Confusion surrounding masculinity/feminity

[plupiter]

This is not related to dysphoria or being trans but only to the less important question surrounding gender expression. I hope that is not inappropriate, as it still feels like an important part of one's identity.

I became confused of how feminine/masculine I was only since puberty. Before that I was very gender-conforming. I could never put my finger on this and thought that maybe as I grew more aware of the world I just internalized misogyny and was actually quite feminine as I was when young. Yet, I couldn't help but feel a new distance from the femininity my peers began to develop, and a growing proximity to the maturing masculinity of the boys. So I wondered if I had been feminine at all or if I was simply conforming as a child. That was until I found the social experiments of ten young boys left alone in a house and a different one with girls, on Youtube. It was fascinating to see their behavioral differences. As I watched them, I remembered the feelings that I had since forgotten, and the feminine behavior deeply resonated with me. I now think that I have very feminine traits developed pre-puberty and lack the femininity that most other girls developed with puberty (though it's hard to define exactly what the difference is, I am very curious about it and I do believe there is a difference). I can't help but think that is somehow related with me being an aro/ace. And I feel the need to understand what is feminine and masculine or neutral about me more deeply.

 Has anyone had a similar experience? Do you have a theory on the differences of gender expression / gendered behavior pre and post puberty? Is a gender neutrality associated with being aro/ace? and how does that manifest? 

[Just Somebody]

A lot about femininity in many cultures of many different societies from different places and across the history of the world was built in regards to serving and pleasing men.

 

So it's common for asexual, aromantic and gay women to not have feminine gender expressions, like fitting gender stereotypes and conforming to gender norms and roles when they are not forced nor care about pleasing or serving men.

[uhtred]

Related thought - I feel that gender identity has two dimensions  - both a sort of "importance" and a "gender".  For example, someone could feel 100% male, and also feel that being male is an core part of their being.   Or someone could find that they can't really describe their gender as specifically "male" or "female" but what it  is still is key to their sense of worth.  Still others might feel sure that they are "male" but that they don't consider "maleness" as a core part of themselves, they just "happen" to be male, but it doesn't matter.  This may tie in with the extent to which people feel either internal or external impetus to conform to some gender role. 

 

As always of course its very difficult to separate effects of innate biological gender, and effects of society / upbringing because its obviously  not possible to raise a child completely separate from any contact with society. 

[plupiter]

12 minutes ago, Just Somebody said:

A lot about femininity in many cultures of many different societies from different places and across the history of the world was built in regards to serving and pleasing men.

 

So it's common for asexual, aromantic and gay women to not have feminine gender expressions, like fitting gender stereotypes and conforming to gender norms and roles when they are not forced nor care about pleasing or serving men.

But the correlation between gender non-conforming behavior and non-hetero sexualities happens regardless of the service of men and also in childhood, previous to being forced to please men. I would also say a very minor part of femininity can reasonably be explained as having emerged to serve men.

[plupiter]

18 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Related thought - I feel that gender identity has two dimensions  - both a sort of "importance" and a "gender".  For example, someone could feel 100% male, and also feel that being male is an core part of their being.   Or someone could find that they can't really describe their gender as specifically "male" or "female" but what it  is still is key to their sense of worth.  Still others might feel sure that they are "male" but that they don't consider "maleness" as a core part of themselves, they just "happen" to be male, but it doesn't matter.  This may tie in with the extent to which people feel either internal or external impetus to conform to some gender role. 

 

As always of course its very difficult to separate effects of innate biological gender, and effects of society / upbringing because its obviously  not possible to raise a child completely separate from any contact with society. 

Perhaps I was not clear, but I previously meant that by finding those videos I concluded that the femininity that I do have is an effect of innate biological gender, and not an effect of society/upbringing. I meant to ask on completely natural levels, what different gendered traits are developed with puberty that perhaps an asexual would be less likely to develop. 

