clovenhooves The Personal Is Political Gender Critical Discussion Do you ever wonder if maybe we do kind of have gender identities, or at least experience “gender” of some kind?

Discussion Do you ever wonder if maybe we do kind of have gender identities, or at least experience “gender” of some kind?

Discussion Do you ever wonder if maybe we do kind of have gender identities, or at least experience “gender” of some kind?

 Print Thread
 
Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
YesYourNigel
Find
168
Apr 18 2025, 2:37 AM
#11
Quote:This is exactly why I never use the term gender nonconformity. Using it promotes gender.
It's not promoting of gender to recognise that, in a genderist society, there are people more and less aligned with gendered expectations, any more than it is promoting religion to call oneself atheist. In a genderist system, rejecting gender is a relevant category.

The question is whether the gender nonconformity is political (which it inevitably is), or if it's treated as a random special personality type with no political implications.

A lot of gender critical people fall into the trap of really overstating the individualistic nature of gender (non)conformity, usually for something like "No one is perfectly aligned with gender roles". If our relationship to gender roles was so individualistic, why would we so consistently behave in such predictable ways, aka in line with gendered socialisation? It seems to rely on this liberal idea that it's bad to generalise people for no reason other than it being bad, when in actuality the fact that we are all subject to and defined by gendered socialisation is the key reason why trans as a movement (or any movement allowing an oppressor class to roleplay as its victims) is a bad idea - men can't look past their male noses and women can't avoid their trauma, as well as the androcentrism of the world they're raised in every waking moment of their lives. That's why giving oppressors the protections and treatment of their victims and ignoring their victims' trauma is such a dangerous idea.
Edited Apr 18 2025, 8:24 AM by YesYourNigel.
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Apr 18 2025, 2:37 AM #11

Quote:This is exactly why I never use the term gender nonconformity. Using it promotes gender.
It's not promoting of gender to recognise that, in a genderist society, there are people more and less aligned with gendered expectations, any more than it is promoting religion to call oneself atheist. In a genderist system, rejecting gender is a relevant category.

The question is whether the gender nonconformity is political (which it inevitably is), or if it's treated as a random special personality type with no political implications.

A lot of gender critical people fall into the trap of really overstating the individualistic nature of gender (non)conformity, usually for something like "No one is perfectly aligned with gender roles". If our relationship to gender roles was so individualistic, why would we so consistently behave in such predictable ways, aka in line with gendered socialisation? It seems to rely on this liberal idea that it's bad to generalise people for no reason other than it being bad, when in actuality the fact that we are all subject to and defined by gendered socialisation is the key reason why trans as a movement (or any movement allowing an oppressor class to roleplay as its victims) is a bad idea - men can't look past their male noses and women can't avoid their trauma, as well as the androcentrism of the world they're raised in every waking moment of their lives. That's why giving oppressors the protections and treatment of their victims and ignoring their victims' trauma is such a dangerous idea.

Reply
Reply
OffMyTit
Find
42
Apr 18 2025, 3:07 AM
#12
(Apr 18 2025, 2:37 AM)YesYourNigel
Quote:This is exactly why I never use the term gender nonconformity. Using it promotes gender.
It's not promoting of gender to recognise that, in a genderist society, there are people more and less aligned with gendered expectations, any more than it is promoting religion to call oneself atheist. In a genderist system, rejecting gender is a relevant category.

The question is whether the gender nonconformity is political (which it inevitably is), or if it's treated as a random special personality type with no political implications.

A lot of gender critical people fall into the trap of really overstating the individualistic nature of gender (non)conformity, usually for something like "No one is perfectly aligned eith gender roles". If our relationship to gender roles was so individualistic, why would we so consistently behave in such predictable ways, aka in line with gendered socialisation? It seems to rely on this liberal idea that it's bad to generalise people for no reason other than it being bad, when in actuality the fact that we are all subject to and defined by gendered socialisation is the key reason why trans as a movement (or any movement allowing an oppressor class to roleplay as its victims) is a bad idea - men can't look past their male noses and women can't avoid their trauma, as well as the androcentrism of the world they're raised in every waking moment of their lives. That's why giving oppressors the protections and treatment of their victims and ignoring their victims' trauma is such a dangerous idea.
I also don’t use “gender nonconforming” to describe people who don’t adhere to sex stereotypes. I had an email disagreement with a young woman almost 20 years ago who kept using the phrase. And I would always write back “non-gender-confirming” to describe the same state of being in mine. Eventually something clicked and she said that she noticed I phrased it differently and realized that my phrasing helped her to see that the non-conformity was cultural rather than biological. For her, “gender non-conforming” was an internal sense of gender that did not conform to the norm, while saying someone was non-gender-conforming emphasized the choice being made. 

