Is gender REALLY just a social construct?

[Bye Bye Birdy]

x

[BaronTheCat]

If someone's interested in the biological aspects, I've got some links here. There are no simple answers to anything, from what I can see, but it's interesting to read anyway and you get an idea of what complicated things scientists have to work with...

part 2

part 3

part 4

[Bye Bye Birdy]

x

[taraoke]

I honestly believe that gender is what you feel on the inside :) .

But what exactly are you feeling inside, and how does that translate to the label you use to identify yourself?

This plagues me too! I'd like to know the response myself.

People have always wrestled with the idea of man/woman- as we know, plenty of people simply don't fit the binary. Due to social and cultural mores, third genders and non-gendered people are more common in cultures where that sort of identification is acceptable (see Hijra, Fa'afafine, etc). It's not a new phenomenon.

If we look at gender identification- and gender role as separate to that- and gender presentation as separate once more- it's easy to see that the latter two exist mostly in the external realm, and the other- gender identification- is purely internal, and is actually impossible to prove, because it doesn't exist anywhere. That's what I find confusing. Presentation and role are actual existing expressions of self- whilst gender identity is just a declaration.

For example, my ex-girlfriend identifies as a woman, with a masculine role and persona, with femme presentation. It's such a baffling thing, not just her, but everyone! I can't even really explain why I identify as genderqueer, I just know that I am, I know how I feel and that genderqueer explains that feeling. Can anyone really explain it further than that? It's got to be a mixture of nature/nurture...

[CDSM]

This plagues me too! I'd like to know the response myself.

People have always wrestled with the idea of man/woman- as we know, plenty of people simply don't fit the binary. Due to social and cultural mores, third genders and non-gendered people are more common in cultures where that sort of identification is acceptable (see Hijra, Fa'afafine, etc). It's not a new phenomenon.

If we look at gender identification- and gender role as separate to that- and gender presentation as separate once more- it's easy to see that the latter two exist mostly in the external realm, and the other- gender identification- is purely internal, and is actually impossible to prove, because it doesn't exist anywhere. That's what I find confusing. Presentation and role are actual existing expressions of self- whilst gender identity is just a declaration.

For example, my ex-girlfriend identifies as a woman, with a masculine role and persona, with femme presentation. It's such a baffling thing, not just her, but everyone! I can't even really explain why I identify as genderqueer, I just know that I am, I know how I feel and that genderqueer explains that feeling. Can anyone really explain it further than that? It's got to be a mixture of nature/nurture...

I guess it's because we all have clear conceptions of what "man" and "woman" are. And usually we have pretty solid conceptions of "masculine" and "feminine" as defined by what our culture considerations proper behavior and presentation for men and women.

Which is why as far as I'm concerned, I like being tall, I like having a deep voice, and I like being "tough". So, I figure that makes me masculine enough that along with having a typically male body I'll just use male pronouns, but PLEASE don't assume anything else about me. At least until proper genderless identity gets mainstream.

It's easier on the internet. If I don't tell people I'm male, I just say, "just assume whichever gender you like about me".

This was after I, on a certain forum, was told everyone thought I was a girl, and one guy specifically thought that because I "liked Meat Loaf and Tori Amos".

So yeah. I was apparently declared "forum god(dess) of gender ambiguity" and I'm like, "Seriously?" It was kind of weird. But at the same time I kind of liked it.

I just like to know what I'm identifying as. Which is why I've started to like the genderless thing because... it means I can just be 'none of the above'.

But at the same time, I feel like I don't understand other people's gender identities because... I mean, I would never misgender someone. If they say they are a man, I'll be like, "ok" and use male pronouns to refer to them. But it's like... is that it? Is all gender is, is pronouns? It can't be. So I'm thinking they want me to view them a certain way, and I'm not really sure what that is.

[Quiverfree]

I think a lot of people misunderstand or misconstrue social construction as either a simple personal decision-making process or a direct force acting upon you. The purpose of social construction is to illustrate the multitude of social actors and processes that shape society in all its forms over time. It's a mixture of both structure and agency within a highly complex process. You don't just become a gender or take up an identity because one person, one day, decides to tell you what you apparently are and say, "Okay absolutely!". You're born into a world that is cultured and engage with it, even to the extent that what you do feels like it is habitual. To say something is socially constructed is not to say it's illegitimate. If anything it upholds the opposite: People make their lives meaningful. I do not deny that belonging within a community or having an identity matters. The role of social constructionism is to illustrate power relations and to entice resistance, which you can't do if you are arguing that everything around you is absolute.

True, social constructs aren't necessarily illegitimate. But they are tools, and we have a responsibility to be explicit about what we're using them for and to check whether they're actually serving the purpose. Gender roles/stereotypes are a construct that I don't see a legitimate purpose for and that do people a lot of harm, so I'd rather be rid of them.

I think I stand with Kirsten Scherrer in her journal article on asexuality, though, where she argues that it's logically inconsistent for the asexual community to, on the one hand, state that sexual attraction is not innate and then, on the other, argue that the asexual orientation/identity is. I think it's important to think heavily about the implications of saying something is biologically inherent. I can understand strategic essentialism from a political standpoint - saying a gender, sexuality, 'race/ethnicity', etc. is biological in order to protect the community from a perceived threat. Yet, what about the history of using biological markers, like 'race', to socially exclude?

This is interesting. I hadn't heard that people didn't consider sexual attraction innate. Where do they make this argument?

[Guest]

Sexual attraction itself is not a social construct, but many think that our sexual orientations are (at least partly), and the very idea of a sexual orientation certainly is. I wonder how useful an extended analogy between sexual attraction and gender identity might be.

Count me in the camp that thinks sexual orientation is a social construct.

I think a lot of people misunderstand or misconstrue social construction as either a simple personal decision-making process or a direct force acting upon you. The purpose of social construction is to illustrate the multitude of social actors and processes that shape society in all its forms over time. It's a mixture of both structure and agency within a highly complex process. You don't just become a gender or take up an identity because one person, one day, decides to tell you what you apparently are and say, "Okay absolutely!". You're born into a world that is cultured and engage with it, even to the extent that what you do feels like it is habitual. To say something is socially constructed is not to say it's illegitimate. If anything it upholds the opposite: People make their lives meaningful. I do not deny that belonging within a community or having an identity matters. The role of social constructionism is to illustrate power relations and to entice resistance, which you can't do if you are arguing that everything around you is absolute.