That is interesting. Personally, I don't know how feminine or masculine I am. I feel a need to understand myself and be certain of my identity, yet I do not feel like being female is a core part of my being. I feel as though I could be satisfied being born into either sex depending on the social/cultural context. And strongly identifying with gender makes me feels odd and a bit uncomfortable.

[Just Somebody]

Just now, plupiter said:

But the correlation between gender non-conforming behavior and non-hetero sexualities happens regardless of the service of men and also in childhood, previous to being forced to please men. I would also say a very minor part of femininity can reasonably be explained as having emerged to serve men.

Well the majority of femininity was socioculturally historically built in regards to serving and pleasing men... but  within time we had a change in the socioculturally historically built ideal of women of what a woman should look like and behave like, because it was necessary.

 

Back a while ago and til today, girls when growing up were and are still taught that they could only find happiness or a meaningful life if they served, pleased and married a man as a submissive housewife and that was the only way, so they had to conform to gender norms of expression.

 

As times and societies (the circumstances) changed, so changes in the ideal of women were necessary, because women now need to learn to be independent, they can't expect anymore a man to be "the enchanted princely figure" and end all their problems for them, as they need to live their Iives for themselves and not to serve a man, they cannot built their lives and identities in regards to men as previously more enforced anymore. 

 

 

We as humans were differentiated in gender identity socioculturally historically built groups or categories in the first place in the cultures of many different societies from different spaces and times because that was a way of establishing who served and who was to be served.

 

[plupiter]

1 minute ago, Just Somebody said:

Well the majority of femininity was socioculturally historically built in regards to serving and pleasing men... but  within time we had a change in the socioculturally historically built ideal of women of what a woman should look like and behave like, because it was necessary.

 

Back a while ago and til today, girls when growing up were taught that they could only find happiness or a meaningful life if they served, pleased and married a man as a submissive housewife and that was the only way, so they had to conform to gender norms of expression.

 

As times and societies (the circumstances) changed, so changes in the ideal of women were necessary, because women now need to learn to be independent, they can't expect anymore a man to be "the enchanted princely figure" and end all their problems for them, as they need to live their Iives for themselves and not to serve a man.

Psychological studies have proven that femininity and masculinity are completely natural and exist regardless of social pressure. I am discussing femininity and masculinity on much more simplistic and fundamental terms than what role you take in society, which is more relative. The majority of femininity is not socially constructed, but biological. 

[Just Somebody]

Just now, plupiter said:

Psychological studies have proven that femininity and masculinity are completely natural and exist regardless of social pressure. I am discussing femininity and masculinity on much more simplistic and fundamental terms than what role you take in society, which is more relative. The majority of femininity is not socially constructed, but biological. 

OK... then I'm done comparing different cultures from different human societies across times and spaces.

 

 

Why don't you compare us to other mammals then? Take a look at studies done about the gender expressions in the behaviors and atitudes of societal monkeys and of the hyenas, you'll be surprised.

[Just Somebody]

Just now, Just Somebody said:

Well the majority of femininity was socioculturally historically built in regards to serving and pleasing men... but  within time we had a change in the socioculturally historically built ideal of women of what a woman should look like and behave like, because it was necessary.

 

Back a while ago and til today, girls when growing up were and are still taught that they could only find happiness or a meaningful life if they served, pleased and married a man as a submissive housewife and that was the only way, so they had to conform to gender norms of expression.

 

As times and societies (the circumstances) changed, so changes in the ideal of women were necessary, because women now need to learn to be independent, they can't expect anymore a man to be "the enchanted princely figure" and end all their problems for them, as they need to live their Iives for themselves and not to serve a man, they cannot built their lives and identities in regards to men as previously more enforced anymore. 

 

 

We as humans were differentiated in gender identity socioculturally historically built groups or categories in the first place in the cultures of many different societies from different spaces and times because that was a way of establishing who served and who was to be served.

 

I forgot to finish.

[plupiter]

2 minutes ago, Just Somebody said:

OK... then I'm done comparing different cultures from different human societies across times and spaces.

