Jump to content

For those who are non-cis, I have a question.


R_1

Recommended Posts

I second the hypothesis that you're not really aware of your gender until it causes you some discomfort. (Not necessarily as strong as dysphoria)

Usually, we identify (either strongly or by default) with a certain set of identities until we realize that these don't fit.

For example, I think a huge majority of people thought they were heteroromantic and heterosexual, because that is the "default" setting. Until they realize that it doesn't fit their experience. It often goes hand in hand with a sentiment of solitude, of feeling left out.

So I think most cis people are comfortable with this identity they've received by default, and don't really question it, because they aren't confronted to the realization that it doesn't fit them.

It makes sense that a lot wouldn't actively have a sense of gender. I've seen a lot of people identify as agender because they didn't really comprehend how gender affected their person. Some non-binary people are comfortable with the body they were born with, and don't feel the need to use different pronouns. I can't help but notice the similarities between cis-by-default and some agender people. I wonder if these are just merely two different ways of identifying one same feeling? (Both are valid in my opinion)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, you know of the LessWrong community? I haven't heard anything about them until I try to find the source which involves differentiating census of cis-people between group. And yeah, a bigger sample study would be very useful and somewhat informative enough for people to gain a more accurate views of others. It's a start. I'm afraid a study on that is going to take a very long time. There's also the possibility of a similar study involving trans people, and I recognize there are extremely subtle form of being non-binary/trans, and there are more extreme. It would be nice to differentiate between groups and subgroups.

Yes, I read their blog every once in a while. My boyfriend is much more involved, mostly because by the time I'm done reading everything on AVEN I have very little reading stamina left at the end of the day :P

But from what I see and understand, they are a rational group. There is some overlap with the Effective Altruism community too, though they are still very much two distinct communities. Good people, both groups. I quite enjoy reading the posts when I get around to it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that people often don't feel gender until they feel a disconnect with it.. And then they really feel it. That's why on all of these threads where people question "feeling gender" it's hard to quantify- and then the cis and indifferent people start throwing around the "feeling gender is BS" talk because they can't relate to what we're saying :/

Exactly. I don't really understand why this is always so contentious. If you don't really "feel" your gender, and you're not really bothered by key elements, congrats! It means you don't really have to do much. I don't "feel" like a woman. What is that? But I know know that how I was wasn't ok. Choosing to pull myself away from all sorts of natural, common things because it felt so gross to do it. Waking up, seeing scraggly beard shadow and just feeling my heart sink. Seeing chest hair and hearing my voice and feeling like I just got kicked in the stomach.

Sometimes I wonder about people who say things like, "oh I don't care about my gender, use any pronouns you want." It's one thing to be lackadaisical about something like pronouns, but to extrapolate that to all other elements seems dubious. My intuition tells me most people who "don't really care" would change their tune if things really did shift completely. It's easy to say you don't care, but when you actually have to live it, I promise it's no fun. Not caring doesn't cause you to hide from photos and cover all mirrors in your house.

"Sometimes I wonder about people who say things like, "oh I don't care about my gender, use any pronouns you want." It's one thing to be lackadaisical about something like pronouns, but to extrapolate that to all other elements seems dubious." I found a local transgender group, and have begun attending their monthly meeting; I've been twice now, and at the last meeting, I met a trans man who is lackadaisical about pronouns. Granted I don't have a lot of experience, but there really does seem to be this odd consensus that, if they don't find pronouns important, or even identify with having pronouns, nobody should. His assertion at the meeting brought out some definite approval and agreement from at least two other members out of the small group that attended. It reminds me of the episodes of "I Am Cait"

I'm mostly watching to see what damage she's doing, whether she can learn to be respectful, and whether she can embrace her own identity and community, since many cis people are taking her as our ambassador. I have found a deep respect for Cait's entourage, however, especially Jenny Boylan and Chandi Moore.

where Jennifer Finney Boylan and Kate Bornstein go round and round about terminology in the community. A reminder that we still have a ways to go, even as far as we've come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skipper Valvoline

Well, this certainly helps clear some things up, tentative as it may be (for me, at least).

