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
Lemonade
Find
49
Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM
#21
(Apr 21 2025, 6:16 AM)YesYourNigel
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 didn't say that it is negative. I said I don't like to use language that I don't see the value in. If I think of people as sinners and not sinners, then I still haven't fully removed myself from categorizing things based on religious values that I claim not to hold. I can discuss how other people view me as a sinner and how that has affected my life. Or whether or not I have committed sins as seen through a religious lens. But neither require me to adopt the concept of "sinner" in my own views.


Fwiw, I also don't love to describe myself as atheist. Not because it supposes god exists, but because is supports framing deity belief as the default state to compare yourself to. It is the dominant belief, sure, but I don't agree it should be the default. 


I think it breaks down as a parallel because "non belief in a diety" is at least an objective claim. I do not believe in a deity. This doesn't require the participation of others because my belief or lack thereof isn't a social construct. I literally do not, and theoretically if brain scans could show thought you could verify my claim. Gender roles are so varied across culture and time. People can perform varying amounts of their gender roles at any given time. You can't put a percentage on how conforming to a role someone is. So at least when I say "I am an atheist" I know that I am making a specific claim. 


Of course we can talk about the lack of performing gender roles. I never said otherwise. We live in a gendered society. I reject the entire framework. I said I don't like to consider myself gender non-conforming [adjective] when the truth is I don't conform to cultural gender roles [verb].


It's just a conscious choice that I try to make to keep myself from holding a genderist point of view because I believe language reinforces our understanding of the world. Discussing  performing or not performing your gender role and the effects that has can be separated from thinking of people as gender conforming or gender non conforming. Gender conformity (or lack thereof) is not a quality I possess, I just so happen to live in a world where I am asked to act out a certain role because of my sex, but I don't. 


Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?
Edited Apr 21 2025, 8:55 AM by Lemonade.
3
Reply
Reply
Lemonade
Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM #21

(Apr 21 2025, 6:16 AM)YesYourNigel
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 didn't say that it is negative. I said I don't like to use language that I don't see the value in. If I think of people as sinners and not sinners, then I still haven't fully removed myself from categorizing things based on religious values that I claim not to hold. I can discuss how other people view me as a sinner and how that has affected my life. Or whether or not I have committed sins as seen through a religious lens. But neither require me to adopt the concept of "sinner" in my own views.


Fwiw, I also don't love to describe myself as atheist. Not because it supposes god exists, but because is supports framing deity belief as the default state to compare yourself to. It is the dominant belief, sure, but I don't agree it should be the default. 


I think it breaks down as a parallel because "non belief in a diety" is at least an objective claim. I do not believe in a deity. This doesn't require the participation of others because my belief or lack thereof isn't a social construct. I literally do not, and theoretically if brain scans could show thought you could verify my claim. Gender roles are so varied across culture and time. People can perform varying amounts of their gender roles at any given time. You can't put a percentage on how conforming to a role someone is. So at least when I say "I am an atheist" I know that I am making a specific claim. 


Of course we can talk about the lack of performing gender roles. I never said otherwise. We live in a gendered society. I reject the entire framework. I said I don't like to consider myself gender non-conforming [adjective] when the truth is I don't conform to cultural gender roles [verb].


It's just a conscious choice that I try to make to keep myself from holding a genderist point of view because I believe language reinforces our understanding of the world. Discussing  performing or not performing your gender role and the effects that has can be separated from thinking of people as gender conforming or gender non conforming. Gender conformity (or lack thereof) is not a quality I possess, I just so happen to live in a world where I am asked to act out a certain role because of my sex, but I don't. 


Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

3
Reply
Reply
Newt
Find
12
Nov 25 2025, 2:41 AM
#22
(Apr 20 2025, 11:15 AM)Chernobog 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.

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.

I don't really have anything to add except that you have perfectly worded exactly how I have always felt and the weird disconnect I can feel in feminist/female only spaces when people are saying how proud they are to be a woman and embracing their womanhood or whatever.  Sometimes I have gotten called out for using female versus woman when I honestly have just never even felt offended at the use of female in place of woman. 