I’m the end she said she would continue to see and talk about gender the way she preferred because she would lose friends if she acknowledged they were deliberately using language that encouraged people to see gender as innate, rather than language that would rightly posit people as agents of their own adherence to stereotypes.
Reply
Reply
OffMyTit
Apr 18 2025, 3:07 AM #12

(Apr 18 2025, 2:37 AM)YesYourNigel
Quote:This is exactly why I never use the term gender nonconformity. Using it promotes gender.
It's not promoting of gender to recognise that, in a genderist society, there are people more and less aligned with gendered expectations, any more than it is promoting religion to call oneself atheist. In a genderist system, rejecting gender is a relevant category.

The question is whether the gender nonconformity is political (which it inevitably is), or if it's treated as a random special personality type with no political implications.

A lot of gender critical people fall into the trap of really overstating the individualistic nature of gender (non)conformity, usually for something like "No one is perfectly aligned eith gender roles". If our relationship to gender roles was so individualistic, why would we so consistently behave in such predictable ways, aka in line with gendered socialisation? It seems to rely on this liberal idea that it's bad to generalise people for no reason other than it being bad, when in actuality the fact that we are all subject to and defined by gendered socialisation is the key reason why trans as a movement (or any movement allowing an oppressor class to roleplay as its victims) is a bad idea - men can't look past their male noses and women can't avoid their trauma, as well as the androcentrism of the world they're raised in every waking moment of their lives. That's why giving oppressors the protections and treatment of their victims and ignoring their victims' trauma is such a dangerous idea.
I also don’t use “gender nonconforming” to describe people who don’t adhere to sex stereotypes. I had an email disagreement with a young woman almost 20 years ago who kept using the phrase. And I would always write back “non-gender-confirming” to describe the same state of being in mine. Eventually something clicked and she said that she noticed I phrased it differently and realized that my phrasing helped her to see that the non-conformity was cultural rather than biological. For her, “gender non-conforming” was an internal sense of gender that did not conform to the norm, while saying someone was non-gender-conforming emphasized the choice being made. 

I’m the end she said she would continue to see and talk about gender the way she preferred because she would lose friends if she acknowledged they were deliberately using language that encouraged people to see gender as innate, rather than language that would rightly posit people as agents of their own adherence to stereotypes.

Reply
Reply
Lemonade
Find
46
Apr 19 2025, 9:30 AM
#13
(Apr 18 2025, 2:37 AM)YesYourNigel
Quote:This is exactly why I never use the term gender nonconformity. Using it promotes gender.
It's not promoting of gender to recognise that, in a genderist society, there are people more and less aligned with gendered expectations, any more than it is promoting religion to call oneself atheist. In a genderist system, rejecting gender is a relevant category.

But I don't have to believe in gods for religious people to exist. Calling myself atheist doesn't require god to exist and be meaningful. Calling myself gender conconforming does require gender to exist and be meaningful. That is the part that I am rejecting by refusing to use the term. I don't want to give gender power even in language. 

I am aware I can't escape the genderist system we live in. It's the very air we breathe. But I can refuse to use its language. It's the same as when I choose not to use male default language. I am not gender nonconforming in the same way I am a part of humankind not mankind. 


Quote:The question is whether the gender nonconformity is political (which it inevitably is), or if it's treated as a random special personality type with no political implications.