True, social constructs aren't necessarily illegitimate. But they are tools, and we have a responsibility to be explicit about what we're using them for and to check whether they're actually serving the purpose. Gender roles/stereotypes are a construct that I don't see a legitimate purpose for and that do people a lot of harm, so I'd rather be rid of them.

Interesting. I don't really know if I'd call all social constructs tools, but I think there are good arguments on each side of the divide (namely, how broadly you define "tool"). I like to think of social constructs more in the line of paradigms... they're shortcuts that we take because it makes life more comprehensible. Some people (like all of us, apparently) actually derive some benefit from thinking in-depth about things like gender and sex. It doesn't necessarily make sense for everyone to do that, however. There are far too many topics, tasks, identities, and practical matters to attend to in this world to expect every person to allocate this much time and energy into understanding gender, sex, and sexual orientation. As an example, many of my friends have little hippy gardens in their yards. They are really into gardening, farming, etc, but I'm not. When one of my friends tries to lecture me about it, I just say "hey, you know about farming and growing and plants, and I know about the law. You help me when I need fresh garlic and I help you when you need to transfer property titles."

So is it a tool? Maybe not so much a tool as a shortcut that works for 95% of people. That's not to say that the other 5% aren't important or don't have a right to consider these things in depth, but it is to say that not everyone can be expected to care about the same issues. It wouldn't be practical. Let's be honest here... if the shortcuts work for 95% of the people, you're never going to fully rid the world of the shortcuts. I think the best you can expect is that the 95% don't judge, discriminate, or do anything else harmful while the 5% explores these concepts.

This was after I, on a certain forum, was told everyone thought I was a girl, and one guy specifically thought that because I "liked Meat Loaf and Tori Amos".

I don't know if we've interacted much, but I really appreciate all your posts and I have to say right now that I like Meat Loaf and I LOVE Tori Amos. Tori Amos is like my spirit animal. 8)

[CDSM]

I don't know if we've interacted much, but I really appreciate all your posts and I have to say right now that I like Meat Loaf and I LOVE Tori Amos. Tori Amos is like my spirit animal. 8)

Well, shucks. Here I think nobody cares about what I have to say. Thanks. :)

[BaronTheCat]

So is it a tool? Maybe not so much a tool as a shortcut

Despite our disagreements in other matters, I like your your description of social construct as a shortcut.

What I don't agree with is when someone says this or that is a social construct.

Let's take sexual orientation if gender identity is too hard to prove real.

You probably know that people are attracted to some traits and not to others. What you're attracted to may change over time, or it may not. Cultural ideas of sexual orientation influence your perception, but the real attractions and un-attractions are still there. There would be no social construct without the real thing, so sexual orientation is not a social construct, but we have a social construct around sexual orientation and this influences how we think and feel and self-label, to some extent, but not completely. Homosexual did not exist as a label some hundred years ago, but there were still individuals who were primarily attracted to their own gender, and homosexual feelings and behavior were still recognized (and considered wrong).

Maybe I misinterpret what you're saying altogether, but I'm sure there would be no social construct without the real thing. If we all just were randomly attracted to a little bit of everything, we would simply have the concept of attraction and not of orientation.

[Guest]

So is it a tool? Maybe not so much a tool as a shortcut

Despite our disagreements in other matters, I like your your description of social construct as a shortcut.

What I don't agree with is when someone says this or that is a social construct.

Let's take sexual orientation if gender identity is too hard to prove real.

You probably know that people are attracted to some traits and not to others. What you're attracted to may change over time, or it may not. Cultural ideas of sexual orientation influence your perception, but the real attractions and un-attractions are still there. There would be no social construct without the real thing, so sexual orientation is not a social construct, but we have a social construct around sexual orientation and this influences how we think and feel and self-label, to some extent, but not completely. Homosexual did not exist as a label some hundred years ago, but there were still individuals who were primarily attracted to their own gender, and homosexual feelings and behavior were still recognized (and considered wrong).

Maybe I misinterpret what you're saying altogether, but I'm sure there would be no social construct without the real thing. If we all just were randomly attracted to a little bit of everything, we would simply have the concept of attraction and not of orientation.

Social constructs are based on real things, yes. But they don't tell the complete story about those real things, and over time, like a campfire game of telephone... the social construct moves further and further away from the real thing it originally described. That's more or less my understanding, anyway.

Like, I believe that we all have unique sexual orientations and gender identities. I don't think any two people feel exactly the same. We have categories because, despite our individual peculiarities, most people fall roughly into a few different camps which are distinct and easy to identify. That doesn't mean that all straight people are the same, or all gay people are the same. I think the same is true of gender identities... I don't think any two people feel exactly the same about their sex and gender. Still, there are a few camps that the majority of people fall into and they are distinct and easy to identify (lets say male, female, and trans for the sake of this example).

One of the problems is that, since we're so far away from the connection between the construct and the real things, that we forget that we're all different. We think the categories are real. So then we get all these weirdo sub-categories that are completely useless (useless because they are not distinct nor easy to identify) all because we have people who say "hey, I'm not like everyone else in this category, I want a sub-category!". But no one in the category is like anyone else... not exactly, anyway. I think we need to just allow ourselves to be comfortable being who we are without requiring a term for every bit of minutia that we may feel. (and I am now remembering that this thread probably has to do with trans stuff, so let me disclaim now that I do not mean that feeling transgendered falls into the "every bit of minutia" section).

[BaronTheCat]

If that's what you meant by social construct, then we might actually see it the same way. Especially this:

One of the problems is that, since we're so far away from the connection between the construct and the real things, that we forget that we're all different. We think the categories are real./.../ But no one in the category is like anyone else... not exactly, anyway.

My understanding of the "so-and so is a social construct" has always been that "it's something made-up, and if we take away the construct, we would all be genderqueer, androgynous and pansexual". Some people I've been discussing with really seemed to believe this as a fact, despite the varied reality around them. They also seem to believe that if we "free" the bodies from culture (if we managed to look at them without any kind of preassumptions and associations), they would somehow cease to be male and female and everyone would be happy with the body shape they've got. <_<

[henshin]

Well, I know psychological gender exists because I have one. And many others (trans and cis) know it too. But if you don't know what it's like to have a gender identity, you're likely to think it's just a social construct.

(Most?) Asexuals don't know what sexual attraction is, as they've never felt it, but don't think I've ever heard an asexual claim that sexual attraction is a social construct. Guess it's easier to prove, as people actually seem to be attracted to each other. But wouldn't transsexuals count as proof that gender identity exists?

So this I find really interesting. How do you know you have a psychological gender? What does it feel like?

