Gender Identity, Gender Expression, & Gender Traits

[Valeria]

There has been a lot of discussion in this forum lately about gender and identity. A lot of people seem to think that gender is a one-dimensional spectrum (100% woman to 100% man). Others think that gender is just a meaningless social construct, or that gender "identity" doesn't really exist at all. A select few have offered strongly worded opinions that we are whatever sex and gender we were born too, and implied that any of us that think otherwise are guilty of faulty mental processes (i.e. delusional).

Rather than continue to debate these various concepts in threads started for other purposes, I thought it would be better to start a new thread for the purpose of continuing this discussion.

My personal experience is that a one-dimensional model for all aspects of gender does not map very well to reality. Also, some of these concepts have been studied, and some of the opinions offered here are somewhat in conflict with research results. Anyway, I think that "gender" is a composite of a whole bunch of independent qualities, many of which are individually a spectrum. This is how I would currently break down gender into its component parts:

Gender Expression

This is arguably the simplest of the component parts of gender: How do you wish do express your gender externally?

This is also what this section of these forums is really all about. The people that post here, for the most part, want to express themselves in an extremely feminine fashion.

Gender expression can run from extremely feminine ("high femme", in lesbian terms) to extremely masculine. Some people want to engage in gender performance where they vary their outward expression at times over a wide range - for instance, while some people here would like to be ultra femmy all the time (if they could be), others want to vary from over-the-top feminine to extremely masculine. Personally, my expression is sort of that of a soft, low-maintenance femme most of the time, but I like to occasionally put on a pretty dress and look more feminine - maybe even wear makeup. I also fully intend to do the drag king thing someday, just for kicks.

This mostly seems like a one-dimensional spectrum, but the middle is kind of muddled. Most of the time, when someone says they are presenting "androgynously", they mean that their outward presentation is low on obvious gender cues - they are dressing in relatively gender neutral clothing. However, some people like presenting in a genderqueer fashion that is actually high in overt gender cues - for instance, having a beard and some visible tatoos that are very macho, while also wearing a dress and makeup. So it is arguably more completely modeled as a two-dimensional spectrum, with how masculine you wish to present AND how feminine you wish to present as separate variables - but those two variables are inversely linked for most people, so you can think of it as one-dimensional and be right most of the time.

One important thing to remember is that this component is more fluid than most other aspects of gender.

Gender Traits

By gender traits, I mean those traits that are often stereotyped as being associated with gender. Researchers have grouped the "masculine" task-oriented talents into a group of traits they call instrumental traits (assertiveness, self-reliance, ambition, leadership, decisiveness). The "feminine" social and emotional skills are called expressive traits (warmth, tenderness, compassion, kindness, sensitivity to others). Research has indicated that 25-35% of such skills are inherited, but the rest are socially acquired. Like all aspects of gender, most people follow the stereotypical pattern (women are higher in "feminine" traits", for instance). But there are many exceptions.

Our society strongly encourages men to be good at instrumental traits and poor at expressive ones, and women to be the reverse. But it often doesn't work out that way. Only 50% of men are "traditional" men (high in instrumental traits, low in expressive traits). 35% of men are androgynous (high in instrumental and expressive traits). The other 15% of men are split between being cross-typed (low in instrumental traits, high in expressive traits) and being undifferentiated (low in instrumental and expressive traits). Women follow the same pattern, only in reverse (so 50% of women are high in expressive traits and low in instrumental traits).

Incidentally, research has shown that traditional couples (where the man is high in instrumental traits and low in expressive traits, and the woman is the reverse) are less happy than couples where one or both members are androgynous. In particular, it is not very satisfying to live with someone that is bad at expressive traits (but people that are poor at instrumental traits are less capanble of self-independence and more inclined towards poor self-esteem, so that causes problems too). In an ideal world, everyone would be androgynous when it comes to gender traits.

Gender traits are clearly best expressed as at least a two-dimensional spectrum, treating "feminine" and "masculine" traits independently. For some purposes, it would be probably more accurate to treat the individual traits (like self-reliance and ambition) as independent variables, creating a multi-dimensional matrix.

Gender Roles

This relates somewhat to gender traits, but is slightly different. Gender roles, as I have chosen to define it, is a description for those gender-linked roles that a person chooses to fill. These can be quite general ("nurturer", "provider", "protector"), or quite specific (such as "home-maker" or "soldier").