 

 

Why don't you compare us to other mammals then? Take a look at studies done about the gender expressions in the behaviors and atitudes of societal monkeys and of the hyenas, you'll be surprised.

No, I have looked at such studies, they only confirm inherently biological traits of femininity and masculinity. They serve as the proof that I have already mentioned, so I don't see how they'd be surprising. But also know that femininity and masculinity is expressed differently across species, so to point out an animal that shows reversed or different behavior does not prove that humans are alike. Instead, the consistency demonstrated across the particular populations of animals shows that femininity and masculinity are biological and not socially constructed. Though our particular human gender-expression is not inherent to the condition of being. I should also mention that gender non-conforming animals and humans are just as biologically natural.

[Switters]

2 hours ago, plupiter said:

This is not related to dysphoria or being trans but only to the less important question surrounding gender expression. I hope that is not inappropriate, as it still feels like an important part of one's identity.

I became confused of how feminine/masculine I was only since puberty. Before that I was very gender-conforming. I could never put my finger on this and thought that maybe as I grew more aware of the world I just internalized misogyny and was actually quite feminine as I was when young. Yet, I couldn't help but feel a new distance from the femininity my peers began to develop, and a growing proximity to the maturing masculinity of the boys. So I wondered if I had been feminine at all or if I was simply conforming as a child. That was until I found the social experiments of ten young boys left alone in a house and a different one with girls, on Youtube. It was fascinating to see their behavioral differences. As I watched them, I remembered the feelings that I had since forgotten, and the feminine behavior deeply resonated with me. I now think that I have very feminine traits developed pre-puberty and lack the femininity that most other girls developed with puberty (though it's hard to define exactly what the difference is, I am very curious about it and I do believe there is a difference). I can't help but think that is somehow related with me being an aro/ace. And I feel the need to understand what is feminine and masculine or neutral about me more deeply.

 Has anyone had a similar experience? Do you have a theory on the differences of gender expression / gendered behavior pre and post puberty? Is a gender neutrality associated with being aro/ace? and how does that manifest? 

So being from a generation that was only starting to deal with sexual identity I can tell you about how I dealt with it.

 

I grew up with only women as my dad left when I was 4. And being normal I didn't see gender roles as normal. We are taught them. So played sports AND loved cooking and sewing. My older sister used me as a make-up doll which I liked. I was more comfortable with women than men for the first 20 years of my life. And gay/bi/queer people. (Sorry if I offend anyone with how I generalize. I frankly  don't mind what anyone is. And support it. The language is new to me. I lived most my life in an amorphic sexual/gender world where everything was accepted. I'm lucky). I was lucky though that I found David Bowie. A superstar that was just David Bowie not gay, straight or any other. He just WAS. It aught me just to be in many ways. I am definitely more heterosexual, I have tried many things. I think Lady Gaga is the new Bowie. 

 

I spent years being dressed by gay men who liked the twink in me and did my hair. I moved many times and changed. I also filled out and became a manly man as a builder with muscle. I don't get free drinks in gay bars anymore but I am still welcome. Women still like talking to me due to my feminine side. 

 

I am just happy with me now. I cook, sew, do interior design and love shopping with my wife. I also love playing sports and getting bloodied working on a building site and being that type of manly. 

 

If I could be a bit contrary. YOU ARE YOU. You do not need a title beyond your name. The new way of titling everything is as exclusive as pre-titles. I lived for 20 years in a world where we just were. I would never put a label on anyone or stick them in a box. We need to just be people. And whatever you do or want to do, just do. Be beautiful like bowie in the 70's and Gaga now. No-one puts a label on them...they just are.

[PoeciMeta]

7 hours ago, plupiter said:

Psychological studies have proven that femininity and masculinity are completely natural and exist regardless of social pressure.

Which studies? 

[Switters]

7 minutes ago, PoeciMeta said:

Which studies? 

 

8 minutes ago, PoeciMeta said:

You can find studies that say the earth is flat and Caucasians are the master race. It takes the whole to make the one. And after that we will start the whole thing again as we learn more.   

