Male Entitlement to Women's Spaces

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooey

Right - "Not all men". I KNOW "not all men" are like that, but when "basically no men" publicly stand up to the ones that are, including on this forum, then it's still a problem.

---

You're painting with that broad stroke again. I'm approaching my seventh decade on this planet. I've lived through the years when women were told their place was in the kitchen and taking care of babies. Yes, there was a revolt by women who did not ascribe to that belief. When 14 million men were in the military during World War 2 the women filled the factories and flying airplanes (WASPs). The "Genies" were not going back into the bottle. It was still a male dominated country post World War 2, but, there was enough "Genies" teaching their sons and daughters that they could achieve anything they set their hearts on to it. It was men like me that ensured my daughter and wife were afforded the same opportunities my son was afforded. The young women I know are professionals; teachers, accountants, physicians, engineers and construction workers. And, I have encountered many many male nurses and nurse practitioners too. And teachers. Frankly, there are a heck of a lot of us men in the country who have tried to make it an even playing field for our daughters and wives. Just look at the percentages of women vs men in college these days, and, the disciplines they are studying.

Yes, there is still a problem in this country when too many men and some women do not even want to pass an Equal Rights Amendment. And, then too many women also want to maintain the status quo.

I may be off topic but use the broad strokes when painting the side of the house.

Stephanie,

I don't think you are off topic. I don't want to start a TERF war here or anything, but from the inception of this thread, there has been an undertow of militant feminism that goes beyond equality into the "how dare you" category.

The irony is the basis for the argument has been "You're not really a woman, stay out of our clubhose" that TERFs regularly use to dismiss transom en of all stripes. You can't say you are gender fluid, because I don't think that exists sounds EXACTLY like you can't say your TS because I say that doesn't exist.

Why do we care whether or not CDs use the women's restroom? Honestly, this discussion is much like the arguments the TERFs make against trans women, substituting *identity* for *biology*.

BTW, I asked about safety in a thread with some of those women, and they told me if I was attacked to take it up with the other men, that expecting women to deal with my problems with violence from men was an example of trying to reinforce male supremacy. These were not very compassionate women.

I hope the trans community can show more mercy.

It is very difficult not to hate people some days.

I think CDs are entitled to use gender segregated spaces with privacy like restrooms and changing rooms because of safety, because I'm compassionate, and because it is nearly impossible to distinguish between a CD and a trans woman who is starting out, or faces the inability to jump through whatever legal hoops might be created to enforce such segregation but allow us in. Because I don't believe there will BE such an exception for trans women, post-op or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooey

This is some serious MRA junk right here.

but our privilege does not extend to institutional and systematic benefits in the way that male privilege does.

---

Actually this is not entirely true, for example there are currently 2,888 men on death row in the US and only 55 women on death row. 90% of convicted murderers are men, 10% are women. If women didn't receive "institutional and systematic benefits" the number of women on death row would be about 288....the male privilege most people generally are concerned with usually has other factors, like race and socioeconomic class...if I as a woman, entered a men's room dressed in traditional male clothing, it is doubtful I would be escorted out, but a man dressed in traditional women's clothing enters the ladies', is more likely to have security called and it some places even cited. As much as I hate to admit, female privilege does exist so does male privilege, it's a matter of context.

Lorileah,

Fantastic answer and one that I wholeheartedly support. I just couldn't be bothered in justifying myself, my thoughts and feelings to anyone and quite honestly, delving into the futile intransigence that such discussions engender.

Becky

Zooey, How do you feel about the Muirfield Golf Club... Supportive? http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2016...ld-bans-women/

Genderism (its not sexism it has nothing to do with sex) is the problem. Do I walk around "identifying as male". No. No more than I walk around identifying as white. Those are veneers. A male and female may have more in common than two males. An african-american and caucasian may (commonly do) share more DNA than two african-americans.

Affinity to All-Encompassing Dichotomies: The academic propensity among philosophers to create dichotomies, not recognizing the possibility that there is a continuum of which the two members may be at best end points.

Just so everybody knows how I look at these discussions...