Unlike some other aspects of gender, gender roles really are almost entirely culturally constructed. I'm not saying that evolutionary psychology doesn't present some strong arguments for why women and men are more inclined towards certain roles (it does). But still, we are no longer living in prehistoric times, and psychological traits that were adaptive to primitive man are often no longer socially adaptive. There may well be some biological reasons why women and men possess certain tendencies and traits in greater abundance than others, but the fact is that women can make excellent soldiers or protectors, and some men are perfectly capable of being excellent home-makers or nurturers.

The false reliance on the concept of "gender roles" for stereotyping people, and (worse yet) channeling people into certain professions, is one of the aspects of society that feminism has been trying hard to eliminate - but we still have a long way to go.

Gender Identity

The basic concept of identity is that a person's identity is her mental model of herself. It determines her awareness of self. It dictates how an individual views herself as a person. It relates to her individuation, her self-esteem, and her capacity for self-reflection.

Gender identity, in essence, is specifically how a person views their personal gender. Those of us that have gender dysphoria suffer from being uncomfortable with one's assigned gender.

Gender identity is NOT the same as gender expression - there are many examples of butch women and feminine men.

Gender identity is NOT the same as gender traits - 50% of all people are cross-typed, androgynous, or undifferetiated in gender traits relative to their gender. I know plenty of assertive women and sensitive men.

Gender identity is NOT the same as gender roles - I know women who are engineers and men who are home-makers.

I've oft seen the argument that gender identity is socially constructed. This concept is appealing - certainly, gender roles are socially constructed, and gender performance is strongly socially influenced. However, there is reason to believe that there is still a core sense of self that reflects a gender self-awareness independent of social factors.

There have been biological studies that have shown that rats can be induced to exhibit cross-gendered behavior (by manipulating prenatal and perinatal hormones). There have been numerous studies on intersexed individuals that have shown that merely assigning a convenient gender at birth (based on what the genitals can most easily be altered to resemble) is not effective. The "tabula rasa" ("blank slate") psychological theory of gender was very popular a few decades ago, but it is now widely viewed as discredited by more recent research. So with all due respect to those that insist that gender identity is just a social construct with no real meaning, I'm afraid that your theories, while they sound very nice, do not actually reflect reality very well.

In any case, it doesn't really matter to what degree gender identity arises from biological causes, and to what degree it can be attributed to early socialization. What matters is that for many of us it is real and unmutable.

Gender Differences

This is not another aspect of gender, but I wanted to note that while gender differences *do* exist, and there are many statistically significant differences between men and women, *most* of those differences are quite small (with a great deal of overlap between men and women). There are only a few characteristics where the difference is somewhat large. Incidentally, it should come as no great surpise to most of you to learn that sex drive and frequency of masturbation are two of the largest differences.

Sexuality

Sexuality is not really an aspect of gender, but our gender does influence how we express our sexuality (and our sexuality does often influence our gender presentation).

Sexuality is often a component of identity. Many heterosexual women identify as just that - straight women. That identification is often very important to their core being, which is part of why so many straight women have a difficult time coming to terms with a feminine (or even female) partner. It challenges who they are to their very core, in some of the same ways that being forced to live as a "man" challenges a transgendered woman. Some women discover that their sexuality is more flexible than they had previously believed and they are able to redefine their identity to a broader self-model that allows for being happy with a feminine or female partner. However, many cannot do this.

Being lesbian is definitely more than just a description of sexuality. In fact, I know women who are married to other women who do not consider themselves lesbians (although they do consider themselves dykes and queer women). The point is that, for many women, being lesbian is more than just a description of their sex life. Also, within the queer women community, sexuality is explicitly incorporated into identity in other very specific ways (I'll discuss this in more detail in the next section).

I would like to point out to all of the people that keep posting things like "they like men when they are enfemme because their feminine persona exhibits female sexuality" that they are making a heteronormative value judgement by equating "female sexuality" with "likes men". More simply put, every time someone posts that, they are implicitly insulting lesbians everywhere by implying that our sexuality is not that of a female. Grrr.

Similarly, I don't know of any lesbian women that like it when someone male-identified co-opts their identitity by claiming to be a male lesbian. As a feminist and a lesbian woman, I've got to say that this bothers me to a certain extent every time I see it.

Identity

Identity is more than just gender identity. It's more than just gender and sexuality rolled into one. But these aspects are very important to a person's identity.

