Gender

[AVENCakes]

Did you not read the part about having it beaten into me?

Yeah, but it wasn't subtle. You had something solid to rebel against. There was no uncertainty about your mom's intentions. There was no certainty about mine. You knew exactly what she was doing. That's not good, either, but I'd prefer it. I also would have preferred getting beaten up in school to getting teased mercilessly, just so you have an idea about my mindset on these things.

So it's sort of a discomfort with your body? Simply not wanting to have certain parts? I just still don't quite get why having certain body parts would bother someone that much, especially if they could just not use them...

Well it is called body dysphoria. And I didn't realize that not using them meant that you no longer feel them, no longer feel what's missing.

*shrug* If I was male, it wouldn't bother me. If I woke up somehow with my exact same personality and everything, just in a male body, it wouldn't bother me to be called a male, because that's what I'd be. Not a very masculine male, perhaps, but a man just the same. If I wasn't a man and someone referred to me as male, I'd think he was either blind or daft, and would probably address him as such. :P

No. If, as you are right now, someone started calling you male even though you insist you are a woman, which is a foolish thing to claim when you so obviously aren't. I mean, look at you. You don't even sound like a girl. And female avatar, trying to hard anyone? It's a nice attempt, but really oyu can't hide that you're really a guy. You should just stop trying, man. No one's buying it, no one ever will. Why don't you do yourself a favor and just accept you're a guy now instead of putting yourself trhough all this trouble when it won't change anything. Do you want people to think you're a freak? Wouldn't you be happier just accepting what you are instead of trying to pretend you're a girl?

I absolutely would. If a man wore a dress, I would still call him "he". If a woman wore a dress, I would call her "she". He/she doesn't have anything to do with what a person is wearing.

Actually, you would demand to look under their dress and see what is between their legs before deciding if you're willing to believe they are a man or a woman. I do not mean a cisman in a dress, I mean anyone regardless of biology.

I'm not sure I get the analogy... it's just other people's ignorance that bothers you so much? If someone said that to me, I would probably begin a huge educational lecture to rid them of their misinformed stereotypes.

And they won't listen, because in their mind you are this. Look at you. Look at your ignorance. Look at you insisting that, no matter what I say, I am not what I think I am. I shouldn't have a right to be referred to as I want to be.

That's harsh, and absolutely has to change. But the problem there is with an overly prejudicial society, not with the use of a pronoun.

Do you listen to yourself? Do you not see the hypocrisy? You are refusing to believe that transgendered are what they claim to be and then you have the dare to say that the problem is with prejudices that you yourself hold?

And I guess this is kind of the key of what I'm confused about. In what way are they not their sex?

They are not their sex, they are their gender. Their sex is wrong, it doesn't match who they are and people insisting they are it is painful.

Okay, well, it doesn't have to be specific. I assume from all this you feel that your sex and your gender are opposite, but how? In what way do they not line up? Is it just the desire to have a different body?

Essentially, yes. To have a different body, to be seen as what you are, to be able to not have to resort to painful devices just so you can walk down the street without the feeling of the things that are there and teh things that aren't crippling you.

Ah, yes, the intersexed. I guess they're the ones who really get to choose which sex they want to be called by. Stop messing up my carefully outlined categories, darn it! But tall women/short men, flat-chested women, etc... those don't affect a person's sex. A woman is still a woman, regardless of her height or... ah... endowment.

If the embodiment of all female traits is breasts, curves, long hair, more lower body strength, etc. and the embodiment of all male traits is muscles, upper body strength, no curves, short hair, etc. then any man or woman who doesn't fit that exactly has a certain level of androgyny. It doesn't mean they aren't a man or a woman, but they are not clearly fixed on the point of "all male traits" or "all female traits" and no one is.

You're treating sex as fixed, when it's as variable as gender is. It would not surpirse me if the number of intersex individuals was similar the number of genderqueer, it's just that intersexed is harder to ignore. And, as you'll note, we are not talking about the vast majority of people. In case you hadn't noticed- most are cisgendered, meaning that they're perfectly content with their assigned sex even if some prefer to be more androgynous or venture outside the roles their sex stereotypically fills. However, just like there are some people who's body is so androgynous that it can't be ignored, there are people who's gender is so non-binary that they aren't comfortable as male or female. And then there are some who were just born with the wrong sex, but don't feel genderqueer at all.

No, I guess not. Actually, doesn't post-op mean that they're now the biologically the opposite sex, regardless of how they were born?

Because biological still includes genetics, no. They still have an XY chromosome, they can't give birth, they can't get lubed up, their clitoris came from a part of their penis. It's worse with transmen- as the parts don't even look right.

So you're saying that someone should be called "he" up until she gets all those surgeries? Why? Why will you acknowledge it then but not before?

The fully androgynous just confuse me. I guess I would take my best guess as to their sex and use the appropriate pronoun, since calling someone "it" seems much more insulting than accidentally using the wrong pronoun. But it would be an accident to address them by "he" if they were actually a "she". Speaking of sex, of course, not of gender. But then, I would assume that if they dressed in such a way as to make it impossible to tell what sex they were, they probably wouldn't be bothered too much by people guessing wrong anyway...

But you're just guessing. And what if they get insulted by both pronouns and would rather be called "they"? What if they correct you even though you guess what's in their pants correctly, then what do you do? The problem with your method is that you basically have to stick your hands down someone's pants to be correct.

I don't assume that at all. I was saying that you can tell a man apart from a woman physically, regardless of the way they're dressed. Usually. :P And on a separate note, I would love to see a man with enough spine to actually wear a (tasteful!) dress.

Um... I do. Well, I don't like dresses, but I wear skirts when I feel like it. Apparently look damn hot when I go in drag, too.

But now they're not the same thing. So, which does it refer to?

Gender. People should be called what they want to be called. And you, sir, are taking it a bit far in refusing to respect people's wishes. It's just like nicknames- if a kid wants to be called Bobby instead of Robert, or even Kitty instead of their real name, that's their right and there's no reason why you shouldn't, it's just mean and silly not to.

That is a good point, though it just seems like gender is whatever you care to make of it, which is why I get confused about why people get upset over it.

People are getting upset over the fact that you are so rude as to purposefully go against someone's wishes and call them as they wouldn't want to be called. Yeah, I'm bad with the gender neutral pronouns that are coming up, I acknowledge that I'd probably screw that up, but I'd at least try and apologize when I got it wrong. And, by the way, calling an MtF he or FtM she is messing it up. Badly.

[thecynicalromantic]

And on a separate note, I would love to see a man with enough spine to actually wear a (tasteful!) dress. Not creep by by dressing all the way up as a woman and making it impossible for anyone to tell that they were actually a man wearing that dress, but a man with enough courage to wear a dress and not pretend to be the opposite sex in order to get away with it. I would have so much respect for someone who challenged stereotypes that way. 8)

Go hit the nearest Goth club.

Or possibly a Contra dance. You can usually find the occasional man who throws on a hippie skirt at those.

One of my male hausmates wears a skirt sometimes, too.

[Cazz333]

Well, I don't think the metoidioplasty requires the area to be closed up, so if you really wanted to you could find a way to. Not that you have to, just so you know if you ever get to thinking that you really would like to see what you can do about getting it that way.

Thanks for the info. I would consider it if it weren't for the cost... I doubt it'll fit in the NHS bill, it's probably considered cosmetic surgery. And if functionality is present which I doubt it is. Anyway, I'm glad the dysphoria isn't too overwhelming. It only flares when I have to highlight my female body. I don't mind "she"; it's better than "he-she" hence why I don't like the idea of getting the secondary male sex characteristics.

Biologically male. "He" means you are biologically male. And being biologically male doesn't necessarily mean a person will be masculine, or, for that matter, attracted to women. Other than the fact that a majority of men will be more masculine than feminine, and that a majority will be heterosexual, I don't see how the two terms equate. Calling a man "he" doesn't demand that he act or believe in certain things, any more than it demands that he be attracted to women. It's merely an acknowledgment that he's biologically male.

This is not about demanding that men, be they transmen or cismen, act like "real men" should act. As I said- if someone wants to the the frilliest, froofiest, most feminine thing on the planet and still be called and treated as a man then you damn well better because that is their right.

But why? I guess that's what I don't understand. What is it, exactly, that does so much damage?

It's the same damage as walking up to an asexual and saying "You're sexual. You like sex, you just don't realize it. You are a silly little child who wants attention and goes around trying to be something you aren't. Obviously this isn't the case, because everyone likes sex and no one will ever do anything but try and tolerate, or at worse actively persecute and possibly try to kill you for being who you think you are. And you deserve it, because anyone who's stupid enouhg to suggest they might not like sex and deserves everything they get." And hearing it every time someone uses that pronoun. Hearing it from birth, before you even realize that something's different about you, and hearing it every single day even by people who think they're being friendly.

Someone who is transgendered is not their sex, and insisting upon calling them that is like saying you don't believe them, they will never be that and no oen will ever see them like it and the hell that is that body will never end.Transgendereds have been killed for being who they are. They walk into transition knowing that if they're unlucky their life can be taken from them because of this, and you really think it doesn't hurt to be called the wrong pronoun?

