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

YesYourNigel

156

Yesterday, 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 Yesterday, 8:24 AM by YesYourNigel.

OffMyTit

Yesterday, 3:07 AM

#12

(Yesterday, 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.

Lemonade

4 hours ago

#13

(Yesterday, 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 3 hours ago by Lemonade.