A lot of gender critical people fall into the trap of really overstating the individualistic nature of gender (non)conformity, usually for something like "No one is perfectly aligned with gender roles". If our relationship to gender roles was so individualistic, why would we so consistently behave in such predictable ways, aka in line with gendered socialisation? It seems to rely on this liberal idea that it's bad to generalise people for no reason other than it being bad, when in actuality the fact that we are all subject to and defined by gendered socialisation is the key reason why trans as a movement (or any movement allowing an oppressor class to roleplay as its victims) is a bad idea - men can't look past their male noses and women can't avoid their trauma, as well as the androcentrism of the world they're raised in every waking moment of their lives. That's why giving oppressors the protections and treatment of their victims and ignoring their victims' trauma is such a dangerous idea.

We know people desperately conform to what they see as their in group. I don't think gender is individualistic at all. I think it is inherently and literally a social construct. 

My objection to gender is that it is a harmful way to generalize people. The trans movement is just a part of it. But as long as the hatred for being female exists, the social role that we get placed in whether or not we want to is going to be used against us (and likewise, so will the refusal to conform to that role). 


But beyond that, it's really difficult for me to discuss this more specifically because everyone has a different idea of what it means to be gender conforming or non conforming.  It's difficult for me to even say "a majority of women are gender conforming" which I would probably agree to the idea behind, but not until we really hammer out what the speaker means by "gender conforming." The terms are nebulous and there's a good chance we could be talking past each other.

What I think is a little insidious is how so much of current gender roles for women are things we do, so existing in our natural state becomes something unusual and worth noting. I want to have natural legs without any special qualifiers to how "womanly" that makes me. This being a political action is incidental and an unfortunate truth, not my intention.

I think it is because we are so hardwired into conforming into our social groups, that "nonconformity" will come across as a negative to many people. I agree conceptually with you on why people get driven into the trans umbrella, I think we just disagree on the specific contributing factors. One person's gender non conforming action is another person's reason why they aren't really a woman.
Edited Apr 19 2025, 9:31 AM by Lemonade.
Reply
Reply
Lemonade
Apr 19 2025, 9:30 AM #13

(Apr 18 2025, 2:37 AM)YesYourNigel
Quote:This is exactly why I never use the term gender nonconformity. Using it promotes gender.
It's not promoting of gender to recognise that, in a genderist society, there are people more and less aligned with gendered expectations, any more than it is promoting religion to call oneself atheist. In a genderist system, rejecting gender is a relevant category.

But I don't have to believe in gods for religious people to exist. Calling myself atheist doesn't require god to exist and be meaningful. Calling myself gender conconforming does require gender to exist and be meaningful. That is the part that I am rejecting by refusing to use the term. I don't want to give gender power even in language. 

I am aware I can't escape the genderist system we live in. It's the very air we breathe. But I can refuse to use its language. It's the same as when I choose not to use male default language. I am not gender nonconforming in the same way I am a part of humankind not mankind. 


Quote:The question is whether the gender nonconformity is political (which it inevitably is), or if it's treated as a random special personality type with no political implications.

A lot of gender critical people fall into the trap of really overstating the individualistic nature of gender (non)conformity, usually for something like "No one is perfectly aligned with gender roles". If our relationship to gender roles was so individualistic, why would we so consistently behave in such predictable ways, aka in line with gendered socialisation? It seems to rely on this liberal idea that it's bad to generalise people for no reason other than it being bad, when in actuality the fact that we are all subject to and defined by gendered socialisation is the key reason why trans as a movement (or any movement allowing an oppressor class to roleplay as its victims) is a bad idea - men can't look past their male noses and women can't avoid their trauma, as well as the androcentrism of the world they're raised in every waking moment of their lives. That's why giving oppressors the protections and treatment of their victims and ignoring their victims' trauma is such a dangerous idea.

We know people desperately conform to what they see as their in group. I don't think gender is individualistic at all. I think it is inherently and literally a social construct. 

My objection to gender is that it is a harmful way to generalize people. The trans movement is just a part of it. But as long as the hatred for being female exists, the social role that we get placed in whether or not we want to is going to be used against us (and likewise, so will the refusal to conform to that role). 


But beyond that, it's really difficult for me to discuss this more specifically because everyone has a different idea of what it means to be gender conforming or non conforming.  It's difficult for me to even say "a majority of women are gender conforming" which I would probably agree to the idea behind, but not until we really hammer out what the speaker means by "gender conforming." The terms are nebulous and there's a good chance we could be talking past each other.