While I care so much about 'women's issues', I also feel frustration that this is what we are calling addressing reality and major societal concerns like reproduction and childrearing. That the reality of this is ignored by the people who can ignore it and it can get labeled 'women's issues' like they're niche or womanly hobbies when we are literally talking about topics related to the future and survival of humans as a species. The worst things that have happened to me have almost exclusively been because I was a woman. I would not be here nor seek anything like this out were I born a man because there's very little chance I would be able to believe in reality like this without any first hand experience. It is the shared adversity but not the way the fetishists seem to think it works. 

if I read this and knew that other women felt like this when I was younger, I would not have been swayed by TiFs around me who kept saying that I felt this way because I wasn't a woman. That a woman is someone who would be born into the same situation and be thrilled that they were born female. That the reason that being a woman is not important to me is that I am not a woman, but a different gender. That there's really two genders: the woman crowd and the default main characters. They aren't men, they are just people who don't have to concern themselves with the idea of gender whatsoever. Which is how I feel. And this utter lack of attachment to being a woman was high lighted as evidence that I must be a man then. Idk, I am rambling but your words really spoke to me. I hope future girls can see similar sentiments rather than pushed towards the only conclusions allowed by choice feminism and/or gender ideology on this.
1
Reply
Reply
Newt
Nov 25 2025, 2:41 AM #22

(Apr 20 2025, 11:15 AM)Chernobog 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.

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.

I don't really have anything to add except that you have perfectly worded exactly how I have always felt and the weird disconnect I can feel in feminist/female only spaces when people are saying how proud they are to be a woman and embracing their womanhood or whatever.  Sometimes I have gotten called out for using female versus woman when I honestly have just never even felt offended at the use of female in place of woman. 

While I care so much about 'women's issues', I also feel frustration that this is what we are calling addressing reality and major societal concerns like reproduction and childrearing. That the reality of this is ignored by the people who can ignore it and it can get labeled 'women's issues' like they're niche or womanly hobbies when we are literally talking about topics related to the future and survival of humans as a species. The worst things that have happened to me have almost exclusively been because I was a woman. I would not be here nor seek anything like this out were I born a man because there's very little chance I would be able to believe in reality like this without any first hand experience. It is the shared adversity but not the way the fetishists seem to think it works. 

if I read this and knew that other women felt like this when I was younger, I would not have been swayed by TiFs around me who kept saying that I felt this way because I wasn't a woman. That a woman is someone who would be born into the same situation and be thrilled that they were born female. That the reason that being a woman is not important to me is that I am not a woman, but a different gender. That there's really two genders: the woman crowd and the default main characters. They aren't men, they are just people who don't have to concern themselves with the idea of gender whatsoever. Which is how I feel. And this utter lack of attachment to being a woman was high lighted as evidence that I must be a man then. Idk, I am rambling but your words really spoke to me. I hope future girls can see similar sentiments rather than pushed towards the only conclusions allowed by choice feminism and/or gender ideology on this.

1
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
330
Jan 4 2026, 11:05 AM
#23
(Nov 25 2025, 2:41 AM)Newt Sometimes I have gotten called out for using female versus woman when I honestly have just never even felt offended at the use of female in place of woman.
I thought that one is more a consequence of men saying "men and females" rather than an issue with "female" itself. Or it's down to trans activists trying to make a distinction between the freely chosen "woman" gender role and the "female" biology, as if the two can possibly be separated under patriarchy. Though I could also believe that the GC handmaidens are so attached to their precious gender-role-laden language and don't like the unglamorous unfeminine image that "females" conjures. I find a lot of their stupid takes to be informed not by any concern for women, but rather by spite and a desire to "own" the SJW's.

Quote:That a woman is someone who would be born into the same situation and be thrilled that they were born female.
I feel like it used to be a lot more common to hear women say they wouldn't care if they woke up as the opposite sex, or that being a woman isn't that important to them. At least that's what I remember seeing a lot in libfem spaces before the trans craze took over, as part of the whole "men and women are the same deep down". Nowadays that would immediately diagnose you with a medical case of cursed gendersoul.

I remember always feeling like an alien because I felt so offput by the gender roles that women are saddled with. I thought other women are normal and love the treatment. The patriarchy puts a big front of happy women, when in reality most of them are suffering and trying to fit into an unhealthy patriarchal box that promises them happiness and societal approval, all just to run away from self-hatred. Even the most attractive, made-up, porcelain-faced "happy" woman lives in constant terror of falling from everyone's grace, being seen without makeup, ageing...That's not what happiness looks like, even if you keep telling me everything is fine.