Queer women have embraced this by developing a plethora of very detailed identities. For instance, I identify as a femme (used as a noun, not an adjective). Femmes are queer women that prefer to express their gender in a feminine fashion with a queer twist, and that tend to be high in expressive traits. There are many other categories ("transsensual femme", "stone butch", etc.). Many of these are *very* detailed, and incorporate gender traits and sexuality - not just gender identity and/or gender expression. This may seem like pointless labeling, but it makes some people happy to be able to encapsulate and describe their identity in this fashion. In some cases, I think it gives people that are gender-variant and/or sexuality-variant a sense of belonging to a group of like individuals.

When I describe myself, I usually use the word "woman", but I also often (or instead) use the words "femme" and/or "lesbian" (or "queer"). So I have been known to describe myself as a "femme lesbian woman" or a "queer woman".

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.

[RuthieER]

Thank you. I am impressed with your ability to pull these concepts together so well, and present them in a clear way.

Ruthie

[Marla S]

There has been a lot of discussion in this forum lately about gender and identity. A lot of people seem to think that gender is a one-dimensional spectrum (100% woman to 100% man).
Who says this ?
I think usually the spectrum is referred to masculine and feminine, which are reduced coordinates, so to speak, making the spectrum pseudo-one-dimensional.

Man-woman isn't a spectrum at all IMO. Probably best described as a cultural, linguistic, binary or two-sate system, rising the problem that the masculine- feminine spectrum has to be forced into the man-woman two-state-system .

The term spectrum is more a linguistic problem too. We could call it gender-hypersurface instead.
(I once made an attempt to illustrate this (http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=899150&postcount=1))

I'll come back to the other things you said later (I am a bit in a hurry now).

[Rosaliy Lynne]

and one I will have to re-read before I can give a coherent reply. You do make a lot of sense and some of what you say even jibes with what I think sowe seem to be on the same page.

thanks for the posting.

[AmberTG]

I can't really add anything to this discussion, but I am impressed with the thought process and detail that went into this post!
It's probably as close to the truth as we can get at this point in time. The question becomes "where do we fit in this set of dimensions?" Each person has to decide that for themself, if they choose to have "labels" to describe themself, some of us need labels, some of us don't.

[Marla S]

Hm, ok this is very well written but a bit too complex to cater to everything.

I'll focus on three things only:

1.) A general remark
IMHO it is a big deficiency of all this categorizations and conclusions drawn from it that they don't consider dimensions that heavily distort the spectrum (or hypersurface).
This dimension are 'experience', 'time', 'normality'.
IMO comparing closeted or part time CDs, non-TG GGs and GMs, or TS after their real life check is a bit tricky to pointless.

2.) Androgynous/ genderqueer

I'd have qualified myself as androgynous, but according to your concept I am neither that nor queer.

3.) Gender Idenity/Identiy


Gender Identity

The basic concept of identity is that a person's identity is her mental model of herself. It determines her awareness of self. It dictates how an individual views herself as a person. It relates to her individuation, her self-esteem, and her capacity for self-reflection.

Gender identity, in essence, is specifically how a person views their personal gender. Those of us that have gender dysphoria suffer from being uncomfortable with one's assigned gender.
This statement lacks a most important point: Heteronomy.
One's identity isn't only the personal view, if it would be we wouldn't be here. As least as important is how others see a person. The own identity is created by others or by the appreciation of others respectively, to a good part.
Identity is belonging to a group. The Self is partly defined by the group.
That's why a lot of us try to present as a member of the group 'women' (part time or full time), by mimicking their style, appearance, names, up to the point to want to having periods or becoming pregnant.
Because this group 'women' has distinctive marks, which are to a good part social constructs (biological characteristics excluded), even the own identity is partly a social, heteronomous construct and not only self-perception.

[MoonBaby GG]

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.

Would you give permission/mind if I quoted and copied your thoughts into my blog so I could read it privately during moments of confusion?

[PaulaJaneThomas]

Hm, ok this very well written but a bit too complex to cater to everything.

I'll focus on three things only:

1.) A general remark
IMHO it is a big deficiency of all this categorizations and conclusions drawn from it that they don't consider a dimensions that heavily distorts the spectrum (or hypersurface).
This dimension are 'experience', 'time', 'normality'.
IMO comparing closeted or part time CDs, non-TG GGs and GMs, or TS after their real life check is a bit tricky to pointless.