PaulaQ and I disagree on a number of things. I also think she's fantastic, and we've talked quite a bit about this and other issues. Debate is valuable. Much like Jenny Boylan and Kate Bornstein, we are diametrically opposed in some ways, but can also be friends while standing on the common ground we do have. I enjoy it when people make me think, as some of you in this thread have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nothingclever

Actually this is not entirely true, for example there are currently 2,888 men on death row in the US and only 55 women on death row. 90% of convicted murderers are men, 10% are women. If women didn't receive "institutional and systematic benefits" the number of women on death row would be about 288....the male privilege most people generally are concerned with usually has other factors, like race and socioeconomic class...if I as a woman, entered a men's room dressed in traditional male clothing, it is doubtful I would be escorted out, but a man dressed in traditional women's clothing enters the ladies', is more likely to have security called and it some places even cited. As much as I hate to admit, female privilege does exist so does male privilege, it's a matter of context.

---

Oh, don't get me wrong. Female privilege absolutely exists, and it's equally important to recognize it.

I do believe, however, that when looking at the issues of equality in the US (for example) women have been on the receiving end of systematically engineered inequality in much the same way as people of color have, with women of color losing out BIG TIME by way of combination. I'm not trying to equate their experiences or the extent of the discrimination at all, but the mechanism of the problem's creation is similar. Ultimately, straight white cis men have some of the biggest privilege of anybody in this country, while I would argue that queer trans women of color have some of the least. There are a million other combinations strewn about in the middle.

Allison - with respect to that golf course, I assume that like most such clubs it is a private institution which is generally open only to invited members. If men want to have a space, I have no problem with that. It is also the British Open's right to state that they only support clubs which are gender neutral. I applaud the British Open for promoting equality in sports, and while I disagree with their reasons, I respect the rights of the club to make their choice. Where I would have a bigger problem with the club would be if they were whining publicly about the British Open's decision. Everybody is entitled to make a choice, but they have to be willing to live with the consequences.

So, we agree that human beings in general have a tendency to discriminate against anyone in whom they find differences. I think that's a sane perspective. I also think that knowing that, it's important that we suspend our prejudices and consider the context here. The average straight male CDer, presenting as a female, for all intents and purposes identifying as a female is not asserting male privilege by using a restroom for anything other normal restroom activities. After enduring the worst kind of victimization by male privilege, women and their male supporters have made incredible differences in societal attitudes and legal reforms. I'm thinking right now of sexual assault in the military. Now, a civilian police matter rather than an internal military matter. The fight is real and I pray sanity will prevail. Nitpicking a person's gender detracts from the real war, and like PaulaQ said....even a post op trans woman is likely to receive the same treatment as a CDer if gender is used to refuse access to a necessary public facility. Someone said something about the little person on the door, it's a picture of a person in a dress...I would expect anyone presenting as a female to use that door. It's reasonable.

For those who use to travel the open road on vacation and were dying for a gas station so they could go to the bathroom and only had one choice didn't stop to contemplate. They just went in and locked the door behind them. There was no gender stamp to complicate the situation. Solve the problem and discussion by having everyone convert their facilities to accommodate everyone with the sign labeled Bathroom and make sure there's a lock on the door!

The biggest problem in my opinion is the labels, i'm a man, i'm a woman, its a dress, its a tunic, i'm gay, i'm hetero. (And i also do not like crossdresser) i am jasme by myself, if some dude calls me gay then i am gay to him, does this suddenly change my own outlook on myself? No. A dress is a dress, its also fabric formed to a shape that becomes a dress when its called a dress, if i form the same fabric to the same shape and call it a oobie foobie, then its a oobie foobie to me. (But still can be called anything from others)
unfortunately we need to further diversify the labeling because i guess there is a classification chart of gay/not gay enough etc....
I will say though, safety is the best option, if that is a worry. But i wont disregard the continuous fight for a woman and her rights of equality and certainly understand her feeling of intrussiveness from the men who have the world

I wonder if crossdressers can play at Muirfield... in pants :)

But, seriously, many businesses are private institutions which are open to employment by invitation only. You don't believe that discrimination is OK in that context, right? What's the difference?

Well Zooey, when I am female and go to the womens room I have no unease about it either. It seems that you and only you can use the womens room. I have said that we are in the same boat and we need to work together and you keep saying I am a woman but you can not ever enter that space because you struggle with your identity. But as I said you, me are on the same boat. Why are you nicely fighting with us and not even listening to the genetic women here or any of us. BY golly where do you get these thoughts that we are men men men. You want us to say we are women. On this site i said when I came here that the majority of the CDS were women. I had to find my voice in here as I am something you don't even think exist. I have stated that in my struggle that I am more on the female side and that was a switch I was concerned about. You know not where any of us are and we just need to pee in a safe place and I challenge you to use the male bathroom because you are a woman. Yeah like me. Just cause you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllisonS

But, seriously, many businesses are private institutions which are open to employment by invitation only. You don't believe that discrimination is OK in that context, right? What's the difference?