Just for explanatory purposes, what's your sex (not your gender!), and why does it bother you to be called by that?

Why, so you can insult me by ensuring to use it? Ignore the fact that the inability to pass made me completely hopeless and sends me into levels of depression that large quantities of anti-depressants don't even make a dent on fixing? It hurts. It hurts to be called that, and I refuse to tell you what I am when you are making it so obvious you can't seem to understand the suffering that a 3 letter pronoun can cause. I will not hand you a loaded gun immediately after you tell me you don't understand why it's such a big deal to shoot other people, and I'll thank you not to ask me to. Show me you deserve enough respect for me to trust you with that information, prove that it won't make any difference and you'll still treat me as I'd like to be treated and maybe, just maybe, I will consider it. But as it is you have done nothing to prove you have any right to that information and I will not tell you it only for you to use it to hurt me simply because you can't understand.

The thing is, I can't think of a single "gender" trait that's not just societal, or stereotype. Other than things like men tending to be taller and physically stronger, but I feel it would be a bit shallow to want to be the opposite sex just for their body...

Not only that, but it's impossible to make yourself taller. And it's not just their body, but wanting to be taller or having the body you should have been born with is hardly wrong. Some transwomen have periods even before hormones. They don't bleed, but they get all the other symptoms. Sometimes they'll get phantom limb syndrome so transmen will feel the penis that should be there and transwomen will feel their vagina, even before they start transitioning. Dysphoria is just that powerful.

I don't know hwo to explain it to you. You can complain all you want that it's shallow, but the fact is that the pain cuts deep.

But it's even harder to tell someone's gender than it is their physical sex. And if we go by the whole idea of masculine and feminine as a sort of sliding scale, what that would mean is that everyone has their own gender. You can at least tell the difference between men and women by looking at them (well, mostly :P ), since there are physical differences. It wouldn't make sense to use he/she to refer to gender, because there's no more way to tell that about someone than there is to tell their sexual orientation by just a glance.

1. Stop ignoring intersexed. Stop ignoring that there is a scale of sex as well. Some women are tall, men short. Some women are flat chested or extremely curvy, some people aren't intersexed but are born to look quite androgynous, others are so androgynous they don't have either parts.

Now, to transsexuals. Can you really look at a post-op transwoman and say she is a man? One who passes better than some cisgirls? What about people who are so androgynous that when they wakl into a room they actually get "What is it?" from people who insist upon fitting into the binary? Can you look at someone with a full beard, deep voice, male suit, and tell they have two X chromsomes? Why are you assuming that people are kind enough to fit into your idiotic little, close minded view of the world where people with a dick dress like men and people with a vagina dress like women and people with some combination or lack thereof don't exist.

Out of curiosity, is someone were to constantly refer to you as male, what would your feelings be to it?

It's different, though, for cisgendered. It still sucks and they still get pissed, btu they have the right parts. It's not a reminder of what they aren't, or that so much of the world thinks they're freaks or how much trouble they're going to have to go through to get the body they want, or that what trouble they've already gone to isn't working and maybe they don't know what to do and feel like nothing will ever work and they'll be stuck seen as that for their entire lives.

Ooh, I feel your pain.

[AVENCakes]

And on a separate note, I would love to see a man with enough spine to actually wear a (tasteful!) dress.

Go hit the nearest Goth club.

Or possibly a Contra dance. You can usually find the occasional man who throws on a hippie skirt at those.

One of my male hausmates wears a skirt sometimes, too.

Or an anime convention, actually. There are a lot of shirtless guys in skirts at mine. One of the security guards even went in drag, which was totally awesome. We also had "Hawaiian Shirt Day" at my highschool because they couldn't actually have a gender bender day, and a lot of guys went in skirts/dresses. One did this awesomely hilarious thing where he stuffed his shirt with balloons and even stuffed his butt, and put a scarf around his head because he couldn't find a wig, just going way too all out. It was a lot of fun. Plenty of guys are willing to do that, but generally only on special occasions.

Not creep by by dressing all the way up as a woman and making it impossible for anyone to tell that they were actually a man wearing that dress, but a man with enough courage to wear a dress and not pretend to be the opposite sex in order to get away with it. I would have so much respect for someone who challenged stereotypes that way. 8)

Actually, what's your problem with crossdressers? So what if someone wants to dress like the opposite sex, is that really such a problem? I mean, yeah, it makes it so that you can't tell what's in their pants, and that's such a big deal to you, but so what if a guy wants to pass as a woman or vice versa sometimes, even if they aren't? That probably takes more courage because if you're just wearing a dress to play the fool, then people are less likely to get violent then if you fool them.

[thecynicalromantic]

No, it doesn't. "He" means you're male. It's only a very recent notion that being biologically male and identifying as male are two different things, which means dithering over whether English has sex or gender pronouns is pointless--the pronouns were developed when people thought they were the same thing.

But now they're not the same thing. So, which does it refer to? I see it more being used to denote biological sex. After all, if a woman dressed up in a football uniform, or something else stereotypically manly (sorry, running short on examples!), people would still call her a "she". And if a man decided to wear a dress somewhere, people would still call him a "he". Unless, of course, people honestly couldn't tell what sex they were in those outfits, but if they realized later that the person they had thought was a "he" was actually a woman, they'd switch to using "she", as the former pronoun would have been a mistake...

Gender identity is the same sort of thing. It's a social construct, so it's not 'real' the same way that it's real that if you throw a rock up in the air it's going to come back down. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean, language is a social construct, but we're still having a real argument with it, and if I started typing in Klingon you'd notice a difference. Race is a social construct, as many people point out, it being the most popular analogy, but now that we've constructed it--it bloody well exists! You can't say that just because race is a social construct, Barack Obama *isn't* the first black US President (or mulatto president, at any rate). What you *can* do is realize that it's not set in stone, it can evolve as people's thinking about it evolves, that it exists because we make it up. For example, I'm Irish. This means I'm white. It also means my Irish ancestors a hundred years ago *weren't* white. The Irish were not considered white people for a very long time. Does this mean I'm not *actually* white? Or does it mean that people a hundred years ago were wrong and my ancestors actually *were* white?

The answer is (a) neither and (b) who cares, I consider myself to be Irish and white, and that's my business and doesn't necessarily mean anything except itself. I have another friend who's of Irish descent and white and only considers himself to be white; he has no sense of himself as "Irish" and considers the Irish a 'them' rather than an 'us'.

Frankly, gender identity is about that circular. If you feel like you're male, then you're male--nobody else is going to know that *better* than you. If you feel like you're female, then you're female, and again, nobody else is going to know that better than you. If you feel neither, or both, then that's how you see yourself.

Now, people with a certain gender identity will often be perfectly happy to more or less go along with some aspects of society's corresponding 'gender role', but only if they feel like it. Sometimes they don't. It's not about being masculine or feminine or androgynous, these are societal assignments of traits associating them with certain genders, but they're not actually the same thing. And what is 'masculine' or 'feminine' or 'androgynous' and how strongly they are considered to be 'supposed to' be paralleled with being male or female is extremely fluid, evolving rapidly from place to place and time to time, and occasionally from class to class, race to race, or subculture to subculture within the same place and time. But the notions of being "male" and "female" are much more longstanding and pervasive. There are certain cultures with more than two accepted genders, but the majority of them, over the past several millennia, have had genders of "male" and "female"--not just biological sexes, but genders. "Masculine" and "feminine" are fashions.

That is a good point, though it just seems like gender is whatever you care to make of it, which is why I get confused about why people get upset over it. You're a woman who hates pink? Well, realize that "liking pink" is not a female trait, it's an individual preference. It doesn't make you less of a woman. That sort of thing. If society associates a certain trait with a particular sex, then wouldn't it be better to show that that's nothing but a stereotype, rather than anguishing about how you don't have that trait? Especially now, when gender is becoming so fluid and easily challenged, I find it confusing that people get so upset over it. I just see it as, people finally have the freedom and flexibility to be pretty much however they want to be, but instead of celebrating that and accepting that all these traits are individual, they focus on how people used to think that these traits belonged to a certain gender, and get huffy over a past mindset.

That myth bit makes quite a bit of sense, though. *wanders off to ponder it further*

You're still confusing gender *identity* with gender *roles*. This is what I mean by it being circular. No, liking pink is not a 'female' trait. Playing football is not a 'male' trait. Thinking that you're a boy and just wanting to be a normal boy, reading books and identifying with the male characters as one of 'us' and the female characters as more of a 'them', and feeling like people are wrong when they call you a girl... is a 'male' sensibility.

I'm all for breaking down every single goddamn concept ever created that 'defines' male or female outside of "male means you're male" or "female means you're female". But that sense of being male or female or both or neither is not going to go away for a VERY long time. And as long as these categories exist at all, people will be more drawn to one or the other. Even if they do not definitively mean anything.