(I'm genuinely not taking the piss, I'm pretty excited actually cus I despaired of finding anyone who might be able to tell me this!)

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Well, I know psychological gender exists because I have one. And many others (trans and cis) know it too. But if you don't know what it's like to have a gender identity, you're likely to think it's just a social construct.

(Most?) Asexuals don't know what sexual attraction is, as they've never felt it, but don't think I've ever heard an asexual claim that sexual attraction is a social construct. Guess it's easier to prove, as people actually seem to be attracted to each other. But wouldn't transsexuals count as proof that gender identity exists?

So this I find really interesting. How do you know you have a psychological gender? What does it feel like?

(I'm genuinely not taking the piss, I'm pretty excited actually cus I despaired of finding anyone who might be able to tell me this!)

Mostly, it feels bad because it if one doesn't have a plain vanilla gender, society is going to call you on it or call you names because of it.

Because I have XY chomosomes but have soft features, no Adam's Apple, am somewhat pear shaped, have long blonde hair and am androgynous, I, like many other minorities, have taken a lot of crap during my lifetime. Sometimes, it's not so much what we've done that makes it what we feel we are, it's what's been done _to_ us.

I see what other XYs do, I hear what they say, I note their attitudes, I watch how they interact with their enviroment, and I find I can't adapt my feelings to reconcile with that data.

Once, when asked, 'Well, who do you find attractive, what traits or combinations are you looking for in someone with which to be intimate?", and the answer, unbidden, in what I guess was a Freudian slip was, "Someone I can feel safe with."

I count it a good day when I've learned something new, I love making beautiful things with my hands and my mind, love playing music and writing about feelings, think power is something that most mortals use badly and hope to leave behind a better place over which to scatter my ashes. Because NOBODY can tell the what gender ashes were when they were held in the embrace of life.

I sometimes find this existence of being pounded like a peg into a template of gender just unbearable.

"May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." -Vulcan Prayer.

That.

[Guest]

My understanding of the "so-and so is a social construct" has always been that "it's something made-up, and if we take away the construct, we would all be genderqueer, androgynous and pansexual". Some people I've been discussing with really seemed to believe this as a fact, despite the varied reality around them. They also seem to believe that if we "free" the bodies from culture (if we managed to look at them without any kind of preassumptions and associations), they would somehow cease to be male and female and everyone would be happy with the body shape they've got. <_<

Haha that's what I thought when I was like 20, because when you're young you haven't figured yourself out yet (or at least most of us hadn't), so everything really does seem fluid and indefinable and unexaminable.

But no, I think the exact opposite of that. Like, if you can imagine a chess board with infinite squares that all correspond to a different mix of sexuality and gender and personality traits, I genuinely believe there wouldn't be a single square with two people on it. I think the trick of the social construct is it suggests that sexual orientation and gender and sex drive and introversion and intelligence and pessimism, etc ad infinitum, are separate, discreet categories. We're told that who you want to have sex with is a big deal and it defines you as a person, but things like how neat you keep your house are much less important and have no bearing in defining you. But the thing is, no two straight people express their straightness the same way, and no two women feel the same way about their gender. We are literally all different, and who we are impacts all aspects of, well, who we are. Which is why I think labelling the extremes of things makes sense... sex addict vs asexual, for example, but labeling other stuff along the way (like demisexuality) just further confuses people because it suggests that everyone else is similar enough that such a label is meaningful, but I don't think people are sufficiently homogenous for that to make sense.

[BaronTheCat]

Well, I know psychological gender exists because I have one. And many others (trans and cis) know it too. But if you don't know what it's like to have a gender identity, you're likely to think it's just a social construct.

(Most?) Asexuals don't know what sexual attraction is, as they've never felt it, but don't think I've ever heard an asexual claim that sexual attraction is a social construct. Guess it's easier to prove, as people actually seem to be attracted to each other. But wouldn't transsexuals count as proof that gender identity exists?

So this I find really interesting. How do you know you have a psychological gender? What does it feel like?

(I'm genuinely not taking the piss, I'm pretty excited actually cus I despaired of finding anyone who might be able to tell me this!)

Hm, I've tried to explain this a lot, to many people, but I don't think I've ever succeeded. Some of us - trans and cis - know what it is because they have it. Others don't seem to have it, or in some cases might not be aware of it because they've never had to reflect upon their gender, or because it's always been uncomplicated for them. I know a cis woman who has some typically "masculine" interests. She gets insulted when people say she's not like a girl. If she'd never had her womanhood questioned she might not have had this sense of a female identity - or she might. I don't know.

The most common answer to your question is "I just know". Many transsexuals have indeed "just known" since they were 3 - 4 years old. But being female was uncomplicated for me before the body started changing at puberty, and even then I identified as female for some years until I finally saw how the pieces fit together. There are a lot of things that on their own might not all indicate a male self, but the whole picture does:

*When I played with other children, I most often pretended I was a male character. This is not uncommon for girls - after all, it was in the 80's, and strong role models for girls were rare. I copied those male characters and wanted to look like them. Copying your idols is however normal. Post puberty, I continued to idolize fictional and historical male heroes. "Celebrity crushes" is normal for straight girls. But I wanted to be those men - which is not normal for straight girls! I continued to copy them and pretended I was them. In my ordinary life I was very uncomfortable with my body and I disliked myself. I felt more like the real me when I pretended I was some guy. Since transition I haven't felt that need to be someone else (despite being rather self-critical). I'm happy to be me; I just want to be a better version of me.

*In my teens I was an extreme feminist and I hated men - despite my roleplaying. The inconsistency bothered me, so I tried to replace my male role models with female ones. It didn't work. I didn't want to be those strong and brave women rather than me. I admired their qualities of course, but it was still the guys I wanted to resemble.

*When my body started changing at puberty, I felt as if it turned into something that wasn't me and that I didn't want to be. I felt like it became distorted. I interpreted this as "not wanting to grow up". I also blamed a lot of my distress on patriarchy and the sexualization of women. The thought of men being attracted to me as a woman made me want to do violent things. The thought of women being attracted to me as a woman didn't bother me however, so I identified as lesbian. Though when I read books about homosexuality I found myself much more fascinated by man/man love (later, I've come to understand that I'm not homosexual as much as romantic), and I've never managed to fall in love with a girl though I've honestly tried. One day I stumbled upon a sentence in a feminist book; it was meant as a joke, but it was the missing piece of my puzzle. It suddenly struck me that even if women get the same jobs as men, earn as much as men, are treated like men, dress like men and behave like men - they would still have female bodies. Feminism couldn't help me change that fact.