I think in order to get along with people and society, you kinda need to take people at their word and agree that the way things are works for most of them, and that the only exceptions are the rare odd women. A big turning point for me happened when I realised that there is no reason why other women, even if they are superficially and ideologically very different, wouldn't benefit from the same humanist ideas, namely lack of femininity and a sense of humanity rather than this insecure gendered idea of "woman-ness". That this isn't something that should only be reserved for me because I'm so special and unique, but for all women.

Quote:That there's really two genders: the woman crowd and the default main characters. They aren't men, they are just people who don't have to concern themselves with the idea of gender whatsoever.

This is a big draw I see in trans ideology for women, and it's festering under every single "I just want to be a regular guy" or "I am not a woman, I'm a person" sentiment you see from TIFs. They genuinely believe they're the only woman who suffers from being a woman.
Edited Jan 4 2026, 11:08 AM by YesYourNigel.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
3
2
2
2
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Jan 4 2026, 11:05 AM #23

(Nov 25 2025, 2:41 AM)Newt Sometimes I have gotten called out for using female versus woman when I honestly have just never even felt offended at the use of female in place of woman.
I thought that one is more a consequence of men saying "men and females" rather than an issue with "female" itself. Or it's down to trans activists trying to make a distinction between the freely chosen "woman" gender role and the "female" biology, as if the two can possibly be separated under patriarchy. Though I could also believe that the GC handmaidens are so attached to their precious gender-role-laden language and don't like the unglamorous unfeminine image that "females" conjures. I find a lot of their stupid takes to be informed not by any concern for women, but rather by spite and a desire to "own" the SJW's.

Quote:That a woman is someone who would be born into the same situation and be thrilled that they were born female.
I feel like it used to be a lot more common to hear women say they wouldn't care if they woke up as the opposite sex, or that being a woman isn't that important to them. At least that's what I remember seeing a lot in libfem spaces before the trans craze took over, as part of the whole "men and women are the same deep down". Nowadays that would immediately diagnose you with a medical case of cursed gendersoul.

I remember always feeling like an alien because I felt so offput by the gender roles that women are saddled with. I thought other women are normal and love the treatment. The patriarchy puts a big front of happy women, when in reality most of them are suffering and trying to fit into an unhealthy patriarchal box that promises them happiness and societal approval, all just to run away from self-hatred. Even the most attractive, made-up, porcelain-faced "happy" woman lives in constant terror of falling from everyone's grace, being seen without makeup, ageing...That's not what happiness looks like, even if you keep telling me everything is fine.

I think in order to get along with people and society, you kinda need to take people at their word and agree that the way things are works for most of them, and that the only exceptions are the rare odd women. A big turning point for me happened when I realised that there is no reason why other women, even if they are superficially and ideologically very different, wouldn't benefit from the same humanist ideas, namely lack of femininity and a sense of humanity rather than this insecure gendered idea of "woman-ness". That this isn't something that should only be reserved for me because I'm so special and unique, but for all women.

Quote:That there's really two genders: the woman crowd and the default main characters. They aren't men, they are just people who don't have to concern themselves with the idea of gender whatsoever.

This is a big draw I see in trans ideology for women, and it's festering under every single "I just want to be a regular guy" or "I am not a woman, I'm a person" sentiment you see from TIFs. They genuinely believe they're the only woman who suffers from being a woman.

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

3
2
2
2
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
330
Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM
#24
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

This seems to be employing the liberal feminist kneejerk reaction of "if you criticise femininity, which is performed by feminine women, you're actually the real misogynist because you're criticising women!!!". Like...femininity is bad for female people, because it's specifically been constructed under the patriarchy to oppress female people and it's pushed onto them since before they are born. Radical feminism is not trying to avoid making women feel bad, it's trying to actually make women's lives better.

Quote:You can't put a percentage on how conforming to a role someone is. So at least when I say "I am an atheist" I know that I am making a specific claim.

This is like saying "you can't put a percentage on how rich someone is, therefore being rich is a meaningless concept". And actually, yeah, you can measure gender conformity. Hell, there are scales of femininity and masculinity used in psychology, internet communities and of course trans ideology.

I'll be frank, this all sounds to me like what I hear when I talk to feminine women who desperately want to believe that being feminine is a neutral choice, or straight up subversive because they "don't subscribe to patriarchal ideas on gender roles", and actually you're the problem for thinking long hair and makeup and high heels are gender conforming instead of purely neutral aesthetic choices. Sorry to say, but these things don't exist in a vacuum, and recognising this fact is...kinda radical feminism 101?