Myth affects us on an emotional, intuitive level. This is where it draws its power. Some people are more affected by some myths than others. Some people find certain myths powerful and meaningful, others may not affect them. They were not developed as the result of logical thought. Religion began as the result of feeling something the feeler interpreted as connected, overwhelming, or divine, and the rituals grew up around it. This is why there are relgions based on trees, and religions based on sex, and religions based on death, and all sorts of other things. This is why polytheism developed before monotheism. GENDER is sensed. The rituals that have grown up around it? Are (a) not the same thing as gender itself and (b) rituals. (The unfortunate tendency of people to reduce a myth to the rituals that have grown up around it is a problem and evidence that humanity is usually not as awesome as it is capable of being, but luckily, myths have a tendency to get revamped once in a while, regardless of how many traditionalists who don't get the point get upset over it.)

Transsexualism, which is slightly different from transgenderism in general, seems, as far as I can tell, to be the unshakeable sense that you are stuck in the wrong body. And you can claim that you don't think you'd care if you suddenly woke up in a different body one day, but frankly, there's no way to know that unless it happened, but I think you'd still probably be kind of weirded out. Body and mind can be fairly closely connected (look at how closely physical and mental health are related, for example); being stuck in a body that's not 'right' would probably be hard to ignore. Especially when you consider how many perfectly cisgendered people are *still* really, really uncomfortable with their bodies--I know a lot of people who get kind of wigged when they look in a mirror and their reflection doesn't match their 'mental image' of themselves, which is usually when they go running to the gym or the hairdresser's.

[AVENCakes]

Thanks for the info. I would consider it if it weren't for the cost... I doubt it'll fit in the NHS bill, it's probably considered cosmetic surgery. And if functionality is present which I doubt it is. Anyway, I'm glad the dysphoria isn't too overwhelming. It only flares when I have to highlight my female body. I don't mind "she"; it's better than "he-she" hence why I don't like the idea of getting the secondary male sex characteristics.

You should look up transsexual surgeries in the where you are and how they're treated. In the UK I'm pretty sure therapy/hormones are covered, and the surgery might be as well, to a degree, but I know that in the US and I think in Australia almost no health insurance covers anything.

Well, realize that "liking pink" is not a female trait, it's an individual preference. It doesn't make you less of a woman. That sort of thing. If society associates a certain trait with a particular sex, then wouldn't it be better to show that that's nothing but a stereotype, rather than anguishing about how you don't have that trait?

Um, I didn't notice, perhaps I missed something, who was anguishing that they don't fit into the gender roles of their gender? I've seen a handful of transsexuals worry that it would be a problem for passing or there are the insulting ignorant who will say "see, you have [traits associated with sex], that's what you really are!", but I've never seen anyone get that upset that they don't fit into the stereotype.

Transsexualism, which is slightly different from transgenderism in general, seems, as far as I can tell, to be the unshakeable sense that you are stuck in the wrong body.

The difference is confusing and getting less certain. Some people say it's only people who fit in the binary, others say that the reason for that is because transsexuals try to get surgery to get the correct sex and since some transgendered individuals are doing this. I think all transgendered individuals feel that they're in the wrong body, but with some (genderfluid, for example) it's not a constant thing or as big a deal.

And you can claim that you don't think you'd care if you suddenly woke up in a different body one day, but frankly, there's no way to know that unless it happened, but I think you'd still probably be kind of weirded out. Body and mind can be fairly closely connected (look at how closely physical and mental health are related, for example); being stuck in a body that's not 'right' would probably be hard to ignore. Especially when you consider how many perfectly cisgendered people are *still* really, really uncomfortable with their bodies--I know a lot of people who get kind of wigged when they look in a mirror and their reflection doesn't match their 'mental image' of themselves, which is usually when they go running to the gym or the hairdresser's.

There's another disorder, Body Dysmorphic Disorder, were something about your body is just so wrong to you that it can become a serious obsession to try and fix it or hide it, and it's estimated 1 or 2% of the population has it. People can have such a problem with their body looking wrong that they will starve themselves or shell out huge amounts of money on plastic surgery.

[Snap-Dragon]

So it's sort of a discomfort with your body? Simply not wanting to have certain parts? I just still don't quite get why having certain body parts would bother someone that much, especially if they could just not use them...

Well it is called body dysphoria. And I didn't realize that not using them meant that you no longer feel them, no longer feel what's missing.

True, good point.

*shrug* If I was male, it wouldn't bother me. If I woke up somehow with my exact same personality and everything, just in a male body, it wouldn't bother me to be called a male, because that's what I'd be. Not a very masculine male, perhaps, but a man just the same. If I wasn't a man and someone referred to me as male, I'd think he was either blind or daft, and would probably address him as such. :P

No. If, as you are right now, someone started calling you male even though you insist you are a woman, which is a foolish thing to claim when you so obviously aren't. I mean, look at you. You don't even sound like a girl. And female avatar, trying to hard anyone? It's a nice attempt, but really oyu can't hide that you're really a guy. You should just stop trying, man. No one's buying it, no one ever will. Why don't you do yourself a favor and just accept you're a guy now instead of putting yourself trhough all this trouble when it won't change anything. Do you want people to think you're a freak? Wouldn't you be happier just accepting what you are instead of trying to pretend you're a girl?

I... realize you're trying to make a point, but I still don't find that particularly bothersome. Sex doesn't exist so much on the Internet -- we're all just formless blobs of data, so it's understandable if someone makes that mistake. :D I guess if someone really insisted on calling me male like that, I would wonder what kind of outdated stereotypes they were using to decide that I must be female. And I'd probably pull out my considerable knowledge of useless statistics to show that whatever it was, girls were just as capable of performing that as well. :P

Besides, if I was a man and still the way I am now (we're talking a seriously girly man, here! :D ) and was concerned about people calling me a freak, wouldn't it be more freakish to remain a man with what most people would call feminine traits, rather than pretend to be a girl where such traits are generally more socially acceptable?

I absolutely would. If a man wore a dress, I would still call him "he". If a woman wore a dress, I would call her "she". He/she doesn't have anything to do with what a person is wearing.

Actually, you would demand to look under their dress and see what is between their legs before deciding if you're willing to believe they are a man or a woman. I do not mean a cisman in a dress, I mean anyone regardless of biology.

Or their chest. Or their throat, jawline, waist size, body proportions, arm muscles, shoe size, etc. There are many subtle ways to tell the two sexes apart. But I'm generally a pretty trusting person. If someone told me they were a guy, I wouldn't insist they lift up their skirt and prove it. Wow, that's some unfortunate mental imagery there, actually...

I'm not sure I get the analogy... it's just other people's ignorance that bothers you so much? If someone said that to me, I would probably begin a huge educational lecture to rid them of their misinformed stereotypes.

And they won't listen, because in their mind you are this. Look at you. Look at your ignorance. Look at you insisting that, no matter what I say, I am not what I think I am. I shouldn't have a right to be referred to as I want to be.

Heh, no, I'm sure you're who you think you are. I'm just trying to understand it. ;) Guess I'm just hung up on the idea that he/she refers to sex, not gender, and so I'm not sure how it offends someone so much to be called by their sex. It doesn't make any judgments on what gender they should be or are, just what their sex already is.

That's harsh, and absolutely has to change. But the problem there is with an overly prejudicial society, not with the use of a pronoun.

Do you listen to yourself? Do you not see the hypocrisy? You are refusing to believe that transgendered are what they claim to be and then you have the dare to say that the problem is with prejudices that you yourself hold?

And I guess this is kind of the key of what I'm confused about. In what way are they not their sex?

They are not their sex, they are their gender. Their sex is wrong, it doesn't match who they are and people insisting they are it is painful.

I don't doubt that people can be a different gender than their sex! I was saying that the problem was with people saying a person has to be the same gender as their sex, and would persecute those who aren't. After thinking a bit more about cynicalromantic's post, I think she's right; I was still confusing gender identity with gender roles. I guess I've seen too many, ah -- gender-confused, maybe? -- people, who think that, for example, since they don't like pink and like computers, they must actually be a man, not a woman. Just irks me that people would assume that girls can't like those things, so if they do they must not be a girl. Way to perpetuate the stereotype. <_< But that's not what you're saying at all, is it?

I think that's my problem, here. Generally, when I hear people speak of gender, it's things like stereotypical gender roles, things like "girls play with dolls, girls are more submissive, men aren't emotional", that sort of thing. If that's not what gender is, what is it? If the problem with transgendered people is that they feel their bodies are the wrong sex, not that they don't "fit the stereotype", then is the issue not that "they're not their sex, they're their gender", but more that "they're not their sex, they're the opposite sex"? Man, I'm starting to give myself a headache.

Ah, yes, the intersexed. I guess they're the ones who really get to choose which sex they want to be called by. Stop messing up my carefully outlined categories, darn it! But tall women/short men, flat-chested women, etc... those don't affect a person's sex. A woman is still a woman, regardless of her height or... ah... endowment.

If the embodiment of all female traits is breasts, curves, long hair, more lower body strength, etc. and the embodiment of all male traits is muscles, upper body strength, no curves, short hair, etc. then any man or woman who doesn't fit that exactly has a certain level of androgyny. It doesn't mean they aren't a man or a woman, but they are not clearly fixed on the point of "all male traits" or "all female traits" and no one is.