What I think is a little insidious is how so much of current gender roles for women are things we do, so existing in our natural state becomes something unusual and worth noting. I want to have natural legs without any special qualifiers to how "womanly" that makes me. This being a political action is incidental and an unfortunate truth, not my intention.

I think it is because we are so hardwired into conforming into our social groups, that "nonconformity" will come across as a negative to many people. I agree conceptually with you on why people get driven into the trans umbrella, I think we just disagree on the specific contributing factors. One person's gender non conforming action is another person's reason why they aren't really a woman.

Reply
Reply
proudcatlady
Find
8
Apr 19 2025, 6:34 PM
#14
(Apr 14 2025, 11:07 PM)YesYourNigel That's like saying "There's gotta be something to women who are anorexic" or "there's gotta be something to the women who get extreme plastic surgeries" or "There's gotta be something to women who self-harm". Just because a woman reaches for extreme measures to deal with patriarchal pressures does not mean she is some separate species of woman with boobjob-soul.

That comparison actually clarifies a lot for me—thanks!
Reply
Reply
proudcatlady
Apr 19 2025, 6:34 PM #14

(Apr 14 2025, 11:07 PM)YesYourNigel That's like saying "There's gotta be something to women who are anorexic" or "there's gotta be something to the women who get extreme plastic surgeries" or "There's gotta be something to women who self-harm". Just because a woman reaches for extreme measures to deal with patriarchal pressures does not mean she is some separate species of woman with boobjob-soul.

That comparison actually clarifies a lot for me—thanks!

Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Find
357
Apr 20 2025, 1:39 AM
#15
Hi PCL! I've been meaning to reply to your post, I'm finally getting around to it. :)

I find this stuff is a little hard to talk about without clear definitions. I'll respond going by my best guess of what you mean, but feel free to clarify if I've gotten anything wrong.

(Apr 8 2025, 5:45 PM)proudcatlady Well, first, we’re used to having conversations about “gender nonconformity,” and in these conversations, we usually acknowledge that some women are more “naturally feminine” and some aren’t. They’re GNC, they’re butch, they’re tomboys that never grew out of it.

What do you mean by "naturally feminine"? Because I don't think there's anything really "natural" about femininity (by which I mean things like using cosmetics, preferring dresses, playing with Barbies, wearing one's hair long, etc). All of these things are very culturally bound and I don't see how they can be "natural." Consider cultures where it's considered the height of beauty to wear rings on your neck to make it look longer, or something like foot binding. These things were/are considered beautiful and feminine in those cultures and in those time periods, but they look strange or barbaric to us now.

What I do think is natural is the desire to belong and find one's place in society. Humans are social animals; we want to be accepted, and we desire social approval. By default, most people don't like being judged for being different. If for example society says that women should have long hair because that's just what women do, then that's kind of what happens. So in that sense, I think it is natural for women to choose markers of femininity, but not because they have some internal essence that says they need to have long hair. It's because in our gendered society, you fit in better as a woman if you have long hair, and you may face censure if you don't have long hair. And not wanting to be censured is pretty natural.

(Apr 8 2025, 5:45 PM)proudcatlady Okay, secondly. If you’re here on Cloven Hooves or in any way involved with feminism really, being a woman is important to you. Right? Maybe I’m just projecting but I like being a woman. I like participating in communities like this and being around women in ways men never can be or will be. And you see bisexual women and lesbians celebrating that there’s something special and different about loving a woman AS a woman. 

Isn’t that kind of sounding like a gender soul? To me, it sounds like it is. 

Hmm, I don't believe in souls in the first place, so it is hard for me to guess what you mean by "gender soul." But I will say that I like being Asian and I appreciate my cultural heritage, but I don't think that means I have an "Asian soul." ;)
Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Apr 20 2025, 1:39 AM #15

Hi PCL! I've been meaning to reply to your post, I'm finally getting around to it. :)

I find this stuff is a little hard to talk about without clear definitions. I'll respond going by my best guess of what you mean, but feel free to clarify if I've gotten anything wrong.