Quote:Fwiw, I also don't love to describe myself as atheist. Not because it supposes god exists, but because is supports framing deity belief as the default state to compare yourself to. It is the dominant belief, sure, but I don't agree it should be the default.

My eyes couldn't roll harder in my head. It's nice that you disagree with something, but that's pretty pointless if you're also erasing and censoring the language needed to discuss these things and refusing to engage in any critical discussion on the matter because you're more invested in how enlightened you are for NOT talking about it. It's the same logic employed by people saying that the only way to end racism is to stop talking about it. Just sitting on a high horse with your head shoved in the sand is not actually helping the problem get fixed.

Quote:I do not believe in a deity. This doesn't require the participation of others because my belief or lack thereof isn't a social construct. I literally do not, and theoretically if brain scans could show thought you could verify my claim.

There is plenty of debate over what "god" is, both historically, throughout cultures and even in our modern times. And if I acted dumb enough, I could play this game too where god and religion are impossible to define and any acknowledgement that you understand what they mean could be treated as a check-mate where you agree with religion just because you're talking about it and using the words associated with it. Which is just...so fucking childish and pointless.

Quote:Gender roles are so varied across culture and time.

And the concept of a diety doesn't vary across culture and time? Also, what is the point of claiming that gender roles could or used to be different when we're very obviously talking about here and now? If part of current Western gender norms is that, for example, women have long hair and makeup, then the non-existence of that is gender nonconformity. It's that simple. You don't even need brain scans for this.

This is just another version of "I don't know what female/male even is". If you have no idea (or rather, are in denial of) what feminine and masculine gender roles even are, then you lack the most basic prerequisites to discuss radical feminism, just as you would if you refused to acknowledge that sex is real.

Quote:People can perform varying amounts of their gender roles at any given time.

So just because a woman cannot wear high heels to the shower disproves that high heels are feminine and that she is gender conforming?

Quote:I said I don't like to consider myself gender non-conforming [adjective] when the truth is I don't conform to cultural gender roles [verb].

🙄 If this distinction between what is a verb and what is an adjective is so important to you, knock yourself out. To me, it's irrelevant derailing rubbish.

Quote:It's just a conscious choice that I try to make to keep myself from holding a genderist point of view because I believe language reinforces our understanding of the world

Indeed. Women being in denial that performing the femininity they've been conditioned to perform is a part of gender conformity, and trying to paint it as something special and unique, is a part of this linguistic choice that reinforces patriarchal norms, much how the rejection of people being male or female does the same.

Quote:Discussing performing or not performing your gender role and the effects that has can be separated from thinking of people as gender conforming or gender non conforming

And who is performing this action? Nebulous imaginary creatures? Aliens? This reminds me of libfems avoiding the subject of who's oppressing women under the patriarchy and trying to make the patriarchy into this nebulous undefined entity completely disconnected from actual human beings and their ideals.

We are not talking about someone just happening to coincidentally trip and fall facefirst into a makeup kit and whoops, now they just happen to be feminine before they trip and fall facefirst into a buzzcut. We are talking about how much a person is willing to perform the gender roles that are expected of them. A woman who takes her high heels off to take a shower is not suddenly gender nonconforming just because she is not currently performing the one specific action that's been arbitrarily labeled feminine.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM #24

(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

This seems to be employing the liberal feminist kneejerk reaction of "if you criticise femininity, which is performed by feminine women, you're actually the real misogynist because you're criticising women!!!". Like...femininity is bad for female people, because it's specifically been constructed under the patriarchy to oppress female people and it's pushed onto them since before they are born. Radical feminism is not trying to avoid making women feel bad, it's trying to actually make women's lives better.

Quote:You can't put a percentage on how conforming to a role someone is. So at least when I say "I am an atheist" I know that I am making a specific claim.

This is like saying "you can't put a percentage on how rich someone is, therefore being rich is a meaningless concept". And actually, yeah, you can measure gender conformity. Hell, there are scales of femininity and masculinity used in psychology, internet communities and of course trans ideology.

I'll be frank, this all sounds to me like what I hear when I talk to feminine women who desperately want to believe that being feminine is a neutral choice, or straight up subversive because they "don't subscribe to patriarchal ideas on gender roles", and actually you're the problem for thinking long hair and makeup and high heels are gender conforming instead of purely neutral aesthetic choices. Sorry to say, but these things don't exist in a vacuum, and recognising this fact is...kinda radical feminism 101?