 

[PoeciMeta]

12 minutes ago, Switters said:

22 minutes ago, PoeciMeta said:

Which studies? 

 

22 minutes ago, PoeciMeta said:

You can find studies that say the earth is flat and Caucasians are the master race. It takes the whole to make the one. And after that we will start the whole thing again as we learn more.   

 

I never said that 🤨

 

I do agree that not all studies are serious or well made, just asking OP for their sources... 

[Adlena]

Oops.wrong conversation

[plupiter]

5 hours ago, PoeciMeta said:

Which studies? 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-008-9430-1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.94.1.168

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513802001071

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10789.short

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18992993

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886903000837

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-08926-000

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42300521/Consistent_sex_differences_in_cortisol_r20160207-20385-o65unw.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DConsistent_sex_differences_in_cortisol_r.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20200109%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200109T132120Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=3f10ef22755c5ed0dda201b686cb13f9d480baddbac30c530aaf89da8f2cccfd 

(For example).

I must say that I didn't mean that social pressure has a light role, just that femininity and masculinity are not just cultural. Though it is hard to know which stereotypes are simply social and which are biologically based, it is known that there are both, and that femininity and masculinity are heavily associated with hormones and early development. I didn't mention sources because I think it is a widely accepted fact that gender expression is not merely social and also because this topic was not meant to be about this. 

[plupiter]

11 hours ago, Switters said:

So being from a generation that was only starting to deal with sexual identity I can tell you about how I dealt with it.

 

I grew up with only women as my dad left when I was 4. And being normal I didn't see gender roles as normal. We are taught them. So played sports AND loved cooking and sewing. My older sister used me as a make-up doll which I liked. I was more comfortable with women than men for the first 20 years of my life. And gay/bi/queer people. (Sorry if I offend anyone with how I generalize. I frankly  don't mind what anyone is. And support it. The language is new to me. I lived most my life in an amorphic sexual/gender world where everything was accepted. I'm lucky). I was lucky though that I found David Bowie. A superstar that was just David Bowie not gay, straight or any other. He just WAS. It aught me just to be in many ways. I am definitely more heterosexual, I have tried many things. I think Lady Gaga is the new Bowie. 

 

I spent years being dressed by gay men who liked the twink in me and did my hair. I moved many times and changed. I also filled out and became a manly man as a builder with muscle. I don't get free drinks in gay bars anymore but I am still welcome. Women still like talking to me due to my feminine side. 

 

I am just happy with me now. I cook, sew, do interior design and love shopping with my wife. I also love playing sports and getting bloodied working on a building site and being that type of manly. 

 

If I could be a bit contrary. YOU ARE YOU. You do not need a title beyond your name. The new way of titling everything is as exclusive as pre-titles. I lived for 20 years in a world where we just were. I would never put a label on anyone or stick them in a box. We need to just be people. And whatever you do or want to do, just do. Be beautiful like bowie in the 70's and Gaga now. No-one puts a label on them...they just are.

I disagree with the general idea that labels are negative or restricting. Anyone and anything can be classified. "Not putting people in boxes" seems like an excuse to not be self-aware and to develop your identity around less vulnerable aspects of yourself. People do put labels on them. If you are, you are something, you are in some form. You will always be something, what changes is whether or not you know what that something is. I think it's good to question yourself, analyse your behavior and be aware of how others interpret it. And so, for me, it's important to know what would my most natural expression of gender be, truest to my unbiased will. And to then identity with that with certainty, to understand myself. It's important for me to find my actual self and my actual will and fully adapt to it, rather than being uncertain why I feel a certain way and what I should behave like. Being uncomfortable with descriptions is not liberating or open-minded. If you feel smothered in some box you need to morph the box until it's accurate and comfortable and clear. Refraining from descriptions all-together is simply to be unconscious of who you are. You are freer if you are aware of the box that confines you than if you deny it's existence, then you will be fully controlled by factors you're unaware of. The space that you'd feel by ignoring the box's existence is an illusion. 

