Identifying as female, but not as a woman

[Guest]

Is there anyone besides myself who identifies as female and chooses not to label themselves as a woman? That might seem contradictory, but the reason I don't like the label 'woman' for myself is because it carries many social and historical connotations that I don't see as applicable to me as an aroace. Also, I associate the word with sexual maturity, which I have none of, and traditional gender roles, which I automatically reject by being interested in STEM, not wanting a partner, and having no hesitation about raising my hand in a class that is about 70% guys (which describes many of my classes).

[weird elf]

By your definition - sort of. I definitely don't identify with society's apparent definition of "woman", but so far I hadn't considered rejecting the label itself purely because of the connotations. I guess I just ignore them, just like I ignore other "expectations" I find ridiculous.

[Galactic Turtle]

Oof. My soul. You can refer to yourself however you want but as an fyi:

 

1. Anything remotely feminine carries many social and historical connotations.... including the word "female." 

 

2. Anything remotely feminine comes with sexual connotation by somebody. Need I mention the "school girl"?

 

3. If you would like to reinforce the assumption that women are not interested in STEM, all want partners, and do not raise their hands in class if men are around then that's completely within your right. However, keep in mind all of these assumptions are a product of patriarchal society - one that holds females as second class citizens when all is said and done. Instead of reinforcing the norms placed on females, I personally choose to defy them not for the sake of defiance in and of itself, but because I'm focused on pursuing my goals which naturally put me in "traditionally male" spaces.

 

[AceMissBehaving]

I’m actually right there with you, I feel deeply uncomfortable being called a woman. I think the part about “sexual maturity” might be a big part of it. 

[Guest]

I've always felt that. Though, I don't "identify" as female. My body is female, and I'm fine with it, it is that it is.

 

There's not many situations irl where people would ask what I got between my legs and it is, I would say, about as rare that I would casually mention it. So, wanting to claim myself as female and nothing else is just pointless to me. I am female - they will use other words for it (if they for some reason have to state it) - I will have to live with it.

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

I’m aroace as well but it doesn’t stop me from being a man. I think it’s counterproductive to say that because you don’t fit the gender roles, you aren’t a woman. There’s nothing wrong with a feminine man or a masculine woman. There’s nothing wrong with a man who respects women or a woman who doesn’t wear makeup and weave. There’s nothing wrong with a man who isn’t attracted to women or a woman who isn’t attracted to men. We should be reinforcing that people don’t have to follow stereotypes and all of these ridiculous societal conditionings/expectations, not encouraging the idea that these are what makes us men and women

[Phantasmal Fingers]

There are no men.

 

There are no women.

 

But there are women from men's viewpoints and men from women's viewpoints.

 

And - in addition - in terms of homosexuality/homo romanticism, there are other (un)desirable people who inhabit bodies of the same biological sex. 

 

But if one deconstructs the identities labelled 'men' and 'women' and looks at what is behind them there are still no men or women. 

 

There are, however, people who only fit in 'the gap' between what men and women would be if one believed in their existence to the point at which one had forgotten one believed. 

 

If... 

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

2 minutes ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

There are no men.

 

There are no women.

 

But there are women from men's viewpoints and men from women's viewpoints.

 

And - in addition - in terms of homosexuality/homo romanticism, there are other (un)desirable people who inhabit bodies of the same biological sex. 

 

But if one deconstructs the identities labelled 'men' and 'women' and looks at what is behind them there are still no men or women. 

 

There are, however, people who only fit in 'the gap' between what men and women would be if one believed in their existence to the point at which one had forgotten one believed. 

 

If... 

Then why does gender dysphoria exist?

[Phantasmal Fingers]

1 minute ago, Star Lion said:

Then why does gender dysphoria exist?

Because the person who feels this way constructs the dysphoria they experience. 

[PoeciMeta]

2 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

There are no men.

 

There are no women.

 

But there are women from men's viewpoints and men from women's viewpoints.

 

And - in addition - in terms of homosexuality/homo romanticism, there are other (un)desirable people who inhabit bodies of the same biological sex. 

 

But if one deconstructs the identities labelled 'men' and 'women' and looks at what is behind them there are still no men or women. 

 

There are, however, people who only fit in 'the gap' between what men and women would be if one believed in their existence to the point at which one had forgotten one believed. 

 

If... 

That's a... bold take on it... 

 

I think the social categories of men and women exist however meaningless they are, since people can feel belonging or a lack thereof to them. 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

1 hour ago, PoeciMeta said:

That's a... bold take on it... 