(Apr 8 2025, 5:45 PM)proudcatlady Well, first, we’re used to having conversations about “gender nonconformity,” and in these conversations, we usually acknowledge that some women are more “naturally feminine” and some aren’t. They’re GNC, they’re butch, they’re tomboys that never grew out of it.

What do you mean by "naturally feminine"? Because I don't think there's anything really "natural" about femininity (by which I mean things like using cosmetics, preferring dresses, playing with Barbies, wearing one's hair long, etc). All of these things are very culturally bound and I don't see how they can be "natural." Consider cultures where it's considered the height of beauty to wear rings on your neck to make it look longer, or something like foot binding. These things were/are considered beautiful and feminine in those cultures and in those time periods, but they look strange or barbaric to us now.

What I do think is natural is the desire to belong and find one's place in society. Humans are social animals; we want to be accepted, and we desire social approval. By default, most people don't like being judged for being different. If for example society says that women should have long hair because that's just what women do, then that's kind of what happens. So in that sense, I think it is natural for women to choose markers of femininity, but not because they have some internal essence that says they need to have long hair. It's because in our gendered society, you fit in better as a woman if you have long hair, and you may face censure if you don't have long hair. And not wanting to be censured is pretty natural.

(Apr 8 2025, 5:45 PM)proudcatlady Okay, secondly. If you’re here on Cloven Hooves or in any way involved with feminism really, being a woman is important to you. Right? Maybe I’m just projecting but I like being a woman. I like participating in communities like this and being around women in ways men never can be or will be. And you see bisexual women and lesbians celebrating that there’s something special and different about loving a woman AS a woman. 

Isn’t that kind of sounding like a gender soul? To me, it sounds like it is. 

Hmm, I don't believe in souls in the first place, so it is hard for me to guess what you mean by "gender soul." But I will say that I like being Asian and I appreciate my cultural heritage, but I don't think that means I have an "Asian soul." ;)

Reply
Reply
Shroom
Find
37
Apr 20 2025, 10:52 AM
#16
(Apr 19 2025, 9:30 AM)Lemonade But I don't have to believe in gods for religious people to exist. Calling myself atheist doesn't require god to exist and be meaningful. Calling myself gender conconforming does require gender to exist and be meaningful. That is the part that I am rejecting by refusing to use the term. I don't want to give gender power even in language. 

The mistreatment of women who do not conform to the feminine gender role in a way unique from those who don't proves gender does exist, and the harm it causes is meaningful. I know from experience, and I know there are women who can relate to me just like there are women who cannot. I would like a word to describe the difference between these groups of people, and one that isn't demeaning of either group. I don't see how accurately describing women who ascribe to the feminine gender role as "gender-conforming" is either demeaning of them or promotes gender. Gender does exist and I hate it. I want to talk about how I hate it and why I do. Unless someone who opposes using "GNC" has a suggestion for a new word to use that describes the real phenomenon I and other GNC women experience, I'll continue to use it.

Just like "atheist" requires the concept of a god to exist to mean something (otherwise what am I saying I don't believe in?), so does "GNC". Doesn't mean gods are real (as we can't prove they do), and doesn't mean gender isn't harmful (as we can prove it exists from its enforcement on women).
Edited Apr 20 2025, 10:54 AM by Shroom.
Reply
Reply
Shroom
Apr 20 2025, 10:52 AM #16

(Apr 19 2025, 9:30 AM)Lemonade But I don't have to believe in gods for religious people to exist. Calling myself atheist doesn't require god to exist and be meaningful. Calling myself gender conconforming does require gender to exist and be meaningful. That is the part that I am rejecting by refusing to use the term. I don't want to give gender power even in language. 

The mistreatment of women who do not conform to the feminine gender role in a way unique from those who don't proves gender does exist, and the harm it causes is meaningful. I know from experience, and I know there are women who can relate to me just like there are women who cannot. I would like a word to describe the difference between these groups of people, and one that isn't demeaning of either group. I don't see how accurately describing women who ascribe to the feminine gender role as "gender-conforming" is either demeaning of them or promotes gender. Gender does exist and I hate it. I want to talk about how I hate it and why I do. Unless someone who opposes using "GNC" has a suggestion for a new word to use that describes the real phenomenon I and other GNC women experience, I'll continue to use it.