2.) Androgynous/ genderqueer

I'd have qualified myself as androgynous, but according to your concept I am neither that nor queer.

3.) Gender Idenity/Identiy


This statement lacks a most important point: Heteronomy.
One's identity isn't only the personal view, if it would be we wouldn't be here. As least as important is how others see a person. The own identity is created by others or by the appreciation of others respectively, to a good part.
Identity is belonging to a group. The Self is partly defined by the group.
That's why a lot of us try to present as a member of the group 'women' (part time or full time), by mimicking their style, appearance, names, up to the point to want to having periods or becoming pregnant.
Because this group 'women' has distinctive marks, which are to a good part social constructs (biological characteristics excluded), even the own identity is partly a social, heteronomious construct and not only self-perception.

I don't entirely agree. I think one's own sense of one's gender identity is independent of outside influence. What I would agree with is that the way we express that internal identity is partly social.

[Marla S]

I don't entirely agree. I think one's own sense of one's gender identity is independent of outside influence. What I would agree with is that the way we express that internal identity is partly social.
I only can speculate here, so don't :slap: me.

Problem with your statement is the term 'gender'.

The term 'gender' is recursive here (at least the non physical sex part) and in that already heteronomous.
Meaning the own sense for the own gender identity is (heavily ?) influenced by how gender is defined or which characteristics are assigned to a gender by the society.

Let me try to explain it from a different point of view:

Given we are born with a bouquet of traits, skills and know nothing about gender identity.

If this bouquet falls entirely, or to a major part, within the socially accepted range of traits, skills, privileges for the gender, that matches the physical sex, there is no problem.

If it does fall to a significant part into the regime of the opposite gender, we become transgendered.

Now think of a society where the 'gender specific' traits, skills, and privileges are distributed considerable differently than in our society.

IMO, with the same set of inborn traits and skills we (a lot) might become non-transgendered again, because our set now fits better to the social norms.
(Others will become transgendered instead, that aren't in our society).

Base line: The basis of the Self most likely is inborn, how we experience it is significantly determined by others (society) and we try to adjust to the 'others' to find our identity within an already existing group.
(I can be wrong of course)

[BarbaraTalbot]

I especially think there is a lot of confusion of apparent overlap between Gender Issues and Issues of Sexuality. I thought you covered that pretty well from a lesbian perspective.

It should of course follow that there is the same spectrum of sexuality in heterosexual and male homosexual relationships. It should be relatively easy to exchange pronouns and follow the logic. I think many will not make that leap though. It may be redundant but I would like to see that portion expressed in the words and style of the yours, Keyhler, I could attempt it but am quite sure my own biases, and lack of significant first hand knowledge and perhaps not as clear understanding of the issues would color it.

[Karren H]

Wow.... Impressive!!

But call me shallow.... I'm of the opinion that I am whom I am and like to do, act, and dress the way I like... And could care less why or where someone places me on the "gender grid". And IMHO knowing why wouldn't change a thing... I'd still love to crossdress.... Henceforth its not worth my time and effort to persuing... Doesn't add share-holder value!!

So I subscribe to the simplest model possible because the more complicated the model the more margin for error... Makes life a lot simpler if you don't have all that excess bagage to think about IMHO...

Karren

[Marla S]

I'd say that our concept of what our gender means is partially socially constructed, but our actual identity is more innate. But this is obviously subject to disagreement, and I'm not sure that it matters to most of us which is more true.
Practically it doesn't matter indeed, theoretically it could maybe.
I don't doubt the innate part. The contrary, I think it is more fixed than the social setup. But the social setup evaluates the innate part and gives it a meaning (with repercussive effect) and makes us experience ourselves as ________<add a label here.

An example: We are born with a more or less fixed cognitive abilities. Whether we experience ourself as clever or stupid, depends on how clever or stupid the members of our social surrounding are and how they judge us.
Our cognitive abilities and that part of our identity gets a meaning only by and in comparison to others.
The next level is to scrutinize judgment of the others, it might not be whole the truth.




Your point that life experience matters is true - but not to the extreme that only cisgendered people can ever truly express a given gender identity.
That is not what I meant.
I meant that it makes a difference if you have to express your gender identity all the time within an open social environment like TSs, non-TG GGs or GMs do (experience), or if you 'can'/have to express gender identity timely limited within a chosen social or non-social environment (i. e. closet, anonymity).
The latter is hard to compare to the first IMO, gender identity wise.
From my own experience, the setup of the latter was not sufficient to draw far reaching conclusions on my gender identity.