  And as I said in other comments, there is a lot to gender expression that is natural and normal, that we are not taught.

I am not unhappy about what activities I partake in, just unsure of my natural levels of masculinity and femininity. I don't directly care about how feminine or masculine I am, just about knowing how masculine or feminine I am - whatever that might be - so that I exist within what is purest to me.

[Rynn]

14 hours ago, plupiter said:

That was until I found the social experiments of ten young boys left alone in a house and a different one with girls, on Youtube.

I've seen the same videos a couple years back. I mostly remember both of the groups messing things up pretty badly, and increasingly so the more time went by without their parents to keep them in check. I remember not relating to either group and mostly just being happy I never have to go to school organized camping trips and be alone with this many kids for an extended period of time again haha

It's these videos, right?:

Spoiler

 

 

14 hours ago, plupiter said:

Has anyone had a similar experience? Do you have a theory on the differences of gender expression / gendered behavior pre and post puberty? Is a gender neutrality associated with being aro/ace?

So just to make sure I got this right, your experience is that you were gender-conforming as a child, but during your teenage years you distanced yourself from femininity and became more masculine, but now, through watching those social experiments, you realized you still deeply relate to femininity, correct?

 

Teenage girls are often sexualized starting from their early teens, in advertisements, by catcallers etc, in ways that teenage boys are not. Maybe you tried to escape that sexualization by distancing yourself from femininity. Just a suggestion though.

 

But yes, there is a high correlation between asexuality/aromanticism and gender-nonconformity. I have not been able to find any studies looking into this correlation, so we're on our own when it comes to finding out why that correlation exists. The suggestion above does not fully explain it, because amab (assigned male at birth) ace/aro people are on average fairly gender-nonconforming too. Short answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

6 minutes ago, plupiter said:

"Not putting people in boxes" seems like an excuse to not be self-aware and to develop your identity around less vulnerable aspects of yourself.

This is where I disagree though. If it's not important to you to label something, then you don't have to. That is not an excuse or a sign of weakness.

It's good if you yourself want to find a label and want to analyze yourself, but it is not okay to judge others for not having the same level of interest in analyzing that specific part of themselves.

As for the heated controversy threatening to start in this thread:

14 hours ago, plupiter said:

Perhaps I was not clear, but I previously meant that by finding those videos I concluded that the femininity that I do have is an effect of innate biological gender, and not an effect of society/upbringing.

So, just checking, with this sentence you are saying that your own femininity is rooted in biology, rather than upbringing, correct? And you figured that out because on a deep level you related to the feminine behaviors those kids had, right?

 

So you are not saying that the behavior of the kids in those videos is necessarily rooted in biology, right? (Because if you were saying that second thing, that would be odd. Those kids had a gendered upbringing, like any other kid, so they don't necessarily prove anything about the biological side of gender.)

 

18 minutes ago, plupiter said:

I must say that I didn't mean that social pressure has a light role, just that femininity and masculinity are not just cultural. Though it is hard to know which stereotypes are simply social and which are biologically based, it is known that there are both, and that femininity and masculinity are heavily associated with hormones and early development.

I think that's obviously correct. Biology/neurological processes do play a role, though it's hard to know how much of a role, and the role it plays is probably different in each individual.

The thing is that a lot of trans people are a bit allergic to biological explanations of gendered behavior, because those are often then used in prescriptive ways, rather than descriptive ways. But I don't think that's what you are trying to do.

 

So yeah, @plupiter I hope you can understand that it's a sensitive topic. It would be good to refrain from calling the biological/neurological part of gender identity 'natural and normal,' as that gets very close to a value judgement. The societal aspect of gender identity is not unnatural or abnormal.

 

Let's all be careful with the way we word things and ask for clarifications when we don't agree/understand what the other is saying, rather than assuming the worst. I think the people in this thread agree more than it seems like they do at first glance.

Cheers  

[plupiter]

44 minutes ago, Laurann said:

It's these videos, right?:

Yes.