Just like "atheist" requires the concept of a god to exist to mean something (otherwise what am I saying I don't believe in?), so does "GNC". Doesn't mean gods are real (as we can't prove they do), and doesn't mean gender isn't harmful (as we can prove it exists from its enforcement on women).

Reply
Reply
Chernobog
Find
22
Apr 20 2025, 11:15 AM
#17
(Apr 8 2025, 5:45 PM)proudcatlady Okay, secondly. If you’re here on Cloven Hooves or in any way involved with feminism really, being a woman is important to you. Right? Maybe I’m just projecting but I like being a woman. I like participating in communities like this and being around women in ways men never can be or will be. And you see bisexual women and lesbians celebrating that there’s something special and different about loving a woman AS a woman. 

Isn’t that kind of sounding like a gender soul? To me, it sounds like it is.

This subject has avoided my ire for too long. Being a woman is NOT important to me. I do NOT like being a woman. I don't even think female-only intellectual spaces like this are intrinsically valuable, but rather a condition of extreme, ubiquitous repression of female humanity. Female-only intellectual spaces exist not because men are inherently incapable of participating in them, but because thousands of years of patriarchal systems have discouraged them from choosing to think, to choose to see reality as it is rather than what they want it to be.
To your point, you are correct. You are correctly recognising this as a belief in a gendered soul and an endorsement for a form of "gender identity", and I don't regard this as better than any other spiritual woo woo "divine feminine" nonsense. It props up sex role stereotypes, from which many women will inevitably be alienated, all the same.

I have a hard time politely humouring these sentiments, especially in alleged feminist spaces. Their prevalence creates difficulties in letting, as an example, formerly trans-identified women have a voice; when "proud" women are the majority, anything less than shining positivity towards womanhood itself is branded "internalised misogyny". There is often an implicit expectation that those of us who might still have more cons than pros perform plenty of penance and self-flagellation for our blasphemous rejection of the grand yoni. Acceptance of our femaleness is not enough and our criticisms must be kept to a minimum, if they're allowed at all. We must aspire to be HAPPY to be female, and if we are not, it is somehow a signal of our allegiance with males, or at the very least a clear indicator something is deeply wrong with us and we are some sort of pitiable liability to the movement.

Saying there's something "special and different" about female homosexual behaviour in and of itself is a bit of a reach, too. We have no concept of loving women as a man. We cannot experience it. We may have a very detailed understanding of the hollow trappings of how men "love" us in a dehumanized, patriarchal sense, but that is reading the screenplay in its entirety to contextualise the character you have been cast to portray, which is NOT the same as fundamentally feeling love for a woman, as a man. It's not "special and different" because we're women and women are special and different, it's "special and different" because it's already so off-script that you might as well forget about the movie altogether.

The feeling of camaraderie among women (or any marginalised group) isn't simply because we're women, it's a recognition of another being's intimate familiarity with the same adversity as you, and our adversity is extreme and unnatural; even other mammals that form hierarchical social systems do not do so as rigidly, and with as much control over their environments. Men live in reality, too. They live in the exact same reality as you and I. If you don't believe in reality, then I guess there isn't anything to talk about, but the value in being among women is in our increased likelihood to recognise and value reality where men choose to ignore or deny reality. I'm not at all saying this isn't quite profound, but it's still ultimately circumstantial.
Reply
Reply
Chernobog
Apr 20 2025, 11:15 AM #17

(Apr 8 2025, 5:45 PM)proudcatlady Okay, secondly. If you’re here on Cloven Hooves or in any way involved with feminism really, being a woman is important to you. Right? Maybe I’m just projecting but I like being a woman. I like participating in communities like this and being around women in ways men never can be or will be. And you see bisexual women and lesbians celebrating that there’s something special and different about loving a woman AS a woman. 

Isn’t that kind of sounding like a gender soul? To me, it sounds like it is.