You're treating sex as fixed, when it's as variable as gender is. It would not surpirse me if the number of intersex individuals was similar the number of genderqueer, it's just that intersexed is harder to ignore. And, as you'll note, we are not talking about the vast majority of people. In case you hadn't noticed- most are cisgendered, meaning that they're perfectly content with their assigned sex even if some prefer to be more androgynous or venture outside the roles their sex stereotypically fills. However, just like there are some people who's body is so androgynous that it can't be ignored, there are people who's gender is so non-binary that they aren't comfortable as male or female. And then there are some who were just born with the wrong sex, but don't feel genderqueer at all.

Sex isn't fixed? Okay, except for the intersexed, that I can get. But what sex a person is merely depends on what set of genitalia they have. These other characteristics... are just secondary sexual characteristics. Not everyone will have them, or have them to the same degree.

[Snap-Dragon]

No, I guess not. Actually, doesn't post-op mean that they're now the biologically the opposite sex, regardless of how they were born?

Because biological still includes genetics, no. They still have an XY chromosome, they can't give birth, they can't get lubed up, their clitoris came from a part of their penis. It's worse with transmen- as the parts don't even look right.

So you're saying that someone should be called "he" up until she gets all those surgeries? Why? Why will you acknowledge it then but not before?

Hmm. Well, I guess, again, it's because I see the English pronouns as referring to sex, and sex as just being what set of genitalia you have, regardless of when you actually got it.

The fully androgynous just confuse me. I guess I would take my best guess as to their sex and use the appropriate pronoun, since calling someone "it" seems much more insulting than accidentally using the wrong pronoun. But it would be an accident to address them by "he" if they were actually a "she". Speaking of sex, of course, not of gender. But then, I would assume that if they dressed in such a way as to make it impossible to tell what sex they were, they probably wouldn't be bothered too much by people guessing wrong anyway...

But you're just guessing. And what if they get insulted by both pronouns and would rather be called "they"? What if they correct you even though you guess what's in their pants correctly, then what do you do? The problem with your method is that you basically have to stick your hands down someone's pants to be correct.

There are other ways to tell the sexes apart than just what's between the legs. Maybe not quite as reliable, but they're there. :P But I'm generally a rather flexible person, so if they insisted, I would probably go along with their requests. They might, however, be subjected to a 2-hour long Grammar Nazi rant on the proper use of English language, and how "they" is a plural pronoun, not a neutral one. Man, you want psychological torture, I've used "they" several times now to refer neutrally to "a person", and I keep looking over my shoulder expecting my old grammar teacher to pop out of the wall and beat my hands with a yardstick. :o

But now they're not the same thing. So, which does it refer to?

Gender. People should be called what they want to be called. And you, sir, are taking it a bit far in refusing to respect people's wishes. It's just like nicknames- if a kid wants to be called Bobby instead of Robert, or even Kitty instead of their real name, that's their right and there's no reason why you shouldn't, it's just mean and silly not to.

I disagree. :P I think it refers to sex. Now, that being said, I would respect someone's wishes if they wanted to be called something else. I would think they were being rather silly, and not using the language properly, but I would call them how they wanted to be called.

That is a good point, though it just seems like gender is whatever you care to make of it, which is why I get confused about why people get upset over it.

People are getting upset over the fact that you are so rude as to purposefully go against someone's wishes and call them as they wouldn't want to be called. Yeah, I'm bad with the gender neutral pronouns that are coming up, I acknowledge that I'd probably screw that up, but I'd at least try and apologize when I got it wrong. And, by the way, calling an MtF he or FtM she is messing it up. Badly.

Well, again, only if you think the pronouns are referring to gender. Which I don't think they do. Actually, I'm starting to get really confused about what gender is, now. I really wish there was some solid definition. :(

[Snap-Dragon]

And on a separate note, I would love to see a man with enough spine to actually wear a (tasteful!) dress.

Go hit the nearest Goth club.

Or possibly a Contra dance. You can usually find the occasional man who throws on a hippie skirt at those.

One of my male hausmates wears a skirt sometimes, too.

Or an anime convention, actually. There are a lot of shirtless guys in skirts at mine. One of the security guards even went in drag, which was totally awesome. We also had "Hawaiian Shirt Day" at my highschool because they couldn't actually have a gender bender day, and a lot of guys went in skirts/dresses. One did this awesomely hilarious thing where he stuffed his shirt with balloons and even stuffed his butt, and put a scarf around his head because he couldn't find a wig, just going way too all out. It was a lot of fun. Plenty of guys are willing to do that, but generally only on special occasions.

Oh, yeah, I've seen those. 8) I meant more wearing it in an everyday setting, not just as a costume. Although that's cool, too.

Not creep by by dressing all the way up as a woman and making it impossible for anyone to tell that they were actually a man wearing that dress, but a man with enough courage to wear a dress and not pretend to be the opposite sex in order to get away with it. I would have so much respect for someone who challenged stereotypes that way. 8)

Actually, what's your problem with crossdressers? So what if someone wants to dress like the opposite sex, is that really such a problem? I mean, yeah, it makes it so that you can't tell what's in their pants, and that's such a big deal to you, but so what if a guy wants to pass as a woman or vice versa sometimes, even if they aren't? That probably takes more courage because if you're just wearing a dress to play the fool, then people are less likely to get violent then if you fool them.

Nah, I don't have any problems with crossdressers. They're cool. But, it's generally not very controversial for a woman to wear a skirt. So, when a man dresses up all the way as a woman to wear a dress, he's effectively sidestepping the controversy. I meant more that I would really admire a man who didn't avoid the stares, who didn't shy away from the controversy, and was willing to challenge the stereotypes and just come right out and say "men can wear skirts too". That would take a lot of courage and self-confidence, which is why I woud have made such a big deal of it. 8)

You're still confusing gender *identity* with gender *roles*. This is what I mean by it being circular. No, liking pink is not a 'female' trait. Playing football is not a 'male' trait. Thinking that you're a boy and just wanting to be a normal boy, reading books and identifying with the male characters as one of 'us' and the female characters as more of a 'them', and feeling like people are wrong when they call you a girl... is a 'male' sensibility.

I'm all for breaking down every single goddamn concept ever created that 'defines' male or female outside of "male means you're male" or "female means you're female". But that sense of being male or female or both or neither is not going to go away for a VERY long time. And as long as these categories exist at all, people will be more drawn to one or the other. Even if they do not definitively mean anything.

Myth affects us on an emotional, intuitive level. This is where it draws its power. Some people are more affected by some myths than others. Some people find certain myths powerful and meaningful, others may not affect them. They were not developed as the result of logical thought. Religion began as the result of feeling something the feeler interpreted as connected, overwhelming, or divine, and the rituals grew up around it. This is why there are relgions based on trees, and religions based on sex, and religions based on death, and all sorts of other things. This is why polytheism developed before monotheism. GENDER is sensed. The rituals that have grown up around it? Are (a) not the same thing as gender itself and (b) rituals. (The unfortunate tendency of people to reduce a myth to the rituals that have grown up around it is a problem and evidence that humanity is usually not as awesome as it is capable of being, but luckily, myths have a tendency to get revamped once in a while, regardless of how many traditionalists who don't get the point get upset over it.)

Transsexualism, which is slightly different from transgenderism in general, seems, as far as I can tell, to be the unshakeable sense that you are stuck in the wrong body. And you can claim that you don't think you'd care if you suddenly woke up in a different body one day, but frankly, there's no way to know that unless it happened, but I think you'd still probably be kind of weirded out. Body and mind can be fairly closely connected (look at how closely physical and mental health are related, for example); being stuck in a body that's not 'right' would probably be hard to ignore. Especially when you consider how many perfectly cisgendered people are *still* really, really uncomfortable with their bodies--I know a lot of people who get kind of wigged when they look in a mirror and their reflection doesn't match their 'mental image' of themselves, which is usually when they go running to the gym or the hairdresser's.

Hm, yeah, you're right. Which is a tad annoying, because now I seriously have no idea what I'm talking about anymore.

Well, realize that "liking pink" is not a female trait, it's an individual preference. It doesn't make you less of a woman. That sort of thing. If society associates a certain trait with a particular sex, then wouldn't it be better to show that that's nothing but a stereotype, rather than anguishing about how you don't have that trait?

Um, I didn't notice, perhaps I missed something, who was anguishing that they don't fit into the gender roles of their gender? I've seen a handful of transsexuals worry that it would be a problem for passing or there are the insulting ignorant who will say "see, you have [traits associated with sex], that's what you really are!", but I've never seen anyone get that upset that they don't fit into the stereotype.

I see. Dang, 'cause that's what I thought we were talking about for quite a bit. :(

[Lekzýs]

They might, however, be subjected to a 2-hour long Grammar Nazi rant on the proper use of English language, and how "they" is a plural pronoun, not a neutral one.

Actually - and no, I cannot let this slide - you may want to have a look at this, and this, and whatever else you can find before any Grammar Nazi rants are considered.

[AVENCakes]

Besides, if I was a man and still the way I am now (we're talking a seriously girly man, here! :D ) and was concerned about people calling me a freak, wouldn't it be more freakish to remain a man with what most people would call feminine traits, rather than pretend to be a girl where such traits are generally more socially acceptable?