---

I see where you're trying to go with this, but employment is not the same, under the law, as membership. They are very, very different concepts.


Can we please, please, please stop talking about bathrooms? I get that it's a hot topic, and I have opinions on and issues with it (obviously) that not everybody agrees with. I honestly hope that we can just make bathrooms gender neutral. I think it's the best choice in the long term, for a variety of reasons. I agree that, right now, CD men are safer using the women's room when presenting female than they are in the men's room. I also think the fact that that's true is a huge problem, and one we should all be working to solve.

I'm talking about the philosophy of gendered spaces, and entitlement to access them. Let's assume that all bathrooms have been made gender neutral - they are no longer an issue.

Given an arbitrary women's space, is a CD who self-identifies as a man but happens to be presenting as a woman at the time entitled to access that space? Why?

No one is entitled to anything, whats the point of this?

Zooey, I think you and I are opposite sides of the same coin. We both believe there are gender issues that need to be addressed, we both realize that we, as women, face ongoing discriminatory practices in this society and we both believe that everyone should be treated equally. The difference is in our approach. You want clearly defined gender lines, I advocate total integration. Given the failure of "separate but equal" policies in US history, I believe total integration is first, most reasonable and second, inevitable. We are both passionate about our beliefs, but the truth is our philosophies aside, there are practical considerations. I think what is likely to happen is more and more you and I and our respective supporters will have to compromise until a new societal norm is established. In the meantime, it is sometimes necessary to use opposite gender spaces, for both genders. So, your passion would probably be better directed at one of the more urgent issues women are currently facing. Like, rape on college campuses or the fact that women still make a quarter less than men on average for the same jobs. The reality is, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Where someone goes to the bathroom is a media hot button, not a true gauge of the average person's views on gender inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooey

Can we please, please, please stop talking about bathrooms? I get that it's a hot topic,

---

and has it's very own sticky

Quote:

---

Given an arbitrary women's space, is a CD who self-identifies as a man but happens to be presenting as a woman at the time entitled to access that space? Why?

---

Given the fact YOU don't know without a name tag, the answer has to be "Yes". How does one know? You are making very fine cuts on this. Pre-op non hormonal TSs who because of life can only present as a woman 3 hours a day? Or do we need a tag on CD's (maybe a radio collar?). And do they have to proclaim that they are 51% woman? (they and we will never be "female" that is a genetic marker unless you are Chimera or other three gene model, but that goes in a whole new direction). Or are we going to slice this so thin that the small number of CDs here who yell from the mountaintop they are MEN above all (and how do we know?).

This seems an exercise in either futility (since we already have GGs here who say even the TSs can't be women...and yet we are) and we have the TSs saying CDs can't be real. OR this is going to ust be a thread about throwing rocks and not in any one direction. Reminds me of debate class. Do we need an affirmative team and a counter? Then we need a resolution.

Resolved: men have privledge (well shoot that won't work, I think we agree on that)

Resolved: Crossdressers who dress on alternate Saturdays cannot use "Women's" designated facilities. OK how about if they don't dress at all but would like to? How about the first outing? How about when they buy the first dress?

If I have to stand on one side of Zooey's apparent resolution, then I have to disagree. There are too many random caveats. Yes, even though I have jumped the broom I have to side with the crossdresser who goes out once a year to have the right to use "safe" area that are designated as women's. I would like to exclude anyplace that allows any total nudity but that would be hypocritical.

Example, Zooey, Womyn's gatherings. You would be excluded because you are not BIOLOGICALLY female. You may have all the parts, you may have all the mind sets. Hell you may even have a lesbian lover. But you still CAN'T go. So....how does this fit in your sphere? I say, I'm a woman. They say I am not. It's their playground. Technically (unless it is on private property) they HAVE to let everyone in. Yet, they don't (ultimate privileged, yes?). I know you excluded memberships but really again, you start slicing awful thin. Just public spaces? (ladies night at the clubs?). Been debated in court, found illegal (and yet still done...mostly because the privileged males don't want to fight it). Where does one draw a line? Is there a magic moment? Honestly, open areas where males and females would be nude bothers me but that's my social stigma (even now I shudder the dressing area for the steamroom worried about confrontation).