I'm still a feminist, but I see things clearer now. I've come to realize that it isn't the female body that's the problem, it isn't heterosexuality, it isn't femininity, it isn't motherhood... The problem is power structures, gender expectations and disrespect for fellow humans. Before I recognized my male self, transsexualism and patriarchy and heteronormativity was just one huge lump of horribleness and I couldn't separate one from the other.

*About the lesbian part... Being homo-romantic is as fundamental for me as my male identity. When I thought I was female, I felt like I was a lesbian because I'm homo-romantic! Heterolove feels just weird. But I'm attracted to men, so I'm a man. I'm sure that if I were a woman, I would be a lesbian, and sometimes I wish I was. It would have been easier that way. No dysphoria, no surgery...

*I feel more comfortable with a male "surface" or what should we call it... A female surface is like a shoe that doesn't fit. A male surface is like a shoe that fits. I felt psychological discomfort when I had a female surface, like in a room where you know you don't belong. Hormones don't only change obvious things such as facial hair, voice and shape. They also change what it feels like to be in your body. The structure of your system so to speak. I didn't have to take hormones for a long time before I suddenly felt more comfortable not only in my body, but also in my head. I don't believe that hormones shape our personality - if so, all men would be more aggressive and horny than all women, and all women would be more nurturing than all men - but that's not how it is. But hormones do something.

*Lately, after having to deal with a male role that is as narrow as the female one, and after all the pain from knowing my body will always have some female traits, I've got tired of all the gender stuff and tried to identify as androgynous/neutrois and panromantic. That also goes best with my ideal, that it isn't gender, but the person, that should matter. But it can't be helped, I still feel like a man and I'm still not attracted to women, and most often not to non-binary genders either. That's just how it is. So in the end, the answer is still "I just know". I've known all along. Just not intellectually.

[Sophiatrist]

Hm, I've tried to explain this a lot, to many people, but I don't think I've ever succeeded.

Please do not take offense, but it could well be that it is because you continually conflate sex with gender.

I am a female because I have the primary and secondary sexual characteristic of a human female. I have an abundance of estrogen and a deficit of testosterone. Etc, etc, etc. Physical, biological characteristics. This is sex.

Now, take all of that away from what it means when I say I am a woman, which is gender, not sex. Other than the social construct of what it means to be a woman in Western, English Speaking cultures what is left? If an individual says that they have the gender identity of being woman, what exactly is it that they are identifying with?

To say that it is just simply something internal that "is" would be considered essentialism and I personally would be very hesitant to forward that position considering the extent to which it has been debated amongst the feminist philosophers. Take a look at Simone de Beauvoir's "Second Sex". That is where the quote "One is not born a woman, but becomes one" originated.

[Vampyremage]

Well, I know psychological gender exists because I have one. And many others (trans and cis) know it too. But if you don't know what it's like to have a gender identity, you're likely to think it's just a social construct.

(Most?) Asexuals don't know what sexual attraction is, as they've never felt it, but don't think I've ever heard an asexual claim that sexual attraction is a social construct. Guess it's easier to prove, as people actually seem to be attracted to each other. But wouldn't transsexuals count as proof that gender identity exists?

So this I find really interesting. How do you know you have a psychological gender? What does it feel like?

(I'm genuinely not taking the piss, I'm pretty excited actually cus I despaired of finding anyone who might be able to tell me this!)

Hm, I've tried to explain this a lot, to many people, but I don't think I've ever succeeded. Some of us - trans and cis - know what it is because they have it. Others don't seem to have it, or in some cases might not be aware of it because they've never had to reflect upon their gender, or because it's always been uncomplicated for them. I know a cis woman who has some typically "masculine" interests. She gets insulted when people say she's not like a girl. If she'd never had her womanhood questioned she might not have had this sense of a female identity - or she might. I don't know.

The most common answer to your question is "I just know". Many transsexuals have indeed "just known" since they were 3 - 4 years old. But being female was uncomplicated for me before the body started changing at puberty, and even then I identified as female for some years until I finally saw how the pieces fit together. There are a lot of things that on their own might not all indicate a male self, but the whole picture does:

*When I played with other children, I most often pretended I was a male character. This is not uncommon for girls - after all, it was in the 80's, and strong role models for girls were rare. I copied those male characters and wanted to look like them. Copying your idols is however normal. Post puberty, I continued to idolize fictional and historical male heroes. "Celebrity crushes" is normal for straight girls. But I wanted to be those men - which is not normal for straight girls! I continued to copy them and pretended I was them. In my ordinary life I was very uncomfortable with my body and I disliked myself. I felt more like the real me when I pretended I was some guy. Since transition I haven't felt that need to be someone else (despite being rather self-critical). I'm happy to be me; I just want to be a better version of me.

*In my teens I was an extreme feminist and I hated men - despite my roleplaying. The inconsistency bothered me, so I tried to replace my male role models with female ones. It didn't work. I didn't want to be those strong and brave women rather than me. I admired their qualities of course, but it was still the guys I wanted to resemble.

*When my body started changing at puberty, I felt as if it turned into something that wasn't me and that I didn't want to be. I felt like it became distorted. I interpreted this as "not wanting to grow up". I also blamed a lot of my distress on patriarchy and the sexualization of women. The thought of men being attracted to me as a woman made me want to do violent things. The thought of women being attracted to me as a woman didn't bother me however, so I identified as lesbian. Though when I read books about homosexuality I found myself much more fascinated by man/man love (later, I've come to understand that I'm not homosexual as much as romantic), and I've never managed to fall in love with a girl though I've honestly tried. One day I stumbled upon a sentence in a feminist book; it was meant as a joke, but it was the missing piece of my puzzle. It suddenly struck me that even if women get the same jobs as men, earn as much as men, are treated like men, dress like men and behave like men - they would still have female bodies. Feminism couldn't help me change that fact.

I'm still a feminist, but I see things clearer now. I've come to realize that it isn't the female body that's the problem, it isn't heterosexuality, it isn't femininity, it isn't motherhood... The problem is power structures, gender expectations and disrespect for fellow humans. Before I recognized my male self, transsexualism and patriarchy and heteronormativity was just one huge lump of horribleness and I couldn't separate one from the other.

*About the lesbian part... Being homo-romantic is as fundamental for me as my male identity. When I thought I was female, I felt like I was a lesbian because I'm homo-romantic! Heterolove feels just weird. But I'm attracted to men, so I'm a man. I'm sure that if I were a woman, I would be a lesbian, and sometimes I wish I was. It would have been easier that way. No dysphoria, no surgery...