 

I think the social categories of men and women exist however meaningless they are, since people can feel belonging or a lack thereof to them. 

Yes, I agree that they 'exist' - depending on what you mean by exist! For example, does my personality exist? It's not locatable anywhere and maybe only I have my take on it, but there is a sense that there are other people who know the same 'me' they might talk about amongst themselves. In that sense I reify out of my and their consciousnesses. But I don't exist in the sense that this is intangible. In that sense I'm free to (re)construct myself if I - or my sense of self awareness - is in touch, so to speak, with whatever I perceive to be in my subconscious. In that sense I both exist and don't exist.

 

Or to put it another way, the self is a sky-like perception. There is a sense that that blue sky is really up there but this is 'merely' experiential. There is no such existent 'thing' that you can touch in the way I can touch this keyboard I'm using. In that sense one side of the coin is 'I exist'. The other is that I don't. I was talking about that side - or trying to - in the post I made above. 

[PoeciMeta]

5 minutes ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

Yes, I agree that they 'exist' - depending on what you mean by exist! For example, does my personality exist? It's not locatable anywhere and maybe only I have my take on it, but there is a sense that there are other people who know the same 'me' they might talk about amongst themselves. In that sense I reify out of my and their consciousnesses. But I don't exist in the sense that this is intangible. In that sense I'm free to (re)construct myself if I - or my sense of self awareness - is in touch, so to speak, with whatever I perceive to be in my subconscious. In that sense I both exist and don't exist.

 

Or to put it another way, the self is a sky-like perception. There is a sense that that blue sky is really up there but this is 'merely' experiential. There is no such existent 'thing' that you can touch in the way I can touch this keyboard I'm using. In that sense one side of the coin is 'I exist'. The other is that I don't. I was talking about that side - or trying to - in the post I made above. 

You mean a subjective existence? Things that exist at least partially in minds may or may not be considered to actually exist, I agree with that. 

Like saying that unicorns exist as a concept; and conversely, that people's... minds? souls? aren't intrinsically those of men or women. Am I understanding your point? 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

Hmmm.

 

I'm saying the self is empty in the Buddhist sense. It's experiential - and existential if you want to use that word - but when you try to pin down its existence it isn't there. Even if you say that brain function or whatever is proof that's all that is locatable. Just the proof and nothing behind it. Except what must apparently be behind it but isn't findable. So you can't trap 'it' in 'is' or 'isn't' or 'objective' or 'subjective'. There is a real experience of it but there is no it.

[Ms. Carolynne]

Kind of. I don't really relate to a lot of the social aspects of gender, and dislike gender roles, but I would also say I'm more or less feminine going by social standards.

 

That being said, nobody fits in a strict box, nor should they be expected to.

 

I am however trans (MtF), and never felt I fit with either gender role, so I feel that further shapes my experience with gender in general.

 

For me my experience with gender is wanting a body I feel comfortable in, while also freeing myself from gender roles and the stigmas I've internalized. The former is why I consider myself trans, the latter is important to my happiness as well but I don't consider it inherently gendered (though these things can intersect).

 

Mentally, I feel as if I should be physically female, but I also feel I'm more of a feminine agender person in how I view myself.

 

It doesn't matter if you're a man or woman, male or female, or something else . You don't have to be a certain way because of it. There are masculine, feminine, and androgynous people of all genders.

[Galactic Turtle]

17 hours ago, Star Lion said:

Then why does gender dysphoria exist?

 

17 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

Because the person who feels this way constructs the dysphoria they experience. 

I think at its core gender dysphoria is honestly more like sex dysphoria.... as the root of the dysphoria is problems with the body. Kind of like how back in the day (or at least when I was a kid) they didn't call it "gender affirmation," they called it a "sex change." Of course it is, technically, impossible to change one's sex so modifications are made to appear as if they are of the opposite sex (for MtF or FtM people, anyway) and for all intents and purposes go about life perceived as such to help alleviate or entirely eliminate symptoms of dysphoria. To make this less confusing, I assume this is why the definition of gender evolved from being a less crude sounding alternative to sex to referring to typical characteristics associated with either sex (body type, hair growth patterns, interests, modes of dress, etc.). I am of the assumption that for people who do not experience dysphoria specifically, they don't feel any inherent concept of gender. That's why most people get confused when someone says they "feel like" a man/woman. It would be the same as saying I "feel like" I have green eyes - it's a physical reality, not an ideal... for most people. Of course some people fall more in line with what a man or woman of their given era typically looks and acts like. Perhaps some people feel a stronger necessity to conform than others. Perhaps some people feel a stronger necessity to be as nonconforming as possible.