Actually, you'd risk getting accused of being both gay and transsexual on a daily basis, possibly to the point where even if you were you'd refuse to accept it and try to be masculine and straight even though you aren't.

Or their chest. Or their throat, jawline, waist size, body proportions, arm muscles, shoe size, etc. There are many subtle ways to tell the two sexes apart. But I'm generally a pretty trusting person. If someone told me they were a guy, I wouldn't insist they lift up their skirt and prove it. Wow, that's some unfortunate mental imagery there, actually...

Fine, you'd still demand access to parts of their body that they might be hiding for the purpose of that not being obvious.

I guess I've seen too many, ah -- gender-confused, maybe? -- people, who think that, for example, since they don't like pink and like computers, they must actually be a man, not a woman. Just irks me that people would assume that girls can't like those things, so if they do they must not be a girl. Way to perpetuate the stereotype. <_< But that's not what you're saying at all, is it?

Transsexuals use the gender traits they fit into to justify themselves a lot, that doesn't mean they went out and said "I fit these, I must be [gender]". But there's nothing but sheer force of will proving that a transgendered individual is what they say they are, and that can get really hard sometimes. The entire world is trying to tell them they aren't sometimes, so they'll cling to any proof they have that they're right. When I was a kid you couldn't get me out of my Alice in Wonderland dress, the first thing I ever asked for were ruby red slippers, there's a lot of things in my history and fondness that suggest that that I'm very much cisgendered, so when I see things that differentiate me from girls I cling to them and accentuate them because it feels like justification. I'm the first person to say that people don't need to fit stereotypes and men cand o everything women can do everything men can, and it goes double for genderqueers.

There's a comic I saw with a girl doing one of those stupid "Does your crush like you bck?" tests and the entire way sarcastically expressing that she doesn't believe it for a minute, btu at the end it says he likes her back and she gets this erally big sappy grin as if it totally proves he does, even though she clearly didn't think that it meant anything. It's like that. It's not that they think it proves they're a girl or a boy or both or neither and that's all they base it on, but any solid evidence they can point to is a blessing.

If that's not what gender is, what is it? If the problem with transgendered people is that they feel their bodies are the wrong sex, not that they don't "fit the stereotype", then is the issue not that "they're not their sex, they're their gender", but more that "they're not their sex, they're the opposite sex"? Man, I'm starting to give myself a headache.

But that's not true of non-binaries, who aren't thier sex, aren't the opposite sex, but are somewhere inbetween. For example, I consider myself to be neutrois. The only reason I'd be happier to have a male body is that I think testicals are quite a bit easier to remove than ovaries because you don't have to go in, you just have to cut off.

And if you think that's confusing- there are people who think they're gender is completely different and can't be explained within the idea of male/female like neutrois (0%M, 0%F) androgyne (50%/50%) and bigender(100%,100%) can be. That blows my mind.

Sex isn't fixed? Okay, except for the intersexed, that I can get. But what sex a person is merely depends on what set of genitalia they have. These other characteristics... are just secondary sexual characteristics. Not everyone will have them, or have them to the same degree.

It's the same as gender. Genderqueer are the intersexed- they aren't male or female. Male and female with different sets of geintalia but secondary things are the rest. Most fit into male or female, maybe with different degrees one way or another, and transsexuals are the ones who are in the opposite body they should have. I think that's part of the problem you're having- most people aren't non-binary. Most people don't need a different pronoun because they're content with he or she. It just happens that some people have the opposite pronoun of what their genitalia would suggest.

Hmm. Well, I guess, again, it's because I see the English pronouns as referring to sex, and sex as just being what set of genitalia you have, regardless of when you actually got it.

But it seems weird that you'd call someone who got that surgery but wouldn't call someone who wanted to get the surgery and was working towards getting it. And what would you do about someone who got gender nullification surgery?

There are other ways to tell the sexes apart than just what's between the legs. Maybe not quite as reliable, but they're there.

Yeah, but the ones often hidden by someone planning to be

They might, however, be subjected to a 2-hour long Grammar Nazi rant on the proper use of English language, and how "they" is a plural pronoun, not a neutral one.

Not only that, but "you" is a plural pronoun, so I trust that thou art one of the few who uses thou/thee/thy/thine, seeing as grammar is so important to thee? And "they" is also neutral, it's third person plural and neutral. It's not male or female, so it's neutral.

Honestly, until we have a singular second person pronoun, I think it's dense to get bent out of shape for using they singular as well. It's really annoying to not have a singular second, I've run into confusion and problems thanks ot it, I've always thought we needed one and wish I could get better at conjugating for "thou".

I disagree. :P I think it refers to sex. Now, that being said, I would respect someone's wishes if they wanted to be called something else. I would think they were being rather silly, and not using the language properly, but I would call them how they wanted to be called.

Until they told you that they got lower surgery, in which case you'd start calling them by the right gender and not think they're silly.

Well, again, only if you think the pronouns are referring to gender. Which I don't think they do. Actually, I'm starting to get really confused about what gender is, now. I really wish there was some solid definition. :(

Okay, let's try this. It refers to internal sex. Does that make sense? Does it help any? It's not talking about the physical/external, btu the emotional/mental/internal, so it's referring to that sex, which is why it's accurate and hurts to be called the wrong pronoun, because it's a reminder of how the physical and mental don't mix, when people are happiest when the two fit together.

Nah, I don't have any problems with crossdressers. They're cool. But, it's generally not very controversial for a woman to wear a skirt. So, when a man dresses up all the way as a woman to wear a dress, he's effectively sidestepping the controversy. I meant more that I would really admire a man who didn't avoid the stares, who didn't shy away from the controversy, and was willing to challenge the stereotypes and just come right out and say "men can wear skirts too". That would take a lot of courage and self-confidence, which is why I woud have made such a big deal of it. 8)

Yeah, that's true. At a camp I went to there ws a gender bender day as well, and a guy complained that he had to change out of his skirt before they took us into town because he refused to be seen like that. I thought that was really dissappointing and silly, it would've been awesome if he actually had. I can see why people don't,t hough, you can get into a lot of trouble for that.

Now that I think about it, there were some guys at my college that walked around in skirts about every day. that was pretty awesome. And the reason we had to have "Hawaiian Shirt" day insted of whatever it was called was that one year a group of guys decided that they liked it so much they kept dressing like it every day. Then one day some higher-up types came by to open a new building at the school for this really official sort of thing and saw that group of guys walking around in skirts and in our just-off-the-bible-belt city this was bad, so they had to get rid of it officially. Which,by the way, is why a lot of guys have problem with wearing skirts and not trying to pass as female, it isn't accepted and I'm sure you can face a ton of problems for it.

Actually - and no, I cannot let this slide - you may want to have a look at this, and this, and whatever else you can find before any Grammar Nazi rants are considered.

Thank you. It always annoys me when people go into the grammar-nazi argument, and "you is plural but we use it for singular" doesn't seem to work well.

[KayleeSaeihr]

[lots of stuff]

What's your definition of male and of female?

[metalgirl2045]

re: the pronoun thing - it's not just annoying when talking about neutrosis/androgyne/genderqueer people, how do you refer to a probably cisgendered person of unknown gender (e.g. you've never met the person in question and just have a gender-neutral name such as Dr Alex Smith, or don't know who it is such as a friend you're going to take to a party but haven't decided which friend)? I usually use "they".

[AVENCakes]

re: the pronoun thing - it's not just annoying when talking about neutrosis/androgyne/genderqueer people, how do you refer to a probably cisgendered person of unknown gender (e.g. you've never met the person in question and just have a gender-neutral name such as Dr Alex Smith, or don't know who it is such as a friend you're going to take to a party but haven't decided which friend)? I usually use "they".

Most people are fine with "they", and as has been pointed out it's not that grammatically incorrect so the people who complain about it being plural should go away until they find a non-offensive 3rd person neutral pronoun and a singular second person one.

Some people automatically use "he", but that's got issues because it reinforces the idea that being male is what's normal and right, so some people have started using a gender-neutral "she" to counteract it. Either way you'll have to explain if you get it wrong, but since people have used both to be gender neutral, you could probably get away with it if you're really against "they".

[Cazz333]

But that's not true of non-binaries, who aren't thier sex, aren't the opposite sex, but are somewhere inbetween. For example, I consider myself to be neutrois. The only reason I'd be happier to have a male body is that I think testicals are quite a bit easier to remove than ovaries because you don't have to go in, you just have to cut off.

And if you think that's confusing- there are people who think they're gender is completely different and can't be explained within the idea of male/female like neutrois (0%M, 0%F) androgyne (50%/50%) and bigender(100%,100%) can be. That blows my mind.

Sex isn't fixed? Okay, except for the intersexed, that I can get. But what sex a person is merely depends on what set of genitalia they have. These other characteristics... are just secondary sexual characteristics. Not everyone will have them, or have them to the same degree.

It's the same as gender. Genderqueer are the intersexed- they aren't male or female. Male and female with different sets of geintalia but secondary things are the rest. Most fit into male or female, maybe with different degrees one way or another, and transsexuals are the ones who are in the opposite body they should have. I think that's part of the problem you're having- most people aren't non-binary. Most people don't need a different pronoun because they're content with he or she. It just happens that some people have the opposite pronoun of what their genitalia would suggest.