Quote:Fwiw, I also don't love to describe myself as atheist. Not because it supposes god exists, but because is supports framing deity belief as the default state to compare yourself to. It is the dominant belief, sure, but I don't agree it should be the default.

My eyes couldn't roll harder in my head. It's nice that you disagree with something, but that's pretty pointless if you're also erasing and censoring the language needed to discuss these things and refusing to engage in any critical discussion on the matter because you're more invested in how enlightened you are for NOT talking about it. It's the same logic employed by people saying that the only way to end racism is to stop talking about it. Just sitting on a high horse with your head shoved in the sand is not actually helping the problem get fixed.

Quote:I do not believe in a deity. This doesn't require the participation of others because my belief or lack thereof isn't a social construct. I literally do not, and theoretically if brain scans could show thought you could verify my claim.

There is plenty of debate over what "god" is, both historically, throughout cultures and even in our modern times. And if I acted dumb enough, I could play this game too where god and religion are impossible to define and any acknowledgement that you understand what they mean could be treated as a check-mate where you agree with religion just because you're talking about it and using the words associated with it. Which is just...so fucking childish and pointless.

Quote:Gender roles are so varied across culture and time.

And the concept of a diety doesn't vary across culture and time? Also, what is the point of claiming that gender roles could or used to be different when we're very obviously talking about here and now? If part of current Western gender norms is that, for example, women have long hair and makeup, then the non-existence of that is gender nonconformity. It's that simple. You don't even need brain scans for this.

This is just another version of "I don't know what female/male even is". If you have no idea (or rather, are in denial of) what feminine and masculine gender roles even are, then you lack the most basic prerequisites to discuss radical feminism, just as you would if you refused to acknowledge that sex is real.

Quote:People can perform varying amounts of their gender roles at any given time.

So just because a woman cannot wear high heels to the shower disproves that high heels are feminine and that she is gender conforming?

Quote:I said I don't like to consider myself gender non-conforming [adjective] when the truth is I don't conform to cultural gender roles [verb].

🙄 If this distinction between what is a verb and what is an adjective is so important to you, knock yourself out. To me, it's irrelevant derailing rubbish.

Quote:It's just a conscious choice that I try to make to keep myself from holding a genderist point of view because I believe language reinforces our understanding of the world

Indeed. Women being in denial that performing the femininity they've been conditioned to perform is a part of gender conformity, and trying to paint it as something special and unique, is a part of this linguistic choice that reinforces patriarchal norms, much how the rejection of people being male or female does the same.

Quote:Discussing performing or not performing your gender role and the effects that has can be separated from thinking of people as gender conforming or gender non conforming

And who is performing this action? Nebulous imaginary creatures? Aliens? This reminds me of libfems avoiding the subject of who's oppressing women under the patriarchy and trying to make the patriarchy into this nebulous undefined entity completely disconnected from actual human beings and their ideals.

We are not talking about someone just happening to coincidentally trip and fall facefirst into a makeup kit and whoops, now they just happen to be feminine before they trip and fall facefirst into a buzzcut. We are talking about how much a person is willing to perform the gender roles that are expected of them. A woman who takes her high heels off to take a shower is not suddenly gender nonconforming just because she is not currently performing the one specific action that's been arbitrarily labeled feminine.

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

Reply
Reply
Kozlik
Bahhh 💜🐐
Find
395
Jan 4 2026, 9:11 PM
#25
(Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM)YesYourNigel
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

You need to stop with this. You need to stop interpreting what some women write here in the worst possible light, go on the offensive, and snidely ask them "what they're even doing here." I've discussed with with you over PM at least once. I know you're plenty capable of being smart enough to not write toxic comments like this. Stop. Actual warning.
Reply
Reply
Kozlik
Bahhh 💜🐐
Jan 4 2026, 9:11 PM #25

(Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM)YesYourNigel
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

You need to stop with this. You need to stop interpreting what some women write here in the worst possible light, go on the offensive, and snidely ask them "what they're even doing here." I've discussed with with you over PM at least once. I know you're plenty capable of being smart enough to not write toxic comments like this. Stop. Actual warning.

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
330
Jan 8 2026, 6:13 AM
#26
(Jan 4 2026, 9:11 PM)Kozlik
(Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM)YesYourNigel
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

You need to stop with this. You need to stop interpreting what some women write here in the worst possible light, go on the offensive, and snidely ask them "what they're even doing here." I've discussed with with you over PM at least once. I know you're plenty capable of being smart enough to not write toxic comments like this. Stop. Actual warning.