So, where does one draw the line? Do the members here have to have posted somewhere they are men in dresses and then we put them in the corner?

nothingclever, I largely agree with what you wrote, and rest assured I spent a lot of time on those other issues too - I just don't do it here. I spend a lot of time talking to young women interested in careers as software engineers who get put in touch with me by friends, to talk about gender in the game industry and how to succeed both individually and to help improve the situation. We have the same discussions in both women's and mixed-gender groups at work - a lot. I'm proud to have been able to participate in activities with Girls Who Code and Amy Pohler's Smart Girls, two groups who I think are doing incredibly important work to encourage young women to pursue their interest in technology careers.

One of the questions I'm prompting in this thread is, "do gendered spaces have value"? One important distinction that I'm making is that "gendered spaces" are not limited to "gender-segregated facilities", like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.

Is it valid/valuable to have, for example, a women's only discussion group? If so, should self-identified men who are presenting as female at the time be included in those groups?

Personally, I think they DO have value, and I don't think that men - regardless of presentation - should be included. I think that - in general - we should look carefully at whether any space being a gendered space affords it additional value to the participants or not. Those that don't, should probably not be gendered spaces. Those that do, should be allowed to exist, and respected.

Lori, I do not try to force my way into "womyn's groups", but I will happily invite "womyn" into my "women's groups" if they are civil and willing to be respectful and debate rather than fight. I'm also not talking about whether or not I can tell what somebody is by looking at them. I'm asking why they would feel entitled to join that space in the first place, and whether or not that's appropriate.

Again, let me preface this by saying that what I'm about to say here is not specifically about bathrooms or other (currently) gender-segregated "facilities".

As far as "the line" goes, any CD who tells me they're not strictly a man is somebody for whom I'm open to the idea of accessing women's spaces, even if I'm not 100% comfortable with it. I'm not talking about saying "I'm a woman when I dress"; I'm talking about saying "my identity is mixed, I express it differently at different times, but as such I am never strictly a man".

If somebody is one of the many CDs here who do assert their manhood directly, then I'm sorry - you are opting out. By asserting yourself as "a man", you have also asserted yourself as "not a women". I'm respecting their self-identification, in their own words, in saying this.

Zooey, I really believe that our core beliefs are the same. However, I don't agree that gendered spaces have value. In fact, I think they breed misinformation and gender hostilities. There was a time in the not too distant past when these "discussion groups" and "gendered spaces" were important and necessary and they contributed to equal rights for all regardless of gender. Now, they have become a bit redundant. How can we expect men to be enlightened to the ongoing discrimination and even harassment of women when they are consistently left out of the discussion?

That said, your original premise was that straight male CDers feel entitled to invade spaces designated "women only" and from what I perceive to be the average CDers feelings on their own identity when dressed, that's just not true.

As Lorileah has said, who is qualified to judge these things? I can't.

I didn't mean to imply you weren't actively focused on improving the lives of women in other areas of society. Given your passion for women's rights, I figured you would be. I respect your passion, I just feel this particular issue is not relevant to the struggle for gender equality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooey

I see where you're trying to go with this, but employment is not the same, under the law, as membership. They are very, very different concepts.


Can we please, please, please stop talking about bathrooms? I get that it's a hot topic, and I have opinions on and issues with it (obviously) that not everybody agrees with. I honestly hope that we can just make bathrooms gender neutral. I think it's the best choice in the long term, for a variety of reasons. I agree that, right now, CD men are safer using the women's room when presenting female than they are in the men's room. I also think the fact that that's true is a huge problem, and one we should all be working to solve.

I'm talking about the philosophy of gendered spaces, and entitlement to access them. Let's assume that all bathrooms have been made gender neutral - they are no longer an issue.

Given an arbitrary women's space, is a CD who self-identifies as a man but happens to be presenting as a woman at the time entitled to access that space? Why?

---

Fair enough. I only have one thing to offer: Both times gendered spaces were created (in Biblical times and during the Industrial Revolution), they were created by men, for the specific and express purpose of subjugating women, keeping them "in their place" and restricting them, both physically and heirarchically, for the articulated purpose of "protecting" them. I don't know how old you are, but I am just old enough to remember the days of the feminist movement in the 1970's -- and the times before, when in any large office environment there was a specific women's "lounge" (usually adjacent to or part of the women's restroom). Few people other than feminists really saw the truth of this -- that this was not a special protected place for women so much as it was a gilded prison meant to keep women out of the boardroom unless they were a secretary who was allowed in to deliver papers and coffee.