44 minutes ago, Laurann said:

This is where I disagree though. If it's not important to you to label something, then you don't have to. That is not an excuse or a sign of weakness.

It's good if you yourself want to find a label and want to analyze yourself, but it is not okay to judge others for not having the same level of interest in analyzing that specific part of themselves.

I do believe it is an excuse. But I didn't mean to cast that much judgment as you interpreted. Just like someone should respect another's disinterest in their identity, so should it be respected that some people to want to label themselves, and acknowledged that there is nothing strict, close-minded, or immature about wanting or needing to classify/understand oneself. 

I think we should have the freedom to define what we believe is right and what should be done, so I don't see how it's not okay to judge others in the way I did, which was intended to be respectful and impersonal. There was no emotional judgment or much value attributed to it. Just my opinion on why some have such an animosity towards labels, an animosity that seems unjustified to me. Once you define what should be done, you have effectively judged everything that does not correspond to that ideal. And it would be hard to contradict the necessity of defining what is right and wrong. So the idea that you shouldn't judge others is inherently contradictory, being a judgment in of itself, defining what you shouldn't do. Though, of course, there are different types of judgment. 

 

44 minutes ago, Laurann said:

So, just checking, with this sentence you are saying that your own femininity is rooted in biology, rather than upbringing, correct? And you figured that out because on a deep level you related to the feminine behaviors those kids had, right?

Yes. I didn't mean their behavior in general though, more of their psychological nature. And I already explained and gave sources on there being natural and social gender expression. The particular traits that I related to were mostly not obvious stereotypes but more subtle psychological differences between the genders that I had since forgotten. I remembered the strong drive toward them independent of my environment, coming from myself and not the exterior world. And I didn't meant to use the video as proof for anything, more as an emotional explanation of how I came to recognize natural femininity in myself.

 

44 minutes ago, Laurann said:

So yeah, @plupiter I hope you can understand that it's a sensitive topic. It would be good to refrain from calling the biological/neurological part of gender identity 'natural and normal,' as that gets very close to a value judgement. The societal aspect of gender identity is not unnatural or abnormal.

I was just referencing the words of the text I was responding. I would use "natural" nevertheless, but "normal" was contexted by this:

 

13 hours ago, Switters said:

And being normal I didn't see gender roles as normal. We are taught them.

 

[PoeciMeta]

I can only guess, but during childhood, I suppose culturally gendered behaviours and expressions are learnt by observing and mimicking older people, and reinforced (or not) by gendered education. During puberty, aside from peer pressure, I guess those behaviours are encouraged by developing attraction, since gendered behaviour is likely to be deemed more attractive (or so we're taught). It would make sense, then, that aro/ace people are less gender conforming. Dunno, that's just my uneducated theory. 

 

1 hour ago, plupiter said:

You are freer if you are aware of the box that confines you than if you deny it's existence, then you will be fully controlled by factors you're unaware of. The space that you'd feel by ignoring the box's existence is an illusion. 

Nah, sorry, I'm agender, no box for me ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯ Unless you happen to have a ''none of the boxes'' box...

 

I think there can be an intermediate: not boxes, but clusters, since most people can actually fit in some loose categories. We're just humans, and the boxes we define are somewhat arbitrary but useful tools to describe stuff - knowing that said stuff exists on gradients and not clear-cut yes/no boxes. 

[Rynn]

16 minutes ago, plupiter said:

Just like someone should respect another's disinterest in their identity, so should it be respected that some people to want to label themselves, and acknowledged that there is nothing strict, close-minded, or immature about wanting or needing to classify/understand oneself. 

I couldn't agree more (I mean, obviously, there's a label right underneath my name on AVEN haha).

 

16 minutes ago, plupiter said:

I think we should have the freedom to define what we believe is right and what should be done

Here though, not so much. I don't think you have the freedom to define what others should do. 

As the adage goes: Your freedom ends where that of others begins.

 

16 minutes ago, plupiter said:

And it would be hard to contradict the necessity of defining what is right and wrong.