You know what, I've given this site and radical feminism too many chances. Low quality of debate and shallow engagement is one thing (though I'm also exhausted by that), but when you cannot even address the bog standard choice feminism takes and ignorance because that hurts the woman's feelings and that makes feminist debate "toxic", then just...no.. There is no difference between this and being expected to debate what a woman is every time you try to talk women's rights, and then getting banned because your definition of a woman hurt someone's feelings. Radical feminists are not ready for this conversation and probably never will be given the ever lowering bar that conservatives have set for it. When so many of the conversations feel like the same level of non- engagement, ignorance and walking on eggshells that I get from random normies on the internet, it's time to spend my energy elsewhere. I'm done.
Edited Jan 8 2026, 6:26 AM by YesYourNigel.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
1
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Jan 8 2026, 6:13 AM #26

(Jan 4 2026, 9:11 PM)Kozlik
(Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM)YesYourNigel
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

You need to stop with this. You need to stop interpreting what some women write here in the worst possible light, go on the offensive, and snidely ask them "what they're even doing here." I've discussed with with you over PM at least once. I know you're plenty capable of being smart enough to not write toxic comments like this. Stop. Actual warning.

You know what, I've given this site and radical feminism too many chances. Low quality of debate and shallow engagement is one thing (though I'm also exhausted by that), but when you cannot even address the bog standard choice feminism takes and ignorance because that hurts the woman's feelings and that makes feminist debate "toxic", then just...no.. There is no difference between this and being expected to debate what a woman is every time you try to talk women's rights, and then getting banned because your definition of a woman hurt someone's feelings. Radical feminists are not ready for this conversation and probably never will be given the ever lowering bar that conservatives have set for it. When so many of the conversations feel like the same level of non- engagement, ignorance and walking on eggshells that I get from random normies on the internet, it's time to spend my energy elsewhere. I'm done.

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

1
Reply
Reply
LeftFem
Find
91
Jan 8 2026, 10:04 AM
#27
I don't particularly see the issue in using gender non conforming. The comparison with atheist is probably a good one, you're not a theist, thus you're an atheist.

Gender as a concept, as a performance DOES exist in society. Women are expected to behave in a certain way, men in another. You can call it whatever you want, I guess at best, we can call it patriarchy non-conformance or something, but it's the same concept.

I take myself as an example, I went into STEM, none of my friends growing up did. I have more "masculine" interests than a lot of my friends. The only reason I see is that my brother was born years after me, so my father treated me like a "son", so every time he went for work, he took me with him, and that developed my interest in IT, and from there to engineering. My friends had more traditional interests, because that's what they grew up with. My parents didn't buy me just dolls, they bought me cars AND dolls. Inversely, I'd say my brother grew up being bought only cars, so my parents "learned" from society that "gender" affects interest.

Small things, like I've never ever been good at makeup, my mom never believed in it, my friends instead had mothers that never left the house without caking on makeup.

You can call it something else, but it's that expectation of society, that performance of gender, which does exist. Even if I think "gender" doesn't exist, it's sex that really differentiates in terms of single sex spaces and behaviours on a macro level (Violent criminality, etc), it would be hard to say "gender" doesn't exist as a performance that we're expected to do. And GNC for me, is us NOT doing that dance.

I get the point of gender not existing, but that's only changing GNC to something else, a wordplay. Which, fair play, it's fine to do imo, but then we probably need the term you'd prefer using.

Basically, my terribly written thoughts I'd say

Sex- Female
Gender- Woman

What is gender? Not only sex but also how you're expected to behave in

Thus, when a TIM says they BEHAVE like a woman (BS, but let's entertain it as society's idea of behaviour), they may have one half, but not the other which is the sex.

While in my definition, they'd be a non gender conforming male. As they are not conforming to what they should be (Men).  However, that would also mean a butch woman is treated a bit like a TIF, that is non-gender conforming, but then I don't really see an issue, a TIF in theory is still a non-gender conforming female.
Edited Jan 8 2026, 10:14 AM by LeftFem.
2
1
1
Reply
Reply
LeftFem
Jan 8 2026, 10:04 AM #27

I don't particularly see the issue in using gender non conforming. The comparison with atheist is probably a good one, you're not a theist, thus you're an atheist.