*I feel more comfortable with a male "surface" or what should we call it... A female surface is like a shoe that doesn't fit. A male surface is like a shoe that fits. I felt psychological discomfort when I had a female surface, like in a room where you know you don't belong. Hormones don't only change obvious things such as facial hair, voice and shape. They also change what it feels like to be in your body. The structure of your system so to speak. I didn't have to take hormones for a long time before I suddenly felt more comfortable not only in my body, but also in my head. I don't believe that hormones shape our personality - if so, all men would be more aggressive and horny than all women, and all women would be more nurturing than all men - but that's not how it is. But hormones do something.

*Lately, after having to deal with a male role that is as narrow as the female one, and after all the pain from knowing my body will always have some female traits, I've got tired of all the gender stuff and tried to identify as androgynous/neutrois and panromantic. That also goes best with my ideal, that it isn't gender, but the person, that should matter. But it can't be helped, I still feel like a man and I'm still not attracted to women, and most often not to non-binary genders either. That's just how it is. So in the end, the answer is still "I just know". I've known all along. Just not intellectually.

Thank you for that wonderful post. My own experiences coming to understand myself as agendered have been very different, so I appreciate having the different perspective here.

[CDSM]

I wonder if I would have identified as agender at a younger age, if I knew that was a thing.

Because I knew I wasn't a girl, but I also knew I wasn't like other boys, on the inside.

[Quiverfree]

I think a lot of people misunderstand or misconstrue social construction as either a simple personal decision-making process or a direct force acting upon you. The purpose of social construction is to illustrate the multitude of social actors and processes that shape society in all its forms over time. It's a mixture of both structure and agency within a highly complex process. You don't just become a gender or take up an identity because one person, one day, decides to tell you what you apparently are and say, "Okay absolutely!". You're born into a world that is cultured and engage with it, even to the extent that what you do feels like it is habitual. To say something is socially constructed is not to say it's illegitimate. If anything it upholds the opposite: People make their lives meaningful. I do not deny that belonging within a community or having an identity matters. The role of social constructionism is to illustrate power relations and to entice resistance, which you can't do if you are arguing that everything around you is absolute.

True, social constructs aren't necessarily illegitimate. But they are tools, and we have a responsibility to be explicit about what we're using them for and to check whether they're actually serving the purpose. Gender roles/stereotypes are a construct that I don't see a legitimate purpose for and that do people a lot of harm, so I'd rather be rid of them.

Interesting. I don't really know if I'd call all social constructs tools, but I think there are good arguments on each side of the divide (namely, how broadly you define "tool"). I like to think of social constructs more in the line of paradigms... they're shortcuts that we take because it makes life more comprehensible. Some people (like all of us, apparently) actually derive some benefit from thinking in-depth about things like gender and sex. It doesn't necessarily make sense for everyone to do that, however. There are far too many topics, tasks, identities, and practical matters to attend to in this world to expect every person to allocate this much time and energy into understanding gender, sex, and sexual orientation. As an example, many of my friends have little hippy gardens in their yards. They are really into gardening, farming, etc, but I'm not. When one of my friends tries to lecture me about it, I just say "hey, you know about farming and growing and plants, and I know about the law. You help me when I need fresh garlic and I help you when you need to transfer property titles."

So is it a tool? Maybe not so much a tool as a shortcut that works for 95% of people. That's not to say that the other 5% aren't important or don't have a right to consider these things in depth, but it is to say that not everyone can be expected to care about the same issues. It wouldn't be practical. Let's be honest here... if the shortcuts work for 95% of the people, you're never going to fully rid the world of the shortcuts. I think the best you can expect is that the 95% don't judge, discriminate, or do anything else harmful while the 5% explores these concepts.

I think we're on the same page for things like sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation that have some innate basis to them. I see gender roles differently because the innate basis (different genders being statistically more likely to have certain personality traits) is pretty slim. I say gender roles are harmful because by definition they assume different things about different people based on their gender, which is discrimination.

Hm, I've tried to explain this a lot, to many people, but I don't think I've ever succeeded.

Thanks for the story! For me it was really clear and informative.

[BaronTheCat]

Vampyremage: It would be interesting to hear your story too. If you don't think it belongs in this thread, you can PM. :)

Hm, I've tried to explain this a lot, to many people, but I don't think I've ever succeeded.

Please do not take offense, but it could well be that it is because you continually conflate sex with gender.

Maybe so. In my own language, we have only one word for gender and sex. I might misinterpret what "gender" and "gender identity" means. It seems that some people use gender as eqiuvalent to gender roles and the social idea of what it means to be male or female, but I've also seen gender being used as equivalent to "identification with a certain sex"... Which is the way I use it.

To say that it is just simply something internal that "is" would be considered essentialism and I personally would be very hesitant to forward that position considering the extent to which it has been debated amongst the feminist philosophers. Take a look at Simone de Beauvoir's "Second Sex". That is where the quote "One is not born a woman, but becomes one" originated.

I don't believe something is true/untrue just because a feminist philosopher said so. Neither because it's in the Bible or because Dalai Lama or Marx said so. Being wise or intelligent does't equal never making mistakes, and ideology is not truth.

I've read Beauvoir and I think she makes a good point (from what I remember; I read it years ago). I may confuse gender with sex, but, it seems, so do all of you who keep misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about the social mechanisms and experiences that take part in shaping the lives of men and women. I'm saying that there's not all that is.

You may not have read what I wrote in another thread, that was locked... concerning "essentialism". I fully understand why the idea of some kind of mental sex, and possible differences between male and female brains seem so scary to non-trans feminists. After all, this was the argument Patriarchy used to keep women in a subordinate position and prevent them from developing their personalities. But that is NOT what I or other trans feminists talk about. Most transsexuals are against restricting gender roles, and against that one sex should be considered better than another.

But if there is such a thing as biological femininity and masculinity (which this thread was not about)... this would consist of traits that are more common among women than among men, and the other way around. Still, there would be biological variation. All women won't have all the feminine traits and the same goes for men and masculine traits. Gender roles would still be restricting and inadequate. And it's still no excuse for discrimination based on sex or gender expression, and it's still no excuse for despising femininity or objectifying women. And still, a lot of so-called feminine and masculine traits and interests are purely cultural. We can't tell which ones, so if we want to help people be themselves and develop their full personalities, we should still get rid of the gender roles.

And if there is such a thing as "mental sex", it does not equal femininity/masculinity. People with a male mental sex could still be feminine and the other way around.