@androgynous
Because I am not a fan of the term queer (dispensable IMO), maybe we can agree on the most simple, and general definition of androgynous:
Sending mixed feminine and masculine signals.

Other than that: Great thought provoking thread, thanks.

[Fab Karen]

"they vary their outward expression at times over a wide range - for instance, while some people here would like to be ultra femmy all the time (if they could be), others want to vary from over-the-top feminine to extremely masculine."

What is your description of "extremely masculine"? Over-the-top is defined as what? Wearing make-up & dresses & heels? Then there are a lot of "over-the-top" GG's out there. I don't know if this is your intent, but we should be careful to avoid such black & white thinking. To suggest all part-time CD's would fit that description would also be a huge error.
Other than this, your post is a good discussion of the subject.

[Satrana]

IMO, with the same set of inborn traits and skills we (a lot) might become non-transgendered again, because our set now fits better to the social norms.
(Others will become transgendered instead, that aren't in our society).

Base line: The basis of the Self most likely is inborn, how we experience it is significantly determined by others (society) and we try to adjust to the 'others' to find our identity within an already existing group......

....that part of our identity gets a meaning only by and in comparison to others.


This is how I see it as well. The whole discussion about breaking down gender into components and believing that some of it is inherent to a person at birth becomes null and void because our understanding of the word gender is wholly determined by social values. Take away society and gender identity becomes a meaningless concept. Gender only has meaning when relating to other people otherwise there is just me.

The only thing which we are born with is Self. How the Self interacts with society then determines how gender is perceived by both the individual and by others.

I also believe that it is somewhat pointless to over-analyze this question of gender, not because it is not worth-while, but because we humans are not capable of perceiving who we are because there is a circular reference, meaning we feed back onto ourselves in an infinite loop. We also delude ourselves every second of every day thinking we are one type of person when we are not, and if you could view yourself through the eyes of another then this would become obvious.

A simple example is when you see yourself on video - you don't look, act or sound anything like how you believed yourself to be. But you don't let the video alter your image of yourself, you will stick with your own preferred ideal which is in your head.


This is not another aspect of gender, but I wanted to note that while gender differences *do* exist, and there are many statistically significant differences between men and women, *most* of those differences are quite small (with a great deal of overlap between men and women). There are only a few characteristics where the difference is somewhat large. Incidentally, it should come as no great surpise to most of you to learn that sex drive and frequency of masturbation are two of the largest differences. Many scientific tests that are designed to eliminate social pressures so the subjects feel no need to conform to gender, routinely produce results that do not show *any* statistically defined gender differences between men and women including qualities that most people would consider slam dunks like aggression and nuturing.

As far as sex drive and masturbation goes, these are classic examples of social conditioning. Contrary to what people think, large numbers of men have little sex drive and women have a lot more than society is willing to recognize. Women are brought up to believe that men should take the lead, and to want sex or masturbation makes them ****ty and immoral. Another common idea that girls inherit is that female genitalia is shameful and dirty and should not be touched. These differences are clearly culturally influenced.

I define gender identity as nothing more than an extension of one's Self, my personality, and it's interaction with others and the social values of my environment. Change the social environment and I could be labeled male, female or anything inbetween. The only fixed point is Self, everything else is transitionary. And I cannot know what my Self is since I only only experience Self through my internal lenses.

[Jazzmine]

I like the reasoning behind your essay. I have no problem with the complex analysis and dissection of the parts that make up "gender". It makes sense.

There is one area that theoretical analyses such as this falls down in though and that is for every further dissection you make you will find real people falling between the cracks (if you will excuse the terminology).
That is, for every theory you put forward in an effort to be all inclusive, you will find an exceptional person that has a foot in a different camp! Be it from nurture or nature.

And I don't know if over analysing our sexual preferences actually helps us in reality - but it does help to convince all the boring "straights" out there that we are legitimate members of the human race!

I describe my gender as male. I was born a bloke. I think pretty much like a male as well. And I don't mind this - I use it to my advantage when I want to.
On some days, and surprisingly it is often when I feel my male libido (need woman now) is at it's highest, I just want to be a woman. It screams at me until I get dressed then I feel comfortable, relaxed and at home. I want to dress like a woman, I want to feel like a woman and I want to be treated like a woman. If I could take a pill and POW become one then I would. But having a male lover turns me right off. I want a woman lover and indulge in her womanliness (Is that a new word?).