Gender as a concept, as a performance DOES exist in society. Women are expected to behave in a certain way, men in another. You can call it whatever you want, I guess at best, we can call it patriarchy non-conformance or something, but it's the same concept.

I take myself as an example, I went into STEM, none of my friends growing up did. I have more "masculine" interests than a lot of my friends. The only reason I see is that my brother was born years after me, so my father treated me like a "son", so every time he went for work, he took me with him, and that developed my interest in IT, and from there to engineering. My friends had more traditional interests, because that's what they grew up with. My parents didn't buy me just dolls, they bought me cars AND dolls. Inversely, I'd say my brother grew up being bought only cars, so my parents "learned" from society that "gender" affects interest.

Small things, like I've never ever been good at makeup, my mom never believed in it, my friends instead had mothers that never left the house without caking on makeup.

You can call it something else, but it's that expectation of society, that performance of gender, which does exist. Even if I think "gender" doesn't exist, it's sex that really differentiates in terms of single sex spaces and behaviours on a macro level (Violent criminality, etc), it would be hard to say "gender" doesn't exist as a performance that we're expected to do. And GNC for me, is us NOT doing that dance.

I get the point of gender not existing, but that's only changing GNC to something else, a wordplay. Which, fair play, it's fine to do imo, but then we probably need the term you'd prefer using.

Basically, my terribly written thoughts I'd say

Sex- Female
Gender- Woman

What is gender? Not only sex but also how you're expected to behave in

Thus, when a TIM says they BEHAVE like a woman (BS, but let's entertain it as society's idea of behaviour), they may have one half, but not the other which is the sex.

While in my definition, they'd be a non gender conforming male. As they are not conforming to what they should be (Men).  However, that would also mean a butch woman is treated a bit like a TIF, that is non-gender conforming, but then I don't really see an issue, a TIF in theory is still a non-gender conforming female.

2
1
1
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
1,505
Jan 8 2026, 10:58 PM
#28
(Jan 8 2026, 6:13 AM)YesYourNigel
(Jan 4 2026, 9:11 PM)Kozlik
(Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM)YesYourNigel
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

You need to stop with this. You need to stop interpreting what some women write here in the worst possible light, go on the offensive, and snidely ask them "what they're even doing here." I've discussed with with you over PM at least once. I know you're plenty capable of being smart enough to not write toxic comments like this. Stop. Actual warning.

You know what, I've given this site and radical feminism too many chances. Low quality of debate and shallow engagement is one thing (though I'm also exhausted by that), but when you cannot even address the bog standard choice feminism takes and ignorance because that hurts the woman's feelings and that makes feminist debate "toxic", then just...no.. There is no difference between this and being expected to debate what a woman is every time you try to talk women's rights, and then getting banned because your definition of a woman hurt someone's feelings. Radical feminists are not ready for this conversation and probably never will be given the ever lowering bar that conservatives have set for it. When so many of the conversations feel like the same level of non- engagement, ignorance and walking on eggshells that I get from random normies on the internet, it's time to spend my energy elsewhere. I'm done.

Yes, if you cannot stop yourself from continuously making jabs at other women here and trying to discourage their participation just because they interpret some concepts differently than you, it is probably best you be done here. There are ways to "address the bog standard choice feminism takes and ignorance" without being aggressive and antisocial... on a social media website.

YYN, I feel like have tried to give you so much leeway and tolerance since the beginning of this forum. I thought it sucked that your comments were getting removed by mods on Ovarit, and I thought it was especially bullshit that you ended up even getting banned from there iirc. I was really hoping by providing you a space where your comments, no matter how "sharp" they might be, would not be deleted that you would have felt less "on edge." Instead, that didn't happen and even further, it seemed like you thought how I moderate this forum is "too soft" or something, and it feels like you expect me to either 1. start militantly policing women on being "perfect feminists" according to whatever you personally believe is the "right way" (I'm not doing that) or 2. allow members to enforce their personal militant feminist ideals on other members through being abrasive and rude until they either censor themselves out of fear or just leave (I'm not doing that either). I would even say that I did try to be lenient regarding the 2nd point being done by you several times at various points on this forum, and you kept pushing it to the point that I'd reached my limit by this thread.