 

Out there in the world there are still some people who are appalled at the thought of a woman wearing pants.  It's simply "not natural" after all. 

[PoeciMeta]

15 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

Hmmm.

 

I'm saying the self is empty in the Buddhist sense. It's experiential - and existential if you want to use that word - but when you try to pin down its existence it isn't there. Even if you say that brain function or whatever is proof that's all that is locatable. Just the proof and nothing behind it. Except what must apparently be behind it but isn't findable. So you can't trap 'it' in 'is' or 'isn't' or 'objective' or 'subjective'. There is a real experience of it but there is no it.

Interesting ! I have more of a Cartesian view about that - for me, the only thing I can be certain of is the existence of my own ''self'', whatever it is and whether it exists materially (which is very very up for debate and would be very difficult to prove). 

[Sorry, this is getting off-topic ] 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

2 hours ago, PoeciMeta said:

Interesting ! I have more of a Cartesian view about that - for me, the only thing I can be certain of is the existence of my own ''self'', whatever it is and whether it exists materially (which is very very up for debate and would be very difficult to prove). 

[Sorry, this is getting off-topic ] 

Never mind! It's still an interesting debate. 🙂

 

The classic Buddhist objection to 'Cogito ergo sum' is that although there is an experiential reality of a thinker who thinks, on closer inspection there is no thinker to be found behind the thought. 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

9 hours ago, Ms. Carolynne said:

That being said, nobody fits in a strict box, nor should they be expected to.

Agreed! 

 

So that being the case the terms 'man' and 'woman', for example, are not categorically and uniquely located in biological sex and the physicality of being male, nor in any perceived gender if gender is seen as being distinct from biological sex. 

 

Hence what I said up thread about there being no men and women. But... 

 

21 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

There are, however, people who only fit in 'the gap' between what men and women would be if one believed in their existence to the point at which one had forgotten one believed. 

 

If... 

If you can see the "If" you'll be able to see yourself as trans in some way, in terms of either sex or gender. 

 

But does that matter? And to whom? 

 

For example, if I distinguish between sex and gender I conclude that I personally am either agendered or that I do have a gender but don't know what it is - or care enough to define it. Basically because I am not dysphoric in any way. 

 

So does that make me cis or trans? 🤔

 

Well, I can see both perceptions but I don't see either as an identity which mutually excludes the other. Hence' the gap' which I mentioned above. 

 

Do you see what I mean? 

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

4 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I think at its core gender dysphoria is honestly more like sex dysphoria

You’re actually right, it went passed my head at the moment. I’ve actually wondered why it’s not called sex dysphoria

[Phantasmal Fingers]

1 minute ago, Star Lion said:

You’re actually right, it went passed my head at the moment. I’ve actually wondered why it’s not called sex dysphoria

That sounds very interesting. 🙂

 

You seem to be saying that sex dysphoria underlies (so called?) gender dysphoria, and is hence true in a sense that gender dysphoria never truly is - or was, with hindsight. 

 

So in time the dysphoric person will realise that perceived dysphoria at the level of gender, although it can be experienced as real, will ultimately be found to be illusory. 

 

Is this what you mean? And if so, would you care to say more about your experience of this? 

[PoeciMeta]

1 hour ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

 

The classic Buddhist objection to 'Cogito ergo sum' is that although there is an experiential reality of a thinker who thinks, on closer inspection there is no thinker to be found behind the thought. 

I think only the thought or the experience exist. I don't even go as far as 'cogito ergo sum'

 

1 hour ago, Star Lion said:

You’re actually right, it went passed my head at the moment. I’ve actually wondered why it’s not called sex dysphoria

Because we need elegant terminology? ~

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

1 hour ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

That sounds very interesting. 🙂

 

You seem to be saying that sex dysphoria underlies (so called?) gender dysphoria, and is hence true in a sense that gender dysphoria never truly is - or was, with hindsight. 

 

So in time the dysphoric person will realise that perceived dysphoria at the level of gender, although it can be experienced as real, will ultimately be found to be illusory. 

 

Is this what you mean? And if so, would you care to say more about your experience of this? 