I can also understand that the idea of biology shaping part of our personality may be unappealing; it kinda limits us, doesn't it? If culture and experience alone determined our personality, we can become whoever we want if we're aware of how culture has formed us. But if nature made us this way?

"Biology is not destiny" is a quote that I agree with... Or rather, "biology shouldn't be destiny". I've had problems with anxiety for a long time. This might or might not be biological, but I'm not happy with it either way and I do my best to change this trait. I don't see anything wrong with changing physical or mental traits that make us suffer, even if we're born with them... I changed my body after all. How "original" it is, is not a good measure of whether or not it should be changed. To determine what should be changed, we must ask ourselves other questions such as "are you happy with it" or "is it ethical".

If gender identity was a product of culture and experience alone, then anybody could have any gender they liked and I could still call myself a man and change my body if I wanted to, so it wouldn't be any different.

I don't agree with what someone else said, that essentialism is useful as a political tool. I don't think there's ever an excuse to twist the truth for political reasons, not even for good political reasons. Truth is how things are. Politics is what we should do about it. I believe a "mental sex" exists because it seems most likely, from what I have experienced and from what I've heard and read and witnessed. Not for any other reason!

[Bye Bye Birdy]

x

[never odd or even]

The way we express gender is socially constructed or interpreted.

Our gender is the thing that makes us want to express ourselves in such a manner.

You can debate it any which way you like, but I can't see how this cannot be, regardless of socialisation.

We may not like the socialisation our assigned sex gets, regardless of our gender in question as well.

[miqui]

I don't know what it might feel like to have a gender identity, or to feel like you are a gender or a sex. I do identify myself as male out of convention, but it's not because I "feel" male. I don't. It's because most people most of the time identify me as male because of my appearance, whether I like it or not. -_-

There are only a few definitions of male sex I've ever really come to understand. One is that males are whoever is born with a penis, and a penis is any organ formed when the clitoris and urethra become fused together. Obviously many men who are trans do not see it that way. Another is that males are a political class; males are whoever is subjectively identified as male, and so exist in society, politically, as male subjects. That doesn't mean having the same experience, it means having diverse experiences all filter through the same political lens. That's inclusive of some men who are trans but it's also exclusive of both cissexual and transsexual men who are frequently identified as women or otherwise non-male because of their appearance. Another is that males are whoever has a male mental sex and so feels male, has a male identity and internal understanding of themselves, a male 'brain sex'. That is broadly inclusive of trans* and cis* men who identify as male. It's not, however, inclusive of me. -_-

So if this last definition is taken to be authoritative, then I would no longer be male. My identity would be invalid. I do feel that I have enough political experience in life being treated as a male to validate my identifying myself as one, even if I do not have the male mental sex or 'feeling of maleness' that others have. I don't feel any identification with maleness beyond the political implications of being identified as one in a society where that absolutely determines how people will treat you, see you and react to you. Am I wrong? Is that enough to validate my use of the identity? Or am I appropriating male identity? Should I properly identify myself as genderless?

[BaronTheCat]

ScholasticBird: Yeah, I guess it's not so much the "hows", but the "whys" that's important. If gender roles and -expectations made people trans, a lot more people would want a sex change I suppose...

miqui: This is why gender, sex, identity and stuff is so complicated. Experience often becomes part of our identity. Your male experience is not at all unimportant. But depending on who you are, the experience will be slightly different and you'll react differently to it.

I have both male and female experience. I have experienced a female body, and how I'm treated and interpreted, what's expected of me, and who I'm supposed to identify with because of that body. I've also been socialized as female... My parents didn't give me a gender-stereotypical upbringing, but there's also school, media, other kids, other adults etc. Because I was gender-nonconforming, non-heterosexual and because I was originally a dominant person, I've been discontent with the role I was assigned. That experience I have in common with many non-heterosexual women, tomboys and feminists. But I don't have the experience of relating to an adult female body, so I have trans experience, added to the experience of non-normative female.

I also have male experience, partly because I have a male identity, and partly because I've lived for some years as percieved "male". I'm not quite happy with the male role either, because I'm non-heterosexual and somewhat gender-nonconforming, so I guess I have some experience in common with those who identify as androgynous or agendered or neutrois. (= both gender roles feel wrong)

Because my trans and female and non-normative male experience, I can never feel like just "one of the guys", and I don't want to, because it would be ethically problematic. So yes, experience influences how you feel. But I don't "identify" as female or trans. For my own sanity I have to make a difference between identity and experience. On the other hand, I "identify" as a citizen of my country, despite knowing this is only experience-based. Why? Identifying as a person of certain nationality is not emotionally problematic for me. It might have been if I had migrated for some reason.

If you identify as male because of your male experience, I see nothing wrong with that. Other people with male experience, who don't have an internal sense of male gender, might instead choose to identify as something else. That's not wrong either.

(Btw, in some feminist spaces, trans men are included while trans women are not. Apart from outright phobia of male-bodied and former male-bodied people, I've seen the explanation that trans men have female experience. I can understand that as reason for inclusion, but it's no reason for excluding trans women. They have female experience too.)

[miqui]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Baron. :) I agree experience and sense of identity are interrelated, and sometimes we may end up with one and not the other. I don't have sense of identity, just experience, and the experience is so marginal and far from the 'normal male experience' that even my sense of experience-based identity is very tenuous... more intellectual or theoretical than actually "felt". If someone came along and told me, "actually it turns out that you are biologically different from males" I wouldn't be surprised or anything. I don't believe that if I weren't identified as male it would ever have mattered to me to be one or identify myself as one. When I was a little boy and my mum would tell me "stop acting that way!! you are like a girl!!" I would reply with the question, "what is wrong with girls?" It drove her crazy, and even made her violent. I didn't understand why. Now I believe it was because this was supposed to make me feel 'ashamed' and 'demeaned'. So I was supposed to react by changing my behaviour, because of the shame, because I shouldn't want to feel humiliated and demeaned anymore. But I didn't feel demeaned and I didn't see anything wrong with being a girl. What I did feel was something was being imposed on me with no explanation, with violence and threats of violence, and that only made me feel resentful, angry and rebellious. But ironically it is the experiences of being screamed at and beaten because I am "like a girl" that are now, for me, the ones that make me feel most formatively 'male'. As girlish as I was, a political girl - or 'faab' - would not have been beaten and abused for being "too girly" in my place.