I have no conception of degrees of being a female/male - it is just want to be a woman NOW or a man NOW. In the morning when I get up to go for a training ride or run, then all I want to be is the fastest man on the street. Chest out, sweating hard, going for it and don't get in my way, buddy. But after that I may decide, on a whim, to dress like a woman and pamper myself and feel feminine for a while.

So there, you see, I probably fall between your theoretical cracks. I am inconsistent but not confused. I am comfortable with both sides, sometimes at the same time. Oh you could categorise me I'm sure but then I would have to have the final say on that because only I know me! And being a good woman I may just change my mind on you!

Hugs Jazzmine

[Kate Simmons]

When all is said and done, we are who we are, no matter what the "definitions" say.:happy:

[Donna Marie]

Well, goodness me, but this all very deep. Certainly well written and carefully thought out, but beyond me. As a few have already said, "I yam who I yam when I yam." I slip back and forth from femme to masc. as whatever this spirit that is in me determines. I have noticed that in recent years I have become much more emotional. Don't know if that is plain old age & experience rounding the hard edges or my increasing femme side speaking out. I just know it is nice to dress up and try my best to represent my female self (as I am at the moment), and it is also nice to revert to the guy I also am. But thanks for this article and for the many interesting replies - it all begs to be re-read with as much care as was put into the original post.

[Marcie Sexton]

There is a lot of good information there, and no doubt a lot of help to some who need help in defining themselves, however I have come to terms with myself and figured out who and what i am.

I don't mean to detract from your information, but for me its just a wee bit to much info...

[Toyah]

I really dont feel this obseffive need to define myself or my gender (Male if ya must know) I am me and happy as I can be with that :D

[tvbeckytv]

I find myself pretty much in agreement with every word you wrote Kehleyr. 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.

[Fab Karen]

Hmm.



The short response to what is "over-the-top" is "I know it when I see it". :p If you really don't think that some of the people in this forum like to push the boundaries well beyond dressing up in a little black dress for a semi-formal occasion, I think we are reading a different forum.



OK, so your definition is, "beyond dressing in a LBD for semi-formal occasion" as I said, a LOT of GG's are therefore "over-the-top"

[Marla S]

I've reread the post (it is worth rereading it several times) and another thought popped up.
(Actually not really related to the intention of the thread, though.)



Gender Traits

[...] In an ideal world, everyone would be androgynous when it comes to gender traits.

Gender Roles



The false reliance on the concept of "gender roles" for stereotyping people, and (worse yet) channeling people into certain professions, is one of the aspects of society that feminism has been trying hard to eliminate - but we still have a long way to go.

The ideal of a certain amount of androgyny, can't be reached solely by feminism.

I'd got so far to say that the traditional feminism is close to the end of the road and can't reach much more (at least not in the Western world).

That's because they fought predominately for the freedom of women to choose formerly exclusive 'masculine' traits, privileges too, thereby accepting the freedom of men to choose feminine traits and privileges only insofar as it supports that purpose, without really having an effect on the feminine territory.

The major part of the way would have to be gone by masculinism that fights for the freedom of men to choose actual 'feminine' traits and privileges.

In short: The fulfillment of feminism is masculinism. IMO this would have a big impact on TG too.

[Sheri 4242]

Your post is very slanted towards you, your major in college notwithstanding. In fact, because of your slant, I think you are being somewhat vitriolic and hope you will consider another academic viewpoint -- from the other side of the podium, so to speak . . . just note before reading further that, "I come in peace, regardless if we agree or disagree." :love:

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. An androgynous personality incorporates positive qualities of both.


There has been a lot of discussion in this forum lately about gender and identity. A lot of people seem to think that gender is a one-dimensional spectrum (100% woman to 100% man). Others think that gender is just a meaningless social construct, or that gender "identity" doesn't really exist at all. A select few have offered strongly worded opinions that we are whatever sex and gender we were born too, and implied that any of us that think otherwise are guilty of faulty mental processes (i.e. delusional).

The discussion has been on-going for quite some time -- as long as I have been here, and from researching old threads, for a whole lot longer.

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!!!