I'm cis for a few reasons: I don't have body dysphoria being the main one, and then just figuring that heck I'm just another unique female lying around on the plane of human experiences. It didn't make me another gender.

But when I would confront myself internally there's no 'boy' or 'girl' anything. I'm just Skipper. It's all Skipper in there. It's Skipper who wears a dress to church, it's Skipper who wears men's clothes to fly, it's Skipper who cracks jokes, it's Skipper speaking to other males and females, it's Skipper who's the cliche buddy regardless of gender... Skipper says "screw it, I'm doing ME"

As for the whole "don't notice gender unless there's a difference" hypothesis, I'm a little skeptical. I've been utterly fascinated by gender since 10th grade and nearly all of my communications and psychology college papers have been about it (save for the random psychopathy essay). It most certainly has been on my mind and I've questioned myself over and over about as I learned more. There was a time where I determined that technically I could qualify for genderqueer or agender. However, nearly all of this had to be based on outward expression, interaction, and dysphoria. I would "look" inside and just see me, Skipper. Then people start going on about an 'internalized sense' which is somehow removed from all external stimulus of biological sex, gender expression, gender roles, etc., and I would scratch my head thinking "Well, then what the heck is left??"

But this idea... that some cis folk don't have that internalized sense a lot of gendered people talk about... this can explain a lot, as well as providing light on my current questions about people who DO have an internal sense. Fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A bit late to the discussion, but I think it's a very interesting topic.

Personally I don't believe that the 'just not noticing' theory is applicable in general (if at all). Norms are context sensitive so most people will find themselves violating some gender norms at some points in time. But such violations, even when people point out I'm violating some code, have never made me feel wrong or experience any kind of feeling at all with regards to gender or sex. Except, perhaps, that there's something wrong with anyone who'd want to enforce such norms.

Trying mental experiments, and considering how I'd feel about having a female body I simply can't imagine that would feel wrong in any way for me either. It would be different, I'd be violating different norms, but again, it wouldn't fit 'me' any more or less. Given the option, if it were possible to just switch over, I'd change in a heartbeat, just for the opportunity to have a new experience. Ideally, I'd prefer to be able to change at will, but that luxury option simply isn't available.

I've had people point out I could qualify for being non-cis or as queer or agender, but I feel that trans* implies at least some level of dysphoria, a discomfort with the current state and a desire to transition from something, to something and I simply don't seem to be feeling anything like that. It's just flesh. A body. A tool to manipulate the world I perceive. Its shape only. to some extent, dictates its fitness to specific purpose, it does not dictate who I am or what I do.

So I retain 'cis' so as to not detract from those who do seem to feel that dysphoria. But I don't think that means I'm just 'male' by both sex and gender and simply haven't experienced any limitations with that.

Edit: Agh, spelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had people point out I could qualify for being non-cis or as queer or agender, but I feel that trans* implies at least some level of dysphoria, a discomfort with the current state and a desire to transition from something, to something and I simply don't seem to be feeling anything like that. It's just flesh. A body. A tool to manipulate the world I perceive. It's shape only. to some extent, dictates it's fitness to specific purpose, it does not dictate who I am or what I do.

*nods* I've always found it hard to relate to the idea that a trans* person could be completely free from dysphoria. I do understand that not every dysphoric person seeks transition, but if there's absolutely no dysphoria in regards to the biological sex of their body to start with... well, hard to say this without sounding harshly dismissive... but I do feel that the gender of a non-disphoric non-cis person is much closer to a style choice then, than to something I'd consider an intrinsic part of their identity, akin to an orientation. So yes, I'd hesitate calling that trans*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to see if any studies have tried using PET scan or fMRI to answer the question. (I'm too lazy to google it right now)

That'd be interesting to see. If all cis-individuals have a sense of gender, then cis-by-default and cis-genderless individuals would have to try evaluating their approach to identity. If it shown that not every cis-individuals has actually a sense of gender or even have one, then lots of people within gender-based mindset may actually admit there are different approach to identity and they don't really get the concept of gender because they don't have one. Such a study would actually encourage gender-focused community to find a more accurate definitions and less problematic ones than ones that are most commonly used.