This subject has avoided my ire for too long. Being a woman is NOT important to me. I do NOT like being a woman. I don't even think female-only intellectual spaces like this are intrinsically valuable, but rather a condition of extreme, ubiquitous repression of female humanity. Female-only intellectual spaces exist not because men are inherently incapable of participating in them, but because thousands of years of patriarchal systems have discouraged them from choosing to think, to choose to see reality as it is rather than what they want it to be.
To your point, you are correct. You are correctly recognising this as a belief in a gendered soul and an endorsement for a form of "gender identity", and I don't regard this as better than any other spiritual woo woo "divine feminine" nonsense. It props up sex role stereotypes, from which many women will inevitably be alienated, all the same.

I have a hard time politely humouring these sentiments, especially in alleged feminist spaces. Their prevalence creates difficulties in letting, as an example, formerly trans-identified women have a voice; when "proud" women are the majority, anything less than shining positivity towards womanhood itself is branded "internalised misogyny". There is often an implicit expectation that those of us who might still have more cons than pros perform plenty of penance and self-flagellation for our blasphemous rejection of the grand yoni. Acceptance of our femaleness is not enough and our criticisms must be kept to a minimum, if they're allowed at all. We must aspire to be HAPPY to be female, and if we are not, it is somehow a signal of our allegiance with males, or at the very least a clear indicator something is deeply wrong with us and we are some sort of pitiable liability to the movement.

Saying there's something "special and different" about female homosexual behaviour in and of itself is a bit of a reach, too. We have no concept of loving women as a man. We cannot experience it. We may have a very detailed understanding of the hollow trappings of how men "love" us in a dehumanized, patriarchal sense, but that is reading the screenplay in its entirety to contextualise the character you have been cast to portray, which is NOT the same as fundamentally feeling love for a woman, as a man. It's not "special and different" because we're women and women are special and different, it's "special and different" because it's already so off-script that you might as well forget about the movie altogether.

The feeling of camaraderie among women (or any marginalised group) isn't simply because we're women, it's a recognition of another being's intimate familiarity with the same adversity as you, and our adversity is extreme and unnatural; even other mammals that form hierarchical social systems do not do so as rigidly, and with as much control over their environments. Men live in reality, too. They live in the exact same reality as you and I. If you don't believe in reality, then I guess there isn't anything to talk about, but the value in being among women is in our increased likelihood to recognise and value reality where men choose to ignore or deny reality. I'm not at all saying this isn't quite profound, but it's still ultimately circumstantial.

Reply
Reply
Lemonade
Find
46
Apr 20 2025, 9:05 PM
#18
(Apr 20 2025, 10:52 AM)Shroom Just like "atheist" requires the concept of a god to exist to mean something (otherwise what am I saying I don't believe in?), so does "GNC". Doesn't mean gods are real (as we can't prove they do), and doesn't mean gender isn't harmful (as we can prove it exists from its enforcement on women).

The metaphor I made wasn't good tbh. More like if as an atheist I still used sinful to describe people. I don't think sin is a useful category, so I don't use it to describe people. How could I fully distance myself from the Christian-dominant culture I live in if I considered myself a sinner for deconverting from Christianity? I can't language my way out of the culture, but I can refuse their words. Still not a perfect metaphor, but closer I guess.


Alternatives? I usually say that I don't perform femininity. Or performing cultural/stereotypical gender roles. It's an action, not a state of being. 


Obviously, I am not saying we can't talk about the effect that living in a gender-oppressive society. If I thought that I wouldn't be here.
Edited Apr 20 2025, 10:36 PM by Lemonade.
Reply
Reply
Lemonade
Apr 20 2025, 9:05 PM #18

(Apr 20 2025, 10:52 AM)Shroom Just like "atheist" requires the concept of a god to exist to mean something (otherwise what am I saying I don't believe in?), so does "GNC". Doesn't mean gods are real (as we can't prove they do), and doesn't mean gender isn't harmful (as we can prove it exists from its enforcement on women).

The metaphor I made wasn't good tbh. More like if as an atheist I still used sinful to describe people. I don't think sin is a useful category, so I don't use it to describe people. How could I fully distance myself from the Christian-dominant culture I live in if I considered myself a sinner for deconverting from Christianity? I can't language my way out of the culture, but I can refuse their words. Still not a perfect metaphor, but closer I guess.