Yes, if you seriously cannot understand why it is rude and discouraging to repeatedly reply to other members here with snide remarks about "why are you even here" and fly off the handle at them for whatever self-perceived "imperfect" perspective they might have shared on some feminist-adjacent topic and start berating them for it, then yes, it's probably best you spend your energy elsewhere. If you legitimately feel like me doing some bare-minimum moderating for civility is making you feel like you're "walking on eggshells", then yes, this place is probably not a good fit for you, and it would probably both save us a lot of stress if we parted ways.

I did appreciate a lot of your perspectives and I do thank you for your engagement and participation. If you want to create and moderate a feminist community that is to your exact liking, I welcome you to join the website that's been discussed in the Chat forum and create a community on there with your own rules and set it up however you'd like to foster the cutting edge feminist discussions you want to have. You're absolutely welcome to do that, no one else is obligated to do it for you. Shape your communities how you want them, don't expect others to do it for you. How you want this place to be run is not how I want to run it. Simple as.
Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
2
1
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Jan 8 2026, 10:58 PM #28

(Jan 8 2026, 6:13 AM)YesYourNigel
(Jan 4 2026, 9:11 PM)Kozlik
(Jan 4 2026, 8:06 PM)YesYourNigel
(Apr 21 2025, 7:34 AM)Lemonade Why would I size myself up on a scale I don't believe in and don't value?

Because you live in a patriarchy that employs gender conformity to keep women in line, and rejecting this is relevant to feminism? If you don't believe that patriarchal gender norms are bad for women then...what are you even doing here?

You need to stop with this. You need to stop interpreting what some women write here in the worst possible light, go on the offensive, and snidely ask them "what they're even doing here." I've discussed with with you over PM at least once. I know you're plenty capable of being smart enough to not write toxic comments like this. Stop. Actual warning.

You know what, I've given this site and radical feminism too many chances. Low quality of debate and shallow engagement is one thing (though I'm also exhausted by that), but when you cannot even address the bog standard choice feminism takes and ignorance because that hurts the woman's feelings and that makes feminist debate "toxic", then just...no.. There is no difference between this and being expected to debate what a woman is every time you try to talk women's rights, and then getting banned because your definition of a woman hurt someone's feelings. Radical feminists are not ready for this conversation and probably never will be given the ever lowering bar that conservatives have set for it. When so many of the conversations feel like the same level of non- engagement, ignorance and walking on eggshells that I get from random normies on the internet, it's time to spend my energy elsewhere. I'm done.

Yes, if you cannot stop yourself from continuously making jabs at other women here and trying to discourage their participation just because they interpret some concepts differently than you, it is probably best you be done here. There are ways to "address the bog standard choice feminism takes and ignorance" without being aggressive and antisocial... on a social media website.

YYN, I feel like have tried to give you so much leeway and tolerance since the beginning of this forum. I thought it sucked that your comments were getting removed by mods on Ovarit, and I thought it was especially bullshit that you ended up even getting banned from there iirc. I was really hoping by providing you a space where your comments, no matter how "sharp" they might be, would not be deleted that you would have felt less "on edge." Instead, that didn't happen and even further, it seemed like you thought how I moderate this forum is "too soft" or something, and it feels like you expect me to either 1. start militantly policing women on being "perfect feminists" according to whatever you personally believe is the "right way" (I'm not doing that) or 2. allow members to enforce their personal militant feminist ideals on other members through being abrasive and rude until they either censor themselves out of fear or just leave (I'm not doing that either). I would even say that I did try to be lenient regarding the 2nd point being done by you several times at various points on this forum, and you kept pushing it to the point that I'd reached my limit by this thread.

Yes, if you seriously cannot understand why it is rude and discouraging to repeatedly reply to other members here with snide remarks about "why are you even here" and fly off the handle at them for whatever self-perceived "imperfect" perspective they might have shared on some feminist-adjacent topic and start berating them for it, then yes, it's probably best you spend your energy elsewhere. If you legitimately feel like me doing some bare-minimum moderating for civility is making you feel like you're "walking on eggshells", then yes, this place is probably not a good fit for you, and it would probably both save us a lot of stress if we parted ways.

I did appreciate a lot of your perspectives and I do thank you for your engagement and participation. If you want to create and moderate a feminist community that is to your exact liking, I welcome you to join the website that's been discussed in the Chat forum and create a community on there with your own rules and set it up however you'd like to foster the cutting edge feminist discussions you want to have. You're absolutely welcome to do that, no one else is obligated to do it for you. Shape your communities how you want them, don't expect others to do it for you. How you want this place to be run is not how I want to run it. Simple as.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

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