You can define what is wrong (harming others) without detailing exactly what is right.

'You should analyze your gender identity' is not a necessary judgment when defining what is wrong. 

In my view, if it is not harming anyone, it is not wrong, and there is no reason to judge it wrong.

 

16 minutes ago, plupiter said:

Yes. I didn't mean their behavior in general though, more of their psychological nature.

Yes, that makes sense. That's also the sort of thing I was talking about, but I didn't word it well.

 

16 minutes ago, plupiter said:

I was just referencing the words of the text I was responding. I would use "natural" nevertheless, but "normal" was contexted by this:

Ah. I missed that context. Apologies.

I do still think it's important to be very careful when using the words 'normal and natural' though, especially when it comes to this topic. They usually don't come across well.

 

 

3 minutes ago, PoeciMeta said:

Nah, sorry, I'm agender, no box for me ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯ Unless you happen to have a ''none of the boxes'' box...

Haha 'agender' sort of is the 'none of the boxes'-box though right?

[plupiter]

10 minutes ago, PoeciMeta said:

Nah, sorry, I'm agender, no box for me ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯ Unless you happen to have a ''none of the boxes'' box...

 

I think there can be an intermediate: not boxes, but clusters, since most people can actually fit in some loose categories. We're just humans, and the boxes we define are somewhat arbitrary but useful tools to describe stuff - knowing that said stuff exists on gradients and not clear-cut yes/no boxes. 

Well yes, "box" represents "label" and agender is a label. If you are detailed and precised enough you can describe loose categories and complex humans in gradients. That's also why the "box" comparison has a very negative connotation that I do not agree with. Language can only empower you with the power to describe yourself, it can only expand your understanding of yourself, it doesn't put you in yes/no boxes. And we absolutely have the vocabulary to describe subtle traits, mixed traits, contradictions, different gradients of traits...Labeling, defining and describing yourself does not distort who you are if done correctly.

[PoeciMeta]

15 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Haha 'agender' sort of is the 'none of the boxes'-box though right?

Precisely what I'm joking about

Personally though, I see it more like a non-box, since it's all about a lack, like, inside the set of humans, you have sets of differently gendered people, and agender people are those who are in none of these sets. That's technically a set, but we don't have to think of it as one, do we~

[plupiter]

8 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Here though, not so much. I don't think you have the freedom to define what others should do. 

As the adage goes: Your freedom ends where that of others begins.

You individually developing a belief has no effect on other's liberty. You can have an opinion on what others should do, this will not affect them or their actions unless they so choose. You are completely free to judge, completely free to think, as this doesn't affect anybody. No laws are being passed as you speak out your opinion. Someone does what they will and you can think of it what you like, that will not stop their ability to do what they will.

 

11 minutes ago, Laurann said:

You can define what is wrong (harming others) without detailing exactly what is right.

'You should analyze your gender identity' is not a necessary judgment when defining what is wrong. 

In my view, if it is not harming anyone, it is not wrong, and there is no reason to judge it wrong.

We should strive for excellence and development, we should achieve what is right instead of avoiding what is wrong. The very attitude of ignoring what is right could easily be evaluated as wrong. Thus, in order to avoid the wrong of ignoring what is right, you'd need to do what is right instead of what is simply unharmful. It's also very possible that there'd be situations where the least wrong or even right action would harm others. There are plenty of reasons to judge something as wrong besides whether or not it harms others. Would it not be wrong if someone stole from you even when you didn't realize it and were by all classifications unharmed? Would it not be wrong to lie to you for the purpose of causing you less emotional harm?  It's also arguable that by defining what is wrong, even if not "detailing", you are inevitably defining what is right and could translate all the "shouldn't"s into "should"s. 

[Rynn]

@plupiter The point I was trying to make is that saying that someone should analyze their gender, because if they don't then you attach negative judgments to that ('excuse', 'not self-aware'), is a bit judgmental.

 

Basically, what I've been trying to do is keep the topic from straying into ToS breach territory, foster understanding between members with different viewpoints within this thread by rewording things that are easily misconstrued, and hopefully get the topic back on track. 

