourself to speak for a portion of the discipline.

(4.) You do not seem to allow for the fact that there may be others here who are highly educated and who may have even been on the other side of the podium. You take offense that I said you sounded like you had swallowed a survey textbook?!? Well, if you did, I am sorry, BUT, maybe that is my honest opinion -- and maybe I am of the opinion that you could be much more effective with a different tone and by speaking from all the literature and all that you have learned put into your own words -- your education, research, and observations all combined with your experiences stated with authority and not jargon. You obviously have some important contributions to make to have what you say come across to anyone as ultimately imitative!!! It is too easy to take one side and beat that single drum. There are feminists and there are feministst -- you can be one who stirs the pot and lets anger spill out, or you can be disciplined and effective. Your response to me was the first I've read that truly revealed anything about you, the person. Prior to your response to me, all I was hearing in my head when reading your previous comments was Billy Joel's Angry Young Man (no pun intended, though I guess we could see how there could be one in it). Not everybody who disgrees with "this or that" is necessarily against you!!!

(5.) I've been asked for my academic credentials on here a number of times, but have never told b/c in the end, every respectful person deserves the validation of their opinions and reasoning. I will state that in my fifty-something years, I have spent over half of it obtaining education. I am muti-disciplinary -- and I have spent half of my life on the other side of the podium, challenging, educating, and providing edification while working to increase my own knowledge. I am NOT mean-spirited. So, while you are right that many who say "with all due respect" don't really mean it, that doesn't mean every person who says it falls into that catagory.

(6.) When I asked about hormone levels, if you will read what I asked, it was a legitimate question and not meant to suggest anything to the contrary. I have discussed hormonal issues as they relate to transgenderism, bi-sexuality, and homsexuality a great deal on this forum. Just a week ago my wife was seriously wondering if she should get her's measured for some very specific medical reasons. Anybody who has followed my postings knows that I have a great interest in hormones and the effects of hormonal balances, both in the developing fetus, especially certain brain clusters, as well as during the lifetime of males and females -- child, adolescent, and adult.

(7.) You complained that my post was long, but I submit it wasn't nearly as long as yours, especially if we count your subsequent additions, defenses, and commentaries. Rather a moot point! Conversely, how can we have an academic dialogue on the crucial topics you've presented without delving into them completely?!!!

(8.) You say I was dismissive of your opinions, then you act dismisive towards my opinions. I disagree that I failed to make a positive contribution to your thread. If I failed at anything it was to agree with all you were espousing, which I hold is healthy and part of any academically sound exchange. You don't even note my personal contribution in re gender and gender identity.

(9.) I never said feminism was a bad word, or that a "feminist" was a bad thing to be!!! Is it me? No!!! But I will defend your right to be who and what you are -- the world would be a sad place if there was only vanillla ice cream (and Baskins & Robins would go out of business). And, as you point out elsewhere (that at one point you were directly answering one particular poster) when I said that you were IMO representing your particular interest and slant, I was clearly speaking to another's question, giving my opinion. I made no derogatory comment -- I just stated what I thought in response to another's question.

(10.) When you say (about me), "Your assertion that *everyone* . . .," you have misquoted me in a biased fashion. In context, I said on that particular point, "Just about everyone . . ." -- and that can be a big deal if someone reads your post ("Oh, Sheri said 'everyone.'") and doesn't read it contextually with what I did, indeed, say ("just about everyone. "). In fact, to be entirely within context, what I said was, "I don't know of anyone here who sees gender and gender identity as being on a strictly 100% female versus 100% male spectrum -- that's Anatomy 101. I also don't know anyone here who sees any of this as one-dimensional. Just about everyone who participates on this forum seems, IMO, to readily understand that gender identity exists, and that it goes well beyond socialization!!!!!!! Acceptance may be muddled for a few, but understanding that "it does exist" is clear. To go a step further, many who who post here know this instinctively, sans formal studies -- and are quite passionate and articulate!!!"

So, "just about everyone" -and- "seems" -and- "IMO" kind of leaves what I actually said open when put into qualified context. I'm pretty legalistic when I speak, so "just about," and "seems," and the qualifying "IMO" makes your accusation that I said "*everyone*" an incorrect characterization!!!

Perhaps we should start anew??? I'm not convinced we aren't that far off base in our mutual beliefs/studies!!!

I have a hard time when people say "You are what you are why analyse it - just enjoy it." If you do not have to factor this into a relationship - either because it is 100% accepted, or there is no relationship, then fine. Move on. But for those of us where the challenge of Gender Identity by itself rocks the core of the relationship, well I for one appreciate all the help I can get.

You're kidding, right??? People in different situations, even those that are in accepted relationships, can't benefit from a sound academic dialogue??? So they just need to move on??? Maybe they are the very ones who can specifically and dynamically help where, "the challenge of Gender Identity . . . rocks the core of the relationship . . ."

Are you kidding. Yes it is!!!

Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe things weren't as ordered as I usually state them -- such was yesterday (so, shoot me or forgive me) -- but that said, I do NOT find mysterious what I was tring to say, which is that a transgendered person is one whose gender identity is, to some greater or lesser degree, inconsistent with their sexual anatomy so that one's sense of gender is somewhere between feminine and masculine, male and female, by current standards . . . I don't know of anyone here who sees gender and gender identity as being on a strictly 100% female versus 100% male spectrum -- that's Anatomy 101. I also don't know anyone here who sees any of this as one-dimensional. Just about everyone who participates on this forum seems, IMO, to readily understand that gender identity exists, and that it goes well beyond socialization!!!!!!! Acceptance may be muddled for a few, but understanding that "it does exist" is clear. To go a step further, many who who post here know this instinctively, sans formal studies -- and are quite passionate and articulate!!!

In the main, the common modern academic, medical, and psychologic definition of trangendered is one with a cross gender identification that, on one end of the scale, is expressed as a need or desire to crossdress, from an inactive desire, to partially dressing (from a single article of clothing) to fully, with or without the goal of achieving sexual arousal, to those who desire to pass as the other sex, to those with a stated desire to be the other sex (desiring to live or be treated as the other sex). On the TS side of the scale there is usually persistent discomfort with one's sense of their gender and their actual anatomical sex.

Transgender identification and behaviors absolutely fall on a continuum between that which is currently held to be traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine.

[Satrana]

Unfortunately it is second wave feminists who remain in charge of the feminist establishment especially at the universities so public debate is still dominated by their twisted ideals and propaganda. These are also the people governments consult for gender issues. Women's Study classes at universities mostly teach second generation concepts.

Third generation feminists are more grass roots organized and do not have an official voice within government or in public discourse. Fortunately the internet favors grass roots ideas so these will increasingly become more dominant but we will have to wait another decade or two for the old guard to retire before feminism can get back to true gender equality ideals.