At the same time though I definitely haven't had a typical male experience, so I feel like I have a very marginal, inauthentic male narrative and I've found most males cannot relate to it and most people do not want to hear it or accept it. I also feel very alienated from the male experiences most males articulate and I find I don't intuitively understand them. I've studied a lot of it for some time now and I feel like I'm able to understand more of it than I used to, at least on a theoretical level. The dominance thing, the compulsion to exert 'control'. I understand now the connection between misogyny and homophobia, masculinity and fear of vulnerability, and I understand that the mentality which is expected and pushed onto males is to fill a predatory, dominating role. The basic stuff I've managed to figure out. But... I just don't understand it first hand, and it still usually 'throws me for a loop'. I understand theoretically now why men feel 'demeaned' when they are called women, because I've read a tonne of feminist theory and put two and two together, but I've never actually felt it first hand. If anything I've only ever experienced it as positive - when I was rebelling, because it meant defiance, and when I was involved in feminism, because it was a compliment.

It feels surreal to be in the same 'gender' with people I usually have such difficulty understanding. There's not really anywhere else to go, though, that I have found. I'm not a woman and the genderless identities - while nice in theory - aren't actually recognised in practice. They have no political ramification in society where by appearance I'm normally seen as just a femmey boy.

I tend to run into more problems when I open my mouth. A lot of times then I haven't been recognised as exactly male either. Some people believe rather fervently that I'm really a woman. Other people have identified me as a "eunuch". Some people just don't seem willing to let me get by with what I feel and still be 'male'. In a sense that's a male experience - because as a woman I wouldn't have my identity questioned in the same circumstances. At least it's not a female experience. But in a sense... maybe it is something else, too. I'm really not sure. There are are lot of experiences I have which I have never felt free to articulate in feminist groups - because this would be diverting attention to male problems - and I have never felt free to articulate to the men's groups either, because they are not considered to be male experiences. They are seen as 'female' experiences. Like my history of being sexually harassed and my feelings around it. How far does an experience have to go from the 'norm' to be categorically different? I feel like straddling the very edge.

Definitely by any rigid definition of gender I am not male. In some forums there were people who would always gender me female, refer to me with female pronouns and even go through the trouble to "correct" anybody who refers to me as male, because they insisted that I was really a woman pretending to be male. These were very standard macho men, though, threatened to have me in their 'category'. In the bisexual community I've felt much more included and accepted as male, though I still find that other males will look at me with blank stares more often than not when I'm talking about my experience. But not threatened, just confused. ^_^ That's fine. But it does contribute to making my sense of male identity much more tenuous than solid.

So I'd say, for some of us, for me at least, gender is really just a social construct. For others I've seen that it is not. Maybe both exist.

I have both male and female experience. I have experienced a female body, and how I'm treated and interpreted, what's expected of me, and who I'm supposed to identify with because of that body. I've also been socialized as female... My parents didn't give me a gender-stereotypical upbringing, but there's also school, media, other kids, other adults etc. Because I was gender-nonconforming, non-heterosexual and because I was originally a dominant person, I've been discontent with the role I was assigned. That experience I have in common with many non-heterosexual women, tomboys and feminists. But I don't have the experience of relating to an adult female body, so I have trans experience, added to the experience of non-normative female.

Yes. They tried to socialise me male but it seems to have been mostly an abysmal failure, I was "girly" to begin with and when I was abused and threatened it only made me disrespect those attacking me. At least to hear them tell it. I'm just 'assimilation-resistant', I guess. 8) I do have some interests usually associated with males, like video games, and it's not like I ever make a secret of them, but apparently not enough to outweigh the rest. I have some trans experience too. For some time I dressed very feminine. Feminine enough that I was frequently seen as a girl and called 'she', or else seen as a boy in "girl clothing". I even took hormones for awhile, but it wasn't because I wanted to transition. So some people who know this about me feel like I should identify as trans. But trans-what? To me any identity I could possibly transition into feels as indifferent as 'male' does anyway.

I also have male experience, partly because I have a male identity, and partly because I've lived for some years as percieved "male". I'm not quite happy with the male role either, because I'm non-heterosexual and somewhat gender-nonconforming, so I guess I have some experience in common with those who identify as androgynous or agendered or neutrois. (= both gender roles feel wrong)

Right. For me I guess it is half that, the experience. But since I don't feel any identity, it's enough for me to feel ok with the label, though not particularly attached. I hate the male role. Hate it. I don't care who wants to push it on me or in the name of what. I hate it and I will never accept it.

On the other hand, I "identify" as a citizen of my country, despite knowing this is only experience-based. Why? Identifying as a person of certain nationality is not emotionally problematic for me. It might have been if I had migrated for some reason.

Well many people who immigrate do become identified with their adoptive countries. Some countries more welcoming of this than others, of course. :) I've known people who feel indigenous to a place - a deep connection to the land. An ex of mine felt this way about her area, even though she was also a staunch atheist and rejected spiritualism as a bunch of mystical nonsense, she still would say she felt tied to her region, her land, her ancestors buried there. Others of us have no such feeling, we migrate, settle, and have only a tenuous, political feeling of 'nationality'. They are both valid, no? :D

If you identify as male because of your male experience, I see nothing wrong with that. Other people with male experience, who don't have an internal sense of male gender, might instead choose to identify as something else. That's not wrong either.

Yeah. I guess it would mean for my kind of male identity, it's completely socially constructed. This wouldn't be the same depth as a male identity based on a biological feeling of maleness. So in some ironic sense, I feel like this 'immigrant', not 'natural born'. Many people question my authenticity, not accepting it, enough that I question my own male authenticity too quite a lot. I do always appreciate the warmth of acceptance when I find it, though. So thank you for that. ^_^

(Btw, in some feminist spaces, trans men are included while trans women are not. Apart from outright phobia of male-bodied and former male-bodied people, I've seen the explanation that trans men have female experience. I can understand that as reason for inclusion, but it's no reason for excluding trans women. They have female experience too.)

I know, I've see this, but I also think however flawed or discriminatory the reasoning is, it is their space to run as they want. There are men's groups who meet around feminist issues for example where my experience as a male isn't welcome, because it's not recognised as a male experience as they theoretically understand one. So they don't want to hear that I am sexually harassed or assaulted or that I feel the fear and apprehension which they consider to be exclusively female. They don't seem to know how to deal with it or how to deal with me, or even whether I'm politically a liability for the credibility of their groups. Feminist groups do not want to hear this either, in my experience, because of "what about the menz". So what am I supposed to do? I stay away from them all, usually, unless I'm invited. I don't feel welcome. I think it's hypocritical, flawed, self-defeating even. It doesn't make sense to me to start out with the intention to create a theory to describe a reality (like patriarchy) and then end up erasing the bits of reality that do not fit with the theory to save the coherency of the theory. But what am I supposed to do? If I'm not wanted, I'm not wanted. There isn't really much to do but try to find spaces where I do feel wanted and I can participate. And a lot of spaces just do not want male bodied people around, usually for very similar phobias.