Thanks for the info about the surgery. It's unlikely that I'll do it anytime soon since I'm not quite prepared to alter my body yet. In terms of gender I tend to see myself as 1/3 neutrois (0%M, 0%F), 1/3 androgyne (50%/50%) and 1/3 bigender(100%,100%). That's probably why I don't fit into the f-t-m transsexual or transgender category.

[Snap-Dragon]

They might, however, be subjected to a 2-hour long Grammar Nazi rant on the proper use of English language, and how "they" is a plural pronoun, not a neutral one.

Actually - and no, I cannot let this slide - you may want to have a look at this, and this, and whatever else you can find before any Grammar Nazi rants are considered.

Heh, I'll stick with modern English, thanks. And the APA format, as well as the official judgment of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. I appreciate that once upon a time, it was acceptable to use such a construction, but it's just not any longer. Just like it's no longer acceptable to write like this: "Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote the droghte of March hath perced to the roote". I understand that some people will choose to err on the side of political correctness, and I do sympathize that English doesn't have an appropriate ambiguous third person, but that doesn't make the use of "they" in a singular sense any less grammatically incorrect. :P :P

[Snap-Dragon]

Besides, if I was a man and still the way I am now (we're talking a seriously girly man, here! :D ) and was concerned about people calling me a freak, wouldn't it be more freakish to remain a man with what most people would call feminine traits, rather than pretend to be a girl where such traits are generally more socially acceptable?

Actually, you'd risk getting accused of being both gay and transsexual on a daily basis, possibly to the point where even if you were you'd refuse to accept it and try to be masculine and straight even though you aren't.

Yeah. Like I said, that's what would seem to be more freakish. I guess it depends on where you live, but in my experience, people are really too wrapped up in their own lives to care what I do with mine. So I actually doubt I would get those types of insults thrown at me, at least not by anyone who even remotely matters. I dunno, though, I guess stuff like that doesn't really bother me. Water off a duck's back, I think the saying goes. ;)

Or their chest. Or their throat, jawline, waist size, body proportions, arm muscles, shoe size, etc. There are many subtle ways to tell the two sexes apart. But I'm generally a pretty trusting person. If someone told me they were a guy, I wouldn't insist they lift up their skirt and prove it. Wow, that's some unfortunate mental imagery there, actually...

Fine, you'd still demand access to parts of their body that they might be hiding for the purpose of that not being obvious.

Even with a body wrapped in a burka, it's still possible to tell men and women apart. Mostly, of course, not all the time. They're built kind of differently.

I guess I've seen too many, ah -- gender-confused, maybe? -- people, who think that, for example, since they don't like pink and like computers, they must actually be a man, not a woman. Just irks me that people would assume that girls can't like those things, so if they do they must not be a girl. Way to perpetuate the stereotype. <_< But that's not what you're saying at all, is it?

Transsexuals use the gender traits they fit into to justify themselves a lot, that doesn't mean they went out and said "I fit these, I must be [gender]". But there's nothing but sheer force of will proving that a transgendered individual is what they say they are, and that can get really hard sometimes. The entire world is trying to tell them they aren't sometimes, so they'll cling to any proof they have that they're right. When I was a kid you couldn't get me out of my Alice in Wonderland dress, the first thing I ever asked for were ruby red slippers, there's a lot of things in my history and fondness that suggest that that I'm very much cisgendered, so when I see things that differentiate me from girls I cling to them and accentuate them because it feels like justification. I'm the first person to say that people don't need to fit stereotypes and men cand o everything women can do everything men can, and it goes double for genderqueers.

Huh, okay, I guess I can understand that. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way, I guess, when anyone, transgender, cisgender, or otherwise, points to some trait and tries to associate with a particular gender. While I can sympathize with the desire to have something solid to point to, I kind of see it as giving credibility to the idea that girls must be one way, guys must be another. And there's little that cheeses me off more than that. <_<

Hmm. Well, I guess, again, it's because I see the English pronouns as referring to sex, and sex as just being what set of genitalia you have, regardless of when you actually got it.

But it seems weird that you'd call someone who got that surgery but wouldn't call someone who wanted to get the surgery and was working towards getting it. And what would you do about someone who got gender nullification surgery?

I guess because after they got that surgery, they would actually be that sex, while before they got the surgery, their gender might be different, but their sex would still be the same. I almost don't dare ask, but what's gender nullification surgery?

They might, however, be subjected to a 2-hour long Grammar Nazi rant on the proper use of English language, and how "they" is a plural pronoun, not a neutral one.

Not only that, but "you" is a plural pronoun, so I trust that thou art one of the few who uses thou/thee/thy/thine, seeing as grammar is so important to thee? And "they" is also neutral, it's third person plural and neutral. It's not male or female, so it's neutral.

Honestly, until we have a singular second person pronoun, I think it's dense to get bent out of shape for using they singular as well. It's really annoying to not have a singular second, I've run into confusion and problems thanks ot it, I've always thought we needed one and wish I could get better at conjugating for "thou".

Nah, "you" is both singular and plural. It just happens that we use the same word in both cases. And "they" is indeed plural, when properly used. :P

*eagerly starts drawing a pronoun chart on her whiteboard, then realizes that is rather ineffective for online conversations*

I disagree. :P I think it refers to sex. Now, that being said, I would respect someone's wishes if they wanted to be called something else. I would think they were being rather silly, and not using the language properly, but I would call them how they wanted to be called.

Until they told you that they got lower surgery, in which case you'd start calling them by the right gender and not think they're silly.

True. But just because then, the pronoun would really reflect their actual sex, not just their gender.

Well, again, only if you think the pronouns are referring to gender. Which I don't think they do. Actually, I'm starting to get really confused about what gender is, now. I really wish there was some solid definition. :(

Okay, let's try this. It refers to internal sex. Does that make sense? Does it help any? It's not talking about the physical/external, btu the emotional/mental/internal, so it's referring to that sex, which is why it's accurate and hurts to be called the wrong pronoun, because it's a reminder of how the physical and mental don't mix, when people are happiest when the two fit together.

Hm. Okay, that makes sense. Although, then, if "gender" is nothing more than an internal sense of sex, what's the difference between transgender and transsexual?

I do wish I'd just asked that at the beginning, though. For so much of this, I thought we were arguing over gender the way Marvin seemed to use it, as the societal gender roles. Actually, I think that's what most people think of, when they think "gender". Does make more sense in this context, though, and I guess I can see why it would be painful to use a different sex pronoun from what you'd feel your correct sex is.

[Snap-Dragon]

[lots of stuff]

What's your definition of male and of female?

Erm, I guess just the standard biology textbook definition. Males have a penis, females have a vagina.

re: the pronoun thing - it's not just annoying when talking about neutrosis/androgyne/genderqueer people, how do you refer to a probably cisgendered person of unknown gender (e.g. you've never met the person in question and just have a gender-neutral name such as Dr Alex Smith, or don't know who it is such as a friend you're going to take to a party but haven't decided which friend)? I usually use "they".

Most people are fine with "they", and as has been pointed out it's not that grammatically incorrect so the people who complain about it being plural should go away until they find a non-offensive 3rd person neutral pronoun and a singular second person one.

Some people automatically use "he", but that's got issues because it reinforces the idea that being male is what's normal and right, so some people have started using a gender-neutral "she" to counteract it. Either way you'll have to explain if you get it wrong, but since people have used both to be gender neutral, you could probably get away with it if you're really against "they".

:P :P

Well, it is technically grammatically incorrect. I can see why it's informally used so often, though, as even when gender doesn't come up, those ambiguous situations are tricky. I subscribe to the standard use of "he" myself, though I know a few people have issues with that because of the implied "male is normal" bit. "She" isn't any more neutral, though, so it's always seemed a bit silly to substitute one non-neutral pronoun with another non-neutral one.

[KayleeSaeihr]

[lots of stuff]

What's your definition of male and of female?

Erm, I guess just the standard biology textbook definition. Males have a penis, females have a vagina.

Ok sure. What about ambiguous genitalia? Where the genitals appear to be either or... Would you say chromosomes then?

[AVENCakes]

Huh, okay, I guess I can understand that. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way, I guess, when anyone, transgender, cisgender, or otherwise, points to some trait and tries to associate with a particular gender. While I can sympathize with the desire to have something solid to point to, I kind of see it as giving credibility to the idea that girls must be one way, guys must be another. And there's little that cheeses me off more than that. <_<

Yeah, but being transgendered can be difficult enough I don't think it's too bad

I guess because after they got that surgery, they would actually be that sex, while before they got the surgery, their gender might be different, but their sex would still be the same. I almost don't dare ask, but what's gender nullification surgery?

Well, as I'm hoping you can guess it's where you nullify the gender associated with your sex, so that you have neither a penis nor a vagina, in some cases, a sexual getting it can leave a clitoris (from either birth sex), but they are, biologically, neither.

There's someone on here who wants to be both, "biologically", so that they could actually have a penis between a clitoris and vagina. If/when they figure out a way to do that, what would you call them?