Alternatives? I usually say that I don't perform femininity. Or performing cultural/stereotypical gender roles. It's an action, not a state of being. 


Obviously, I am not saying we can't talk about the effect that living in a gender-oppressive society. If I thought that I wouldn't be here.

Reply
Reply
OffMyTit
Find
42
Apr 21 2025, 12:47 AM
#19
(Apr 20 2025, 9:05 PM)Lemonade
(Apr 20 2025, 10:52 AM)Shroom Just like "atheist" requires the concept of a god to exist to mean something (otherwise what am I saying I don't believe in?), so does "GNC". Doesn't mean gods are real (as we can't prove they do), and doesn't mean gender isn't harmful (as we can prove it exists from its enforcement on women).

The metaphor I made wasn't good tbh. More like if as an atheist I still used sinful to describe people. I don't think sin is a useful category, so I don't use it to describe people. How could I fully distance myself from the Christian-dominant culture I live in if I considered myself a sinner for deconverting from Christianity? I can't language my way out of the culture, but I can refuse their words. Still not a perfect metaphor, but closer I guess.


Alternatives? I usually say that I don't perform femininity. Or performing cultural/stereotypical gender roles. It's an action, not a state of being. 


Obviously, I am not saying we can't talk about the effect that living in a gender-oppressive society. If I thought that I wouldn't be here.

Just here to cheer you on. TRAs use “GNC” to mean someone whose internal gender is non-conforming. 

They are NOT signifying that someone’s behavior strays from what is proscribed. If they were, they would say “non-gender-conforming.” Try saying it like that to a believer in trans and it will make them extremely uncomfortable.
Reply
Reply
OffMyTit
Apr 21 2025, 12:47 AM #19

(Apr 20 2025, 9:05 PM)Lemonade
(Apr 20 2025, 10:52 AM)Shroom Just like "atheist" requires the concept of a god to exist to mean something (otherwise what am I saying I don't believe in?), so does "GNC". Doesn't mean gods are real (as we can't prove they do), and doesn't mean gender isn't harmful (as we can prove it exists from its enforcement on women).

The metaphor I made wasn't good tbh. More like if as an atheist I still used sinful to describe people. I don't think sin is a useful category, so I don't use it to describe people. How could I fully distance myself from the Christian-dominant culture I live in if I considered myself a sinner for deconverting from Christianity? I can't language my way out of the culture, but I can refuse their words. Still not a perfect metaphor, but closer I guess.


Alternatives? I usually say that I don't perform femininity. Or performing cultural/stereotypical gender roles. It's an action, not a state of being. 


Obviously, I am not saying we can't talk about the effect that living in a gender-oppressive society. If I thought that I wouldn't be here.

Just here to cheer you on. TRAs use “GNC” to mean someone whose internal gender is non-conforming. 

They are NOT signifying that someone’s behavior strays from what is proscribed. If they were, they would say “non-gender-conforming.” Try saying it like that to a believer in trans and it will make them extremely uncomfortable.

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
168
Apr 21 2025, 6:16 AM
#20
Quote:More like if as an atheist I still used sinful to describe people.

How is GNC in any way a negative value judgement? That doesn't make sense.

Your atheism comparison checks out because GNC is defined as a rejection of a prescribed societal system. If there were no demand foe gender conformity, there would be no need to describe a lack of it, but that's not the world we live in, is it?

Honestly this reminds me of Christians who claim atheists secretly believe in God because calling oneself atheist ("godless") supposes that God exists.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Apr 21 2025, 6:16 AM #20

Quote:More like if as an atheist I still used sinful to describe people.

How is GNC in any way a negative value judgement? That doesn't make sense.

Your atheism comparison checks out because GNC is defined as a rejection of a prescribed societal system. If there were no demand foe gender conformity, there would be no need to describe a lack of it, but that's not the world we live in, is it?

Honestly this reminds me of Christians who claim atheists secretly believe in God because calling oneself atheist ("godless") supposes that God exists.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Reply
Reply
Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 2 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 2 Guest(s)