I think it may be quite hard to accomplish such a scan, as there may be multiple factors affecting this sense of self.

If it is a composite of multiple cognitive functions, on one end the sense of self and its relation to the body, a mostly internal function, and on the other end, the desire of expression of the self in relation to the external world, then there's going to have to be a whole lot of mapping going on before one can be separated from the other. The difficulties around establishing definitions is, in my opinion, a strong indication that there's something more going on and that multiple variables are getting conflated.

And even if that gets disentangled, can it separate the difference between experiencing a dissonance, and whether or not it's something the individual feels is a relevant factor to them?

*nods* I've always found it hard to relate to the idea that a trans* person could be completely free from dysphoria. I do understand that not every dysphoric person seeks transition, but if there's absolutely no dysphoria in regards to the biological sex of their body to start with... well, hard to say this without sounding harshly dismissive... but I do feel that the gender of a non-disphoric non-cis person is much closer to a style choice then, than to something I'd consider an intrinsic part of their identity, akin to an orientation. So yes, I'd hesitate calling that trans*.

It's a fair assessment about how I feel about my own preferences. It would be nice, but it would merely be a luxury, like the desire to be able to pick out a more appropriate attire for what I wish to project or experience. Not an intrinsic need.

Even if accepting that there's no real 'match' between the sex I was born as and the gender I experience (which I can only infer from thought experiments), and thus qualifying as trans*, the fact remains that I have not had any of the lived experience of people who consider themselves trans*. There are many possible reasons for that, but the end result is that I'll have more in common with the cis experience than the trans, leaving me feeling that it would be presumptuous of me to use trans as a label.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had people point out I could qualify for being non-cis or as queer or agender, but I feel that trans* implies at least some level of dysphoria, a discomfort with the current state and a desire to transition from something, to something and I simply don't seem to be feeling anything like that. It's just flesh. A body. A tool to manipulate the world I perceive. It's shape only. to some extent, dictates it's fitness to specific purpose, it does not dictate who I am or what I do.

*nods* I've always found it hard to relate to the idea that a trans* person could be completely free from dysphoria. I do understand that not every dysphoric person seeks transition, but if there's absolutely no dysphoria in regards to the biological sex of their body to start with... well, hard to say this without sounding harshly dismissive... but I do feel that the gender of a non-disphoric non-cis person is much closer to a style choice then, than to something I'd consider an intrinsic part of their identity, akin to an orientation. So yes, I'd hesitate calling that trans*.

I look at it this way: Sometimes, it's about dysphoria with your birth-assigned gender. Other times, it's strictly about euphoria regarding the gender to which you transition. Like, as a guy, you'd be indifferent, but as a girl, you're over the moon. That sort of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had people point out I could qualify for being non-cis or as queer or agender, but I feel that trans* implies at least some level of dysphoria, a discomfort with the current state and a desire to transition from something, to something and I simply don't seem to be feeling anything like that. It's just flesh. A body. A tool to manipulate the world I perceive. It's shape only. to some extent, dictates it's fitness to specific purpose, it does not dictate who I am or what I do.

*nods* I've always found it hard to relate to the idea that a trans* person could be completely free from dysphoria. I do understand that not every dysphoric person seeks transition, but if there's absolutely no dysphoria in regards to the biological sex of their body to start with... well, hard to say this without sounding harshly dismissive... but I do feel that the gender of a non-disphoric non-cis person is much closer to a style choice then, than to something I'd consider an intrinsic part of their identity, akin to an orientation. So yes, I'd hesitate calling that trans*.
I look at it this way: Sometimes, it's about dysphoria with your birth-assigned gender. Other times, it's strictly about euphoria regarding the gender to which you transition. Like, as a guy, you'd be indifferent, but as a girl, you're over the moon. That sort of thing.

Ah, okay. Makes sense... at least that's "relativistic dysphoria" then... from a certain point of view. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...