Your poetic sentence structuring is confusing me. I don’t experience gender dysphoria though, I’ve just done research on it. It’s where the person experiences the (usually) intense feeling in their brain that they were born in the wrong body or with the wrong biology. They go through hormones, surgery, etcetera as a response to that feeling and to help them feel much more comfortable within their own skin. There’s also the social aspect of it all because men and women have different life experiences based upon their sex/gender.

 

Honestly, the idea of gender really is such a complicated thing. I wanna say it’s how the brain perceives itself but on what basis? I can’t even exactly say it’s on the basis of sex because there are socially dysphoric people that aren’t ‘gender’ dysphoric. I don’t know

[Phantasmal Fingers]

@Star Lion I'm sorry you find my sentence structure confusing. 🤔

 

If someone thinks (s)he was born in the wrong body then that is definitely dysphoria. Is it not? 

 

Up thread you said you wondered why gender dysphoria is not called sex dysphoria.

 

If biological sex is seen as distinct from gender then either - 

 

a) there are two distinct types of dysphoria, i. e. sex dysphoria and gender dysphoria

 

or

 

b) gender dysphoria is merely a superficial misapprehension of what is really sex dysphoria, which your previous comment questioning why gender dysphoria is not called sex dysphoria would seem to me to imply. 

 

21 minutes ago, Star Lion said:

 There’s also the social aspect of it all because men and women have different life experiences based upon their sex/gender.

In which case dysphoria is an epi-phenomenon that is not solely predetermined at an innate genetic or biological level, but is also determined by environmental factors and thus has a socio-psychological aspect. 

 

Which still leaves open the question as to which side you see as primary and which secondary. 

 

Don't you think? 

[Galactic Turtle]

2 hours ago, Star Lion said:

You’re actually right, it went passed my head at the moment. I’ve actually wondered why it’s not called sex dysphoria

I am not sure what sparked various types of gender terminology but my guess is... it is seen as culturally odd for a man to wear a dress. So the looks they would get for doing so might highlight ideas of gender nonconformity. Now if that man also experiences dysphoria, it might then be easy to make the jump to make it all about gender since gender is about perception (specifically - the perception of one's sex) rather than sex which... well it is whatever you were born with. At the same time I'm not a huge fan of how the gender discussion has evolved in various areas. Then again, not even all trans people have the same opinions on it.

 

2 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

That sounds very interesting. 🙂

 

You seem to be saying that sex dysphoria underlies (so called?) gender dysphoria, and is hence true in a sense that gender dysphoria never truly is - or was, with hindsight. 

 

So in time the dysphoric person will realise that perceived dysphoria at the level of gender, although it can be experienced as real, will ultimately be found to be illusory. 

 

Is this what you mean? And if so, would you care to say more about your experience of this? 

I think there are levels of dysphoria. Like some trans people I have listened to might say "I'm very dysphoria about my voice and my face structure but not about my genitals" or "I'm dysphoria about my breasts and hair but not my voice." Like any sort of mental illness (I think it's fair to categorize dysphoria as such just like one would categorize general body dysmorphia), everyone has different triggers. It is my assumption that all of these triggers, at their core, are related to how a certain aspect of their body does not emulate the opposite sex.... again, for the basic MtF/FtM scenario. It's easy to see how the decoration of sex (which is how I think of gender) came to the forefront. For someone transitioning, adorning oneself with clothes and products made with a specific sex in mind can help. But also some branches of that discussion slip into the territory of conflating the expectations society places on those of a certain sex with things those of a certain sex naturally gravitate towards. That is an aspect of the conversation that many find a bit backwards. 

 

49 minutes ago, Star Lion said:

Your poetic sentence structuring is confusing me. I don’t experience gender dysphoria though, I’ve just done research on it. It’s where the person experiences the (usually) intense feeling in their brain that they were born in the wrong body or with the wrong biology. They go through hormones, surgery, etcetera as a response to that feeling and to help them feel much more comfortable within their own skin. There’s also the social aspect of it all because men and women have different life experiences based upon their sex/gender.

 

Honestly, the idea of gender really is such a complicated thing. I wanna say it’s how the brain perceives itself but on what basis? I can’t even exactly say it’s on the basis of sex because there are socially dysphoric people that aren’t ‘gender’ dysphoric. I don’t know

I think multiple things play into the wider conversation. Like yes, dysphoria is a thing that exists and really sucks. But as a comparison - not everyone who is feeling sad on any given day is experiencing depression. Me being anxious about a big test is not equivalent to me having anxiety. Sometimes when gender discussions focus on arbitrary things like "Sally doesn't like playing with dolls so Sally must at the very least be a demi boy" throw me for a loop. Like my gut reaction to that line of thought is "woah lets unpack what was just said as it relates to cultural norms and how this might be impacting... everything."