Nah, "you" is both singular and plural. It just happens that we use the same word in both cases. And "they" is indeed plural, when properly used. :P

*eagerly starts drawing a pronoun chart on her whiteboard, then realizes that is rather ineffective for online conversations*

In its initial usage, "you" was both plural and formal. Which is ironic seeing as how it's used now, and we're rather informal as society. Seeing as "he" is "gender-neutral" when "properly" used, I think using "they" is fine if only because anti-feminism grates on me worse than how someone who faces a whole mess of discrimination just for being born to cling to anything they can to justify themselves grates on you.

True. But just because then, the pronoun would really reflect their actual sex, not just their gender.

Yeah, but do you see the issue that you feel you have a right to know what a person's sex is? If I get surgery, it's my business. Unless you're close family or my boss/school (who needs to know why I'm taking time off), why should I tell you? And, better yet, why should I tell you what surgery I get? Plenty of transsexuals don't go all the way, that's they're business. And what would be considered having a "male" sex in the FtM world? Metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, any of the surgeries that, let's face it, don't do a convincing job of making a penis?

Hm. Okay, that makes sense. Although, then, if "gender" is nothing more than an internal sense of sex, what's the difference between transgender and transsexual?

Transgender, by my understanding, encompasses all who aren't cisgendered, including transsexual. Transsexual usually means "only within the gender binary", so basically a transsexual is a transgendered individual who identifies as male or female. But some don't like being associated with the transgendered for some reason, then you even get the idiots who insist there is no such thing as genderqueer, which is just lovely.

I do wish I'd just asked that at the beginning, though. For so much of this, I thought we were arguing over gender the way Marvin seemed to use it, as the societal gender roles. Actually, I think that's what most people think of, when they think "gender". Does make more sense in this context, though, and I guess I can see why it would be painful to use a different sex pronoun from what you'd feel your correct sex is.

Yup. And the problem with society basing it on gender roles is that it leads to people, as you mentioned, clinging to the ones they do fit as a way to prove what they are because the ones they don't fit will be used against them.

Erm, I guess just the standard biology textbook definition. Males have a penis, females have a vagina.

According to the "How men control women in society thread" we're at "which hormones were released at which time during pregnancy". Before it was whether you had an XX or XY chromosome.

Well, it is technically grammatically incorrect. I can see why it's informally used so often, though, as even when gender doesn't come up, those ambiguous situations are tricky. I subscribe to the standard use of "he" myself, though I know a few people have issues with that because of the implied "male is normal" bit. "She" isn't any more neutral, though, so it's always seemed a bit silly to substitute one non-neutral pronoun with another non-neutral one.

Yeah, but "She" doesn't support the "male is normal" idea, and helps to undo it by saying "alright, if that's harmless, then so is this" and gets people to think.

[Cazz333]

There's someone on here who wants to be both, "biologically", so that they could actually have a penis between a clitoris and vagina. If/when they figure out a way to do that, what would you call them?

beutrois, maybe? From bi + neutrois (in between genders having both genders).

[AVENCakes]

There's someone on here who wants to be both, "biologically", so that they could actually have a penis between a clitoris and vagina. If/when they figure out a way to do that, what would you call them?

beutrois, maybe? From bi + neutrois (in between genders having both genders).

I think genderqueer or just "trans" (some people have suggested adding the "T" gender marking to legal documents and the like for non-binaries) is still fine. I just meant what would the poster call someone who's sex is neither male nor female, seeing as they don't have a gender-neutral pronoun they find acceptable.

[thecynicalromantic]

I guess I've seen too many, ah -- gender-confused, maybe? -- people, who think that, for example, since they don't like pink and like computers, they must actually be a man, not a woman. Just irks me that people would assume that girls can't like those things, so if they do they must not be a girl. Way to perpetuate the stereotype. dry.gif But that's not what you're saying at all, is it? blush.gif

Transsexuals use the gender traits they fit into to justify themselves a lot, that doesn't mean they went out and said "I fit these, I must be [gender]". But there's nothing but sheer force of will proving that a transgendered individual is what they say they are, and that can get really hard sometimes. The entire world is trying to tell them they aren't sometimes, so they'll cling to any proof they have that they're right. When I was a kid you couldn't get me out of my Alice in Wonderland dress, the first thing I ever asked for were ruby red slippers, there's a lot of things in my history and fondness that suggest that that I'm very much cisgendered, so when I see things that differentiate me from girls I cling to them and accentuate them because it feels like justification. I'm the first person to say that people don't need to fit stereotypes and men cand o everything women can do everything men can, and it goes double for genderqueers.

Huh, okay, I guess I can understand that. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way, I guess, when anyone, transgender, cisgender, or otherwise, points to some trait and tries to associate with a particular gender. While I can sympathize with the desire to have something solid to point to, I kind of see it as giving credibility to the idea that girls must be one way, guys must be another. And there's little that cheeses me off more than that. dry.gif

I'm totally with Snapdragon on this one, actually. I can see how pointing to the gender "roles" you fit as justification might work when dealing with stupid people who believe in gender roles, but I hope you can see how, when dealing with intelligent human beings, it really just makes you look stupid too. It's taking the *exact* same sort of discrimination you're been facing about 'not really' being whatever gender and implicitly turning it around on the cisgendered people--and it is, regardless of whether you're trans or cis, REALLY OFFENSIVE to be told you're even a little bit not what gender you think you are. So if an ftm tells me they're 'really a man' because of x, y or z 'masculine' trait, the implication is that if I share that trait, I'm also somewhat 'male' inside. And I am not male. At all. End of fracking story. And anyone who wants to associate anything I do with some inherent quality of 'being male', even the really male-dominated traits like weightlifting, is going to get a 45-pound iron plate accidentally-on-purpose dropped on their foot. Go tell it to someone dumb enough to think weightlifting is a gender trait.

I can definitely sympathize with wanting 'justification', since too many people seem to not understand the difference between 'cannot be put in a test tube' and 'does not exist at all, let's forget about it'. But seriously, be careful who you're talking to.

Overarching linguistic sidenote: Language EVOLVES, people. Our pronoun system is currently in the process of evolving. It appears to be evolving in the direction of "they" being the 3rd person equivalent of what happened to "you" several hundred years ago. It's not established enough yet to be appropriate in academic writing, but anyone who wants to dither about it being "wrong" the way it'd be "wrong" for me to describe this thing I'm typing on as a toaster, is being shortsightedly prescriptivist and ignoring the very nature of language.

[metalgirl2045]

I disagree it's offensive to say someone has traits of the "wrong" gender. Not all cisgendered men have 100% male traits and cisgendered women have 100% female traits, to say a woman has male traits is just saying I don't obsessively deny the existance of gender and not all people of a given gender are exactly the same, gender is an average of traits. I am not questioning the woman's gender identity.

[thecynicalromantic]

I disagree it's offensive to say someone has traits of the "wrong" gender. Not all cisgendered men have 100% male traits and cisgendered women have 100% female traits, to say a woman has male traits is just saying I don't obsessively deny the existance of gender and not all people of a given gender are exactly the same, gender is an average of traits. I am not questioning the woman's gender identity.

It depends on what you consider a 'male' or a 'female' trait. I, personally, get extremely annoyed when people treat traits that some aspect of society has deemed 'masculine' or 'feminine' like they are inherently part of one gender or the other. Something might be considered 'manly' but that doesn't make it inherently 'male', so I get annoyed when people use it as justification for an inherent sense of 'male-ness', when it's really just 'manliness', and 'manliness' is a silly and constantly evolving social fashion that intelligent people should not take seriously, except perhaps as a threat. A woman might have so-called "manly" traits but they're not really male traits if females have them, are they?

[AVENCakes]

So if an ftm tells me they're 'really a man' because of x, y or z 'masculine' trait, the implication is that if I share that trait, I'm also somewhat 'male' inside. And I am not male. At all. End of fracking story.

I'm sorry, did a transsexual walk up to you and say "you're posture is very typical of males, I'd like you to know that this means you are one"? Because I have never seen anyone say that you have to have a trait, or because you have a trait, that means you are. It is not "I'm a man because I have this trait". That's stupid. If anyone told me that they know they're a man because of these traits, I'd point out women who have it, too. It's "I'm a man. I know I am. But no one believes me, my own body is against me so I'm going to cling to traits I share with males but don't really see in females". If they see that same trait in girls they don't go "Oh, she must be somewhat male", it's "oh, she's a girl. Just like every other cisgirl in the world. That's nice." or "Hey, she's a girl who doesn't care about fitting perfectly into gender roles, that's awesome".

No one who wouldn't say that a transguy is a girl because of x, y, z would say anyone else is male or female just because of their traits. That is not typically a trans issue. There's a thread on another site "You know you fail at (birth sex) when..." And on it, a couple comments went like this:

Transguy1: You know you fail at being a girl when you forget you have boobs

Transgirl: Hey, I do that, too! I like having them, but sometimes I forget to give some extra room when opening doors

Transguy2: You're lucky you forget, I'm too aware of my body.

Transguy1: Ugh, I completely know what you mean, it can go both ways, sometimes I forget them and others they're just *there* and it drives me insane.