Rather than continue to debate these various concepts in threads started for other purposes, I thought it would be better to start a new thread for the purpose of continuing this discussion.

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

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."

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. It is sort of like the gray scale, which is why a single, broad brush appoach is confusing and conter-productive.


What i am curious about, is whether you are reflecting the mainstream view of Gender psychology.

IMO, she is representing her particular interest and slant, which is rooted, in no small part, in feminism. The world of academia cannot, itself, be painted with one brush. (This is my opinion from having been on both sides of the podium for a great number of years.)


I have always had a bee in my bonnet about the way people with some gender dysphoria have been treated by the medical establishment.

So, too, have many of us. That said, as I have noted many times in the past, current medical literature on diagnosis and therapy suggests "accomodation and acceptance" as the current best course. This is slowly becoming the benchmark although it isn't yet universal among mental and general health care professionals


Anyway, I was pretty much paraphrasing from peer-reviewed studies and current psychology text books when I wrote about gender differences (including what I said about sex drive and masturbation). If you have links to studies that prove otherwise, I'd love to see them.

It shows -- and the acid test is asking for another to prove themself with their sources when you have provided none. This isn't to put you down -- in fact, I hope you are open-minded enough to see that when you make such a broad, sweeping assessment as you originally did, and do so as if it is indisputable fact, it makes some look extra hard for the cracks in your statement's very foundation.


I really dont feel this obseffive need to define myself or my gender (Male if ya must know) I am me and happy as I can be with that :D

As many times as we have "happily" been around the block on this subject ( :D ), things change when the objective meets the subjective by additional dynamics, such as, in this case, throwing feminism into the mix.


As it happens, I'm a psych major AND a lesbian feminist - so the "why" and the details of "what" and "how" matter a great deal to me.

That's great -- but don't presume your audience's demographics, or hold yourself out as superior in education, research and study -- there are a number of highly educated people who participate on this forum -- and there are those who, with or without post grad education, have spent decades pragmatically studying every bit of available research, every possible hypothesis, and many research studies.


Testosterone has a known significant effect on sex drive for men and women, and men have significantly more testosterone in their bodies than women. That alone would be enough to produce a significant difference between men and women.

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

[Satrana]

I'd got so far to say that the traditional feminism is close to the end of the road and can't reach much more (at least not in the Western world).

That's because they fought predominately for the freedom of women to choose formerly exclusive 'masculine' traits, privileges too, thereby accepting the freedom of men to choose feminine traits and privileges only insofar as it supports that purpose, without really having an effect on the feminine territory.

The major part of the way would have to be gone by masculinism that fights for the freedom of men to choose actual 'feminine' traits and privileges.

In short: The fulfillment of feminism is masculinism. IMO this would have a big impact on TG too.

I agree yet again Marla. Feminism has indeed reached the end of the road, indeed its innate sexist viewpoint which was so necessary to get the hard work done is now self-defeating. The main goals have been achieved but it has resulted in revealing the breadth of gender restrictions males face but which feminism has no interest in correcting unless it benefits women and does not trespass on feminine privileges.

I do wonder if a worthy masculinism effort will ever be mounted since there is no evidence that non-cd men want to acquire female privileges. It seems to me that we will likely end up getting these privileges not through masculinism but through progressive liberal individualism for everybody. Liberal individualism is inherently free from sexism and promotes true equality for all. This is what I am betting on to get us to a fair society where traditional ideas of gender will become increasingly irrelevant and quaint.

[Marla S]

I do wonder if a worthy masculinism effort will ever be mounted since there is no evidence that non-cd men want to acquire female privileges. It seems to me that we will likely end up getting these privileges not through masculinism but through progressive liberal individualism for everybody.
I do agree that it probably will be/has to be individualism.
Masculinism, as I read it, rather tries to defend the 'remaining male domains' or tries to cut the edges of an overshot feminism.
In that current masculinism is rather an anti-feminism with the respective potential for conflicts.
Both 'movements' are lacking the core equal opportunity movements should focus on:
Equally valuing feminine and masculine traits and privileges and a free choice for the individual to select the bits that suit a personality best.

Feminism failed to make feminity a value that can be desirable for everyone (probably wasn't the intention), masculinsim preserves that fault.

As someone in an older thread stated:
They shouldn't have burned the bras, they should have handed it over to their hubbys.

[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? :rolleyes:

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! :p

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 :
:D
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:thumbsdn:

[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. :D



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.