ToS bits:

Spoiler

Personally insulting other users in any way is unacceptable. This includes, but is not limited to, not using a person's race, sex, gender identity or expression, creed, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation as a way to insult any member.

 

Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is disallowed. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.

 

This rule also extends to other orientations. On AVEN, the determination of other people's sexual, romantic and gender identities - by any means other than their self-identification - is not permitted.

 

This thread was about the correlation between asexuality/aromanticism and gender expression/identity, and possible causes for that correlation. Let's get back to that. What do you think of the sexualization suggestion I put forward?

[plupiter]

2 minutes ago, Laurann said:

@plupiter The point I was trying to make is that saying that someone should analyze their gender, because if they don't then you attach negative judgments to that ('excuse', 'not self-aware'), is a bit judgmental.

 

Basically, what I've been trying to do is keep the topic from straying into ToS breach territory, foster understanding between members with different viewpoints within this thread by rewording things that are easily misconstrued, and hopefully get the topic back on track. 

ToS bits:

  Reveal hidden contents

Personally insulting other users in any way is unacceptable. This includes, but is not limited to, not using a person's race, sex, gender identity or expression, creed, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation as a way to insult any member.

 

Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is disallowed. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes.

 

This rule also extends to other orientations. On AVEN, the determination of other people's sexual, romantic and gender identities - by any means other than their self-identification - is not permitted.

 

This thread was about the correlation between asexuality/aromanticism and gender expression/identity, and possible causes for that correlation. Let's get back to that. What do you think of the sexualization suggestion I put forward?

I did not mean it as an insult, nor did I personally direct it towards the person I was responding to. It was a general opinion on the vilification of labels. I apologize if it seemed that way.

I am not sure about the suggestion. I think there's much more to it. But perhaps it is true that that contributed. I think it might be that the very sexualization came to be another expression of femininity and I did not develop that sexualization, rather than me repressing femininity that I already had. But it still sounds like a weak explanation.

 

[Acing It]

On 1/9/2020 at 2:37 PM, plupiter said:

I disagree with the general idea that labels are negative or restricting. Anyone and anything can be classified. "Not putting people in boxes" seems like an excuse to not be self-aware and to develop your identity around less vulnerable aspects of yourself.

I think they can be but that they are necessary for the creation of meaning. I would argue that labels (as in descriptors, not as in accusatory tool) help you understand yourself and the world around you but that you have to be aware of the limitations and that you are more than the label. Identifying too strongly with a label by acting within what that label describes is not necessarily a good idea nor healthy. Labels are just an abstraction of reality, a linguistic tool if you like, not reality itself. Seeing them as reality itself, which I've seen happen before, can be/is negative and restricting.

[plupiter]

1 hour ago, Acing It said:

I think they can be but that they are necessary for the creation of meaning. I would argue that labels (as in descriptors, not as in accusatory tool) help you understand yourself and the world around you but that you have to be aware of the limitations and that you are more than the label. Identifying too strongly with a label by acting within what that label describes is not necessarily a good idea nor healthy. Labels are just an abstraction of reality, a linguistic tool if you like, not reality itself. Seeing them as reality itself, which I've seen happen before, can be/is negative and restricting.

That has more to do with poor interpretation of labels and an attitude that is not a necessary consequence of identifying with labels. Labels themselves, or your identification with them, are not intrinsically restrictive or negative, so it is wrong to reinforce this connotation. You could never be "the" label, you'd need countless labels to describe yourself. Choosing them doesn't make your understanding of yourself smaller, you can only grow more aware as you identify with more on different levels. There is no sense in choosing to not identify with something because you are more than it. That is like choosing to be naked because a certain outfit wouldn't fully define your style, or choosing not to learn something about a subject because there's more to know about it. Also identifying with labels and being curious about them does not imply being inflexible in your understanding of yourself or unadaptive to your development. So, I agree with you, it's just that all those precautions do not contradict anything I said.