Once you start letting women serve in combat roles in the military, what is the need for gender specific spaces? Why do women still need "protecting?"

Everyone who is vulnerable needs protecting, not just women. There need to be private spaces, protected spaces. But they do not need to be attached to generalized categories like gender. They need to be available to anyone who needs them, whether that person is gay, straight, transgender, crossdresser, genderqueer, needs to tend to an elder or disabled person, or has an autistic kid who is in sensory overload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nothingclever

I really believe that our core beliefs are the same. However, I don't agree that gendered spaces have value. In fact, I think they breed misinformation and gender hostilities. There was a time in the not too distant past when these "discussion groups" and "gendered spaces" were important and necessary and they contributed to equal rights for all regardless of gender. Now, they have become a bit redundant. How can we expect men to be enlightened to the ongoing discrimination and even harassment of women when they are consistently left out of the discussion?

---

I agree with much of what you said. At the same time, having participated in a lot of these discussions/meetings at work - where we discuss the same topic in both women's only and mixed gender groups - the amount of speaking time that the women receive in mixed-gender groups is far from proportional to the ratio of men and women in the group, regardless of the relative seniority of the men and women in the room. People who have learned to be door mice in mixed-gender groups often become very vocal and come up with the best ideas when they feel free to explore them without interruption or condescension.

This is a problem that spans both sides of the gender divide, but because of this I believe that women's only groups are still valuable, up to a certain point in a discussion.

Men need to be in the loop, and many of them need to learn to listen more effectively so that they can hear things from women, but women - at least right now - still benefit from women's spaces during the ideation phase. Many women do need to learn how to assert themselves better, but in order to start placing blame there we need to fix the remaining problems associated with them effectively being punished by men for doing so.

As much as I hate to draw this parallel, we're not done with affirmative action yet either. Our laws now provide for equality, but we are still hard at work on leveling the actual playing field after decades and centuries of intentionally digging ditches on one side to build mountains on the other.

Men still feel free to assume that they are the dominant force, with their tone allowed to be the "default". Just this morning, there was a long email thread sent to my entire team (200+ people) about somebody who apparently peed on the floor in the men's room. Lots of joking, making fun of the mystery individual, with crude humor, some of which was pretty offensive. Nobody called them on it - the women simply didn't comment. Watch what happens when a woman starts a whole team email thread about somebody leaving pee on the seat (not that any of us would likely send that email). I guarantee you at least one guy will respond with "unsubscribe" within 2 minutes, and that will be the end of it.

Here's my problem with this logic and it is based entirely on my own experience and is not necessarily a reflection on all women's experience:

I was born right as the equal rights movement was gaining ground. I was raised to demand equal treatment while also expecting preferential treatment all because I was a girl. I was taught to guard myself and my "spaces" from invasion by men while at the same time I was expected to be indignant if I were denied access to anything considered "male only". I realized this was hypocrisy, but I lived my life accordingly. I personally have no problem reporting sexual harassment if a man, say, implies he would like to have sex with me in the workplace. On the other hand, I will smile and bat my eyelashes when asking the same man to trade shifts with me. It's a hypocrisy I have learned because and unfortunately, I think "women only" groups perpetuate this mindset.
I have also been taught to assert myself and I know many men who are incapable of self-assertion. I don't believe these groups are safer for women to assert themselves, I have seen too many angry females shouting each other down to believe this is true.

Still, this seems to be getting off track....I believe straight male CDers most often identify as female when dressed and therefore should be allowed to use women only spaces. I don't believe they are abusing a sense of male entitlement in doing so. If they are, then I would be guilty of using female entitlement when I use their facilities and that hardly seems to cause a ripple in this sea of controversy.

Since I am not qualified to determine if a person truly sees themselves as male or female, I err on the side of caution. If you behave appropriately in a public space I accept your presence as perfectly normal. If you don't, regardless of gender or presentation, I will have a problem with you. I expect exactly the same treatment.

clever, I think we agree on a lot of things, including the hypocrisy you mentioned. In the context of this thread, the main thing I think we really see differently is how we interpret an ordinarily man-identified CD's identity while dressed. Our other differences largely stem from that, I think. It's a fundamental theorem for each of us, since whatever you believe there forms the basis of pretty much all the conclusions that follow. Your conclusions make perfect sense to me if I were to accept your fundamental theorem, and I would like to think that the opposite is true as well.