 

[KiraS]

On 2/23/2020 at 2:11 PM, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

But if one deconstructs the identities labelled 'men' and 'women' and looks at what is behind them there are still no men or women. 

Nations similarly don't exist, according to the same dead-end thinking of navel-gazing solipsism, which gets me absolutely nowhere if I were to decide to pay with my lunch using a dollarsign scribbled on a napkin. Being socially constructed in part (qualification added because nature vs. nurture arguments are tedious High-School level framing), doesn't mean that there are not extremely real consequences underlying those social constructions. Like it or not, American culture enacts a certain level of violence towards people who fall outside of the bimodal definitions of cultural gender.  And we know that living with those kinds of violence does, in fact, involve a certain degree of developmental changes, which is a big reason why nature vs. nurture is something of a dead-end. It would be lovely if those stresses didn't exist, but, we're not there yet and we won't be there until everyone who has survived those structures have passed on.

 

You really can't rely on quasi-Buddhism here because while Buddhism espouses anatta, at least in terms of liberation, the Four Noble Truths acknowledge the existence of dukkha. Dukkha can't be easily handwaved away. "ah, Carl, while you are not safe I am not safe, and now you're really in the total animal soup of time" Unless you're actively choosing a monastic life, Buddhism doesn't give you a free pass out of politics. (And even then, monastic politics are harsh.)

 

25 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I think multiple things play into the wider conversation. Like yes, dysphoria is a thing that exists and really sucks. But as a comparison - not everyone who is feeling sad on any given day is experiencing depression. Me being anxious about a big test is not equivalent to me having anxiety. Sometimes when gender discussions focus on arbitrary things like "Sally doesn't like playing with dolls so Sally must at the very least be a demi boy" throw me for a loop. Like my gut reaction to that line of thought is "woah lets unpack what was just said for a minute before pulling the trigger on this." 

In actual practice, very few people actually say that being sad equals depression, being anxious equals an anxiety disorder, or not playing with dolls is gender dysphoria. Part of the problem here is that we're encouraged to come up with these big symbolic "did (not) play with dolls" moments, as if having a doll's house as a kid really explains the day-to-day suck of pretending to be someone else in order to avoid violence and discrimination.

[Starbogen]

12 hours ago, Ms. Carolynne said:

That being said, nobody fits in a strict box, nor should they be expected to.

 

I am however trans (MtF), and never felt I fit with either gender role, so I feel that further shapes my experience with gender in general.

 

For me my experience with gender is wanting a body I feel comfortable in, while also freeing myself from gender roles and the stigmas I've internalized. The former is why I consider myself trans, the latter is important to my happiness as well but I don't consider it inherently gendered (though these things can intersect).

 

Mentally, I feel as if I should be physically female, but I also feel I'm more of a feminine agender person in how I view myself.

 

It doesn't matter if you're a man or woman, male or female, or something else . You don't have to be a certain way because of it. There are masculine, feminine, and androgynous people of all genders.

This is pretty much what I wanted to say.. And yeah I feel the same but as a trans guy. 

 

If I were to get really specific about my gender I'd probably fit the definition of demi or even agender, but I don't really judge that part of myself as gendered in itself so I just throw in "genderqueer" as an adjective rather than as an actual gender label. And even then that part is usually just for me to know. 

 

I also consider myself trans because I feel like I would be more comfortable with a male body, and I'm more comfortable living as male socially, but at the same time I don't really feel like I fit into the typical concept of a man because I'm still very gender-nonconforming anyway and like I said there's that genderqueer aspect of myself that never reaches the end of the binary 100%. So I do have that where I identify as male but the word "man" doesn't exactly fit perfectly. But the thing is, I've actually seen a lot of people who consider themselves binary men and women, both cis and trans, express the same thing. 

 

A lot of people don't really feel like they fit into the typical narrow definitions of being a "man" or a "woman". A lot of people are gender-nonconforming in a ton of ways, a lot of people don't even "feel" like any gender but just go by "man" or "woman" because they're okay with being male or female and man/woman just happen to be the more casual social words attached to being male/female. I think that not fitting into gender roles and expectations might make someone gender-nonconforming by the current sociatal concept of gender, but it wouldn't make someone any less of a man or woman. 