Trans groups can be just the same, too. In uni there was a trans group that formed and I went there hoping at last for connection with people, sense of community. I found it was all trans men and some cissexual lesbian women, no trans women there - not even one. I was the only male bodied person there at all. It seems like a remarkable contradiction to me for lesbian women to date trans men and claim at the same time to respect the identity of trans men - but OK. Every meeting centred around issues relating to trans men, things like phantom phallus sensation, or feeling turned on through a dildo, or testosterone injections and their effects. Which is fine, of course. I had nothing to offer to participate, but tried to listen anyway and be supportive. I just at some point wanted to talk a little bit about being afraid I will be cornered and beat to death by a gang of men because I'm wearing a skirt, too. Because somehow we never get to talking about this. But I never could even get a word in. The other members did their best to ignore me at every meeting. They didn't say hello to me or good bye. They would only hug each other, but they wouldn't touch me even with a stick. I started to get the message. Male bodied people were not wanted there, despite the name of the group, it was not inclusive. At some point a woman came to the group, sat right next to me, and made a big speech about how biological penises were the most disgusting, repulsive things in the known universe, nauseating to look at, nauseating to imagine, whereas trans men were all hot. Then she looks at me and says, "uh, no offence". And some other guy in the group pipes in, "oh Miqui's not offended. Miqui agrees with you." I never went back after that! I've experienced this same speech in many spaces, not just 'the usual suspects'.

I think it has nothing to do with experiences or any of that. It's about our bodies and what they mean. Male bodies only mean one thing to most people: predation. Penises are weapons. That's completely obvious by the way they are talked about. Take your pick, pornography, erotica, fanfic, romance, BDSM, "vanilla", all the genres concur about the meaning of penises, all the metaphors are "gun", "sword", "rod" - weapons. On one side you have people who want to celebrate it and call it positive - you know, it's great to be fucked by men, if you have a submissive kink, because it is perfectly valid to want to play a submissive role, and on the other you have people who revile it because they repudiate sexual submission, no no, it is not great, it is terrible, because it is not valid to want to submit. It all sounds the same to me anyway, quite frankly. -_-

[Bye Bye Birdy]

x

[BaronTheCat]

miqui: Very interesting, all of this!

As girlish as I was, a political girl - or 'faab' - would not have been beaten and abused for being "too girly" in my place.

Not in any normative family anyway.

I tend to run into more problems when I open my mouth. A lot of times then I haven't been recognised as exactly male either. Some people believe rather fervently that I'm really a woman. Other people have identified me as a "eunuch". Some people just don't seem willing to let me get by with what I feel and still be 'male'. In a sense that's a male experience - because as a woman I wouldn't have my identity questioned in the same circumstances. At least it's not a female experience. But in a sense... maybe it is something else, too.

Yes, if you behave differently than is expected of you based on your percieved gender or sex, in this case male, and if this makes people confused, or angry, or sceptical, this is male experience in a political sense, even if your actual gender or sex isn't male.

I think it's really bad that the groups you're talking about dismiss your experience so quickly.

There are men's groups who meet around feminist issues for example where my experience as a male isn't welcome, because it's not recognised as a male experience as they theoretically understand one. So they don't want to hear that I am sexually harassed or assaulted or that I feel the fear and apprehension which they consider to be exclusively female.

In order to make the best decisions, we ought to understand the situation, and we won't get a correct understanding of the situation if we dismiss some of the facts. There's not just one kind of male or female experience. How gender roles affect us depends on who we are. Your experience as percieved "femme boy", is one of the keys to understanding how gender roles work. And the people you mentioned are part of it without seeing it.

...about the trans group, there are different kinds of trans "communities". Some are inclúsive and open, and some are more oriented towards certain subgroups.

I think it has nothing to do with experiences or any of that. It's about our bodies and what they mean. Male bodies only mean one thing to most people: predation. Penises are weapons. That's completely obvious by the way they are talked about. Take your pick, pornography, erotica, fanfic, romance, BDSM, "vanilla", all the genres concur about the meaning of penises, all the metaphors are "gun", "sword", "rod" - weapons.

If I encounter a villain, I'd rather use a gun or a sword than a penis :lol:

[CDSM]

I'm just kind of jumping in here, but I've always felt most comfortable in "mixed company", and hated when things were split up into guys and girls only (and I had to go with guys, and usually everything was slanted into 'guy issues' that I couldn't relate to).

I always liked things better when they were constructed to be taken in by anyone regardless of gender, so I wouldn't feel like a foreigner in a group I was supposed to belong to.

I think it has nothing to do with experiences or any of that. It's about our bodies and what they mean. Male bodies only mean one thing to most people: predation. Penises are weapons. That's completely obvious by the way they are talked about. Take your pick, pornography, erotica, fanfic, romance, BDSM, "vanilla", all the genres concur about the meaning of penises, all the metaphors are "gun", "sword", "rod" - weapons. On one side you have people who want to celebrate it and call it positive - you know, it's great to be fucked by men, if you have a submissive kink, because it is perfectly valid to want to play a submissive role, and on the other you have people who revile it because they repudiate sexual submission, no no, it is not great, it is terrible, because it is not valid to want to submit. It all sounds the same to me anyway, quite frankly. -_-

See... this is kind of why I don't like having a penis. Because I don't want to prey on anyone. At least not in that way, and not on anyone I like, and I don't want to be seen as the kind of person that does that sort of thing, or is designed to do that sort of thing.

I despise all the power dynamics in sex and relationships and really wish I could... just, not be a part of them.

[Sally]

I never thought of myself as anything other than a girl/woman and had no desire to BE a man. However, at a small party or dinner where there were couples, and I was either with a male partner or alone, and the genders split up (which it seemed they always did), I wanted to be with the men. They discussed more interesting stuff. But even though I went ahead and joined them, I noticed that they seemed a bit constrained, and the women got a little pissed at me. The women seemed to feel I was either being a traitor to the gender or thought I was "too good" for them. The men maybe wanted to discuss cars without having to sound intellectual.

It's been much easier since I'm of the age now when I'm not expected to be a competitive "female" but just a person.

[BaronTheCat]

CSDM: I feel most comfortable in mixed company too.