So, let's agree to disagree. Thank you for some really interesting back and forth over the last two days, and if you're ever in the SF bay area then look me up and let's hang out. :)

Sounds good! I've enjoyed this discussion, I'd love to hang out, if I ever get a vacation! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooey

PaulaQ and I disagree on a number of things. I also think she's fantastic, and we've talked quite a bit about this and other issues. Debate is valuable. Much like Jenny Boylan and Kate Bornstein, we are diametrically opposed in some ways, but can also be friends while standing on the common ground we do have. I enjoy it when people make me think, as some of you in this thread have.

---

Yup. Love ya girl! <3 People can disagree on matters and still be friends because you know the other person's heart is in the right place, even if you both didn't end up in the same place on some issue. I wish more people could be like me & Zooey - and disagree, but still respect and care about the other person.

I didn't mean to reignite talking about bathrooms in the thread, if that's what happened. I've been sparring with folks on FB about this and after listening to the BS rationalizations for what amounts to outright hatred towards us. (Zooey isn't guilty of that towards CDs, so I hope no one takes that away from what I said. She is a compassionate woman.) Her question is a good question. My own opinion is that after seeing how easily such things are turned against us, I would just rather not have the law weigh in on something like this. If nothing else, I'm going to compare this to programming. Right now, the concept of who's a man, and who's a woman, is largely implicit in our laws. Creating a legal definition of that is fraught with peril, because it is going to interact with all sorts of laws that I guarantee you no one has thought through the ramifications of. The problem is that the "common sense" definition of "man" and "woman" that everyone wants which would be tied to biology, doesn't allow for exceptions that occur in the real world, including trans people and intersexed people. I think this is just better left alone. As an example, things tied to a birth certificate sound all well and good - except that deciding that is a judgment call by the doctor, and there are cases where people's birth certificates are recorded incorrectly. Sometimes they aren't so easy to change, either. Especially now, in states like mine, where they automatically assume you are trying to transition.

Fundamentally, where we really disagree, I think, is that I believe people should be able to define themselves. Not arbitrarily, not changing it every day. That is, gender fluid don't fluctuate between "man" and "woman", but are a different gender altogether, "gender fluid" that fluctuates between masculinity and femininity. Such alternative genders should be legally recognized, as just happened in Oregon. Personally, I don't think our gender needs to be quite so readily available on our ID documents and stuff. I can understand the need for recording it legally, but as important as gender is to me, personally, (and it is hugely important), I think we make too much of a big deal about it in our society.

The long and the short of it is that I think gender segregated spaces are a pretty dubious proposition most of the time, with only a few exceptional circumstances where they might be needed.

Also, I think despite the protestations of the masses on the forum here, many of the people on this forum have difficulty really understanding what gender they actually are. They pick "male" because of fear, privilege, and because they don't feel "female" enough to go anywhere close to the crap those of who transition go through now. If transition as children had been an option? I think what many here on the forum would say might be very different. (My guess is most would end up deciding they were some type of non-binary, and a lot of the remainder would transition.

In other words, with all the social coercion to say "I'm a manly man!", typed while wearing women's clothing, I think the assertion that most here are actually "men" is dubious. Especially given the rather hard edge definition of "men." I'd be fine with folks here taking on the challenge to expand "men" to include "feminine men" - some of the folks who go around blended all the time, not trying to pass would easily fall into that category.

So I think she and I disagree in a very ironic way. I, who advocates taking people at their word and likes very fluid definitions, am not taking a lot of people here at their word that they are men^*. She, who likes more formal definitions, and is very binary, does take you at your word that you are men.

I find that to be just one more hilarious wrinkle in this whole discussion of gender, that sadly, for the most part, isn't very funny much of the time at all.

Anyway, nothin' but love for my sister Zooey!

_{*note: there are some here, like JenniferAtHome, and many others, who go out, are public about what they do, and generally own what they do in some manner. (Out to their wife, out in public, maybe they don't talk about all this at work, but they are taking some ownership of this.) While I might disagree with them that the label "man" is the most descriptive label for them, hey, they are out there, owning it, and if they can convince the world that what they do oughta be a valid way for men to present, then hey, maybe they'll change opinions and I'll have to eat my words. I'd be OK with that too. I believe in people's self-definition - but you need to own it, and you need to be honest with yourself and others about it. I'm understanding though, if it takes a minute to get to that point - nobody said this was easy.}

Well said PaulaQ.