 

I also agree with what others have said that the way to change those stereotypical roles and expectations would be for more women to visibly go into those fields and do those things/not do things that women are usually associated with (and the same for men). Like imagine if every female person who was interested in man-associated things and rejected woman-associated things stopped identifying as a woman, then there would be no women interested in those supposedly manly things and the associations would only continue. If that makes sense?

Not too long ago it would have been "unwomanly" for a female person to wear pants.. if all the females from back then who wanted to do "things that only men typically do" didn't identify as women then idk.. wearing pants (and other more important stuff obviously) would be one of those things that females did but that go ignored because it's not seen as a thing "for women". The more presence of regular women in a field or activity or whatever the more normalized it will become to view that as just something else that's common for both men and women, like wearing pants is today (in the kind of society a lot of us live in at least). 

 

I was gonna write more but I don't know if I'm making any sense anymore and this is long enough already and I kinda went on a rant there sorry X'D 

 

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh in any way. I really don't mean that. My point is just that I think being masculine or feminine or androgynous/or neutral is completely seperate from being male or female or nonbinary, and in my case at least just because I'm not masculine and I'm gender-nonconforming and I think the term genderqueer suits me, that doesn't make me less of a "man" because if I'm male then socially I'm a man. Maybe a really atypical kind of man but still a man. 

 

But again, having said all that, I do totally get what you mean. I practically never call myself a man and just say guy instead. I also think the phrase "man-shaped being" is nicely fitting (even though ironically I'm trans lol).

Also on that note, yeah I agree with those comments about gender dysphoria being more like sex dysphoria. I don't "feel" like a man or like anything. I have no idea what an internal sense of gender would even feel like. I just know that having a female body and being seen as woman feels wrong af and am more comfortable looking male and living as male so yeah.. for me it's more about knowing that what I have physically (and socially as a result of that physical aspect) is uncomfortable than about some intuitive sense of what being a "man" is. 

Anyway, sorry for the rambling essay X'D

[KiraS]

Curiously enough, Katherine Johnson, one of the many women who made NASA happen, passed on today. 

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/katherine-johnson-who-gained-fame-from-the-movie-hidden-figures-has-died/

 

I'm a cliche as a trans person in tech, which I chalk up to the reality that a lot of us grew up in the "nobody knows you're a dog" era of the internet.

[Rynn]

On 2/23/2020 at 8:15 PM, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

Because the person who feels this way constructs the dysphoria they experience. 

So I read this, and was going to disagree silently, because how could I prove that something I experience is because of societal influence? But then I took a shower and when I stepped out I saw myself in the mirror and, as usual, had an instinctive surprised 'wtf is this' reaction to what I looked like, and I just really cannot believe that that's anything but innate. Anecdotal, sure, take it as you will.

 

4 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said:

a) there are two distinct types of dysphoria, i. e. sex dysphoria and gender dysphoria

Wouldn't this simply be body dysphoria and social dysphoria then?

[SithLord]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 2:03 AM, cAROlyn said:

Is there anyone besides myself who identifies as female and chooses not to label themselves as a woman?

That's an interesting personal question, but one I believe which will come with a lot of nuance in how people use each term. Like I use female/male to refer to biology. So if a man was born with female parts and hasn't physically transitioned, I would still classify him as a "female" even if I would respect his preference that I not state as much. The reason I hold this stance is because I find it important for medical situations to identify one's sex, but also think gender takes preference in almost any other situation. So he is a man, 100% a man, just one who is still female in my mind. 

 

I do not like feminine labels as they apply to me. They feel like putting on a role, like a child playing dress-up. If I call myself a "woman", it feels wrong and I'm no longer fond of "girl" either, nor "lady" or other such labels. I prefer "chick", because I feel that adequately expresses how I feel about my gender and how the female/woman/feminine gender is generally perceived and expected to act like. I don't care when people prefer more formal labels to apply to me, but to refer to myself as them feels like stepping into a temporary role, not one I permanently wear. 

[Ms. Carolynne]

6 hours ago, Starbogen said:

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh in any way. I really don't mean that. My point is just that I think being masculine or feminine or androgynous/or neutral is completely seperate from being male or female or nonbinary, and in my case at least just because I'm not masculine and I'm gender-nonconforming and I think the term genderqueer suits me, that doesn't make me less of a "man" because if I'm male then socially I'm a man. Maybe a really atypical kind of man but still a man. 

You didn't come across as harsh to me, we're on the same page I think. This was what I was trying to say.