Notice that no one was acting like this was a clearly male trait or like it proved anything. That's how it's used. The whole point of that thread isn't "haha, let's lord over how we know what makes men and women and force others to comply!" it's "hey, post some things that help you laugh about your situation and remind yourself of some things that made you feel better about knowing who you are."

gender is an average of traits.

Not really. If a man had 90% female traits, he'd still be a guy. It's just a matter of identity, not personality or anything else.

[thecynicalromantic]

Actually, the most transgendered people I've ever seen in one place discussing it is here on these boards, so no, very few people have ever *walked up to me* and said anything about transgenderism. Mostly I just get cisgendered males making misogynistic comments in a lame attempt to pick me up, and using "well, I'm a guy" as the entire explanation for things they think, feel, say or do. Which is still annoying, especially when I share those traits, although most often I don't since usually they're asshole traits that the guy just doesn't want to take responsibility for overcoming. (My best friend has gotten "Liz! You're like a man!" on a few occasions when talking to 'normal people' about lifting, though, since she has graduated and is out in the workforce with 'normal people,' whereas I'm still at hippie college.)

What I have seen, in a lot of the threads about gender on this site, is people saying "I'm (whatever gender or combination of genders or lack of gender)", immediately followed by what looks like it's intended to be an "explanation"--their dress style, their haircut, the games they played when they were a kid, the books they read, their favorite activities, etc. etc. And sometimes I have a bunch of the traits listed after "...but I consider myself a man; I like..." and lack a bunch of the traits listed after "...I consider myself a woman; I have..." and I'm sitting there thinking "Well, that all applies to me too, but it doesn't make *me* a man!" And in the other direction you get people like Eddie Izzard, who's been one of my favorite comedians for ever, who wears dresses and makeup and high heels and is still cisgendered, just a transvestite.

Read the discussions on this board. A lot of the posts by transgendered people are set up so the relationship between their gender identity and so-called 'gendered traits' is portrayed as causal. We both know they're not. But when people keep pointing to traits to illustrate identity--basically, as proof of identity--there's a really big implication there that they're related--inherently related, since identity is internal. This is going to piss off the people who have the exact same traits and don't feel it 'makes' them anything gender-identity-related. You can't use false, transient and arbitrary associations to prove a point to people who know those associations are made-up, and expect them not to get annoyed and demand a better explanation. You also can't expect the people who are living proof that those associations are false to not object when they're used to "explain" something. I fully understand the desire to "prove" oneself to be a man or a woman by conforming to its gender norms--a lot of cisgendered people feel it too, and they start off with a lot less disbelief to work against--but to explain one's gender identity in terms of conforming to gender norms, as the majority of the posters on almost all of AVEN's gender-related threads seem to do constantly, is simply not a good enough explanation for people who are outside of their gender norm but retain the identity. This is why this freaking discussion went on for four pages before SnapDragon even realized that we were talking about identity, not roles.

[AVENCakes]

Before I get into anything- How many of these people did you say "So, everyone who has these traits is male? Is that's what you're saying? I identify as female and have those traits". What did they say? How many went to arms about how you're wrong and you're really a guy? I'm assuming all of them, for you to be so insulted, but that would deeply surprise me. A lot of transgender are much more accepting of people who don't fit their assigned gender roles than the cis population is.

I've read most of the gender-related topics on here and don't remember anyone saying that having these traits means you are a man or woman whether you identify as it or not, so I'm curious who told you this. As it is, it seems like you're just taking offense because you misinterpreted it. Now, onto the answers.

Mostly I just get cisgendered males making misogynistic comments in a lame attempt to pick me up, and using "well, I'm a guy" as the entire explanation for things they think, feel, say or do.

Wait, so you're blaming the transgendered, who aren't doing this as an excuse but as a security blanket or safety net or whatever comparison you want to make, you are complaining that cismen, who are the ones most commonly at fault for brutally attacking, killing, and raping transsexuals, do something?

I'm sorry, where do cismen come into the equation?

This is going to piss off the people who have the exact same traits and don't feel it 'makes' them anything gender-identity-related.

I see transmen use an unwillingness to wear skirts to justify they're gender all the time. I have a complete willingness to wear them, they're swishy and fun. I don't take offense at that, I don't feel like they're implying I'm a girl, and I also don't interrupt each one and say "hey, I wear a skirt and I'm a guy" because it doesn't matter. They aren't saying I'm a girl, they aren't saying you're a guy, you're just taking it that way. If I were to say "I wear a skirt and I'm a guy" to them, most would be fine and wouldn't see it as me admitting to being a girl in any way, or think that it makes me one.

I don't see why you feel your gender is being put into question. I mean, no, I don't see how anyone who's cisgendered can say with a straight face that they don't like people clinging to what little solid proof against the cold, unforgiving, cruel world of the cisnormative. No one is saying that these traits make you a boy or girl, they're just holding onto a glimmer of hope.

You can't use false, transient and arbitrary associations to prove a point to people who know those associations are made-up

I believe this is the issue. You seem to think that this is proof to the outside word. It isn't. This has nothing to do with the rest of the world. I really doubt anyone thinks that. Maybe if someone's stupid enough to list a string of traits that they have that supports they're wrong they'll turn around and list the string of traits they match that gender, but that's it. This proves a point to no one anymore than "You walk like a boy, you act like a boy, you are a boy" proves a transgirl is male.

And know what, most people believe that. Most people will look at gender traits and the transgendered individual and use them against them, so of course they get into the habit of using them defensively. I came out to my mother and after she got done pointing out that I'd regret it and my aunt wishes she could have a child, she said "you just don't act like a boy, you just don't react to the world like a boy does". I was never held back but my male cousin was, apparently it's a male trait to be held back ergo I'm a girl. (yes, I find soem of her arguments offensive). Really, that's the only argument you can possibly have against a person's gender identity- traits. So of course people use traits to defend it. It's no one's business what body you want, and even that doesn't make you a guy or a girl, and even that is just traits because someone who identifies as female could still want a penis (yes, yes she could, the body is just another group of traits).

The fact is, the only arguments for gender identity are traits and to most people that's an acceptable reflection of gender, so you get into the habit of using them.

[thecynicalromantic]

I'm not "deeply insulted." I get confused. And I get confused because it's bloody [/i]confusing[/i] to try and sort through explanations-by-stereotype when you don't believe in the stereotypes WITHOUT feeling like (a) the explainers believe in the stereotypes and (b) maybe they don't have a valid point under there somewhere, since they haven't done jack to sensibly explain it.

I realize perfectly well that the vast majority of the population is bloody fucking stupid and will equate certain 'traits' with certain genders, because they are, as previously mentioned, bloody fucking stupid. And if using bloody fucking stupid arguments will make your point with them, go ahead and use them; nobody has time to re-educate the entire world, and much of the world isn't intelligent enough to even be re-educated. But when you run into people who can see the holes in an argument, it is NOT effective to get all defensive and start whinging about how your demographic still gets beat up on more than the other person's demographic and they're so close-minded for not believing you. That's when it's time to pull out the argument that's NOT stupid and explain the case in true and intelligent terms. And I realize that facing discrimination makes it harder to deal with any kind of disbelief without getting upset, but it still doesn't help your case to pull the "my people get harassed more than your people" card.

My point about the cisgendered men is that I know plenty of people who maintain that "(certain trait) equates gender" and they are wrong, and they are morons. Using the same argument, while I can appreciate that the motives are entirely different, is still using the SAME ARGUMENT. It has the SAME truth level, which is NONE, and it has the SAME effect when used on people intelligent enough to know that, which is to MAKE YOU LOOK BAD. Stop attacking the people smart enough to realize that, and start giving them sensible answers. And for God's sake, CALM DOWN. It's not helping your case to respond to every deconstruction of an argument into its logical components with a tirade about who's been raped more lately.

I understand the habitual and emotional components of reverting to these arguments. But they don't hold up under any sort of educated scrutiny, and when that happens, you'd be a lot better off coming up with a sensible explanation instead of flying off the handle. Also, I can understand them now that you've *explained* them, but when all I was seeing was lists of people going "I'm (whatever) gender. I have (whatever) 'gender' traits"... I'm sorry, but did you REALLY expect me to respond to that by NOT thinking the posters thought there was a relationship between the two?

...Now, as to the number of supposedly intelligent and educated people who still lack the basic skill of factoring human psychology into their notions of human reality, which unfortunately is a lot, I can see how you'd get excessively frustrated. They frustrate me too. This is why I am such an incredible snob and a half about being a humanities student. But I am also not one of those people, so don't get mad at me over it.

[Snap-Dragon]

Huh, okay, I guess I can understand that. It just kind of rubs me the wrong way, I guess, when anyone, transgender, cisgender, or otherwise, points to some trait and tries to associate with a particular gender. While I can sympathize with the desire to have something solid to point to, I kind of see it as giving credibility to the idea that girls must be one way, guys must be another. And there's little that cheeses me off more than that. <_<

Yeah, but being transgendered can be difficult enough I don't think it's too bad

Eh, I really don't agree. I understand that being transgendered can be hard, but that's no excuse to be using false arguments. It does nothing but generate confusion, at best, and lead to an outright denial of the transgendered person's identity at worst. I mean, if someone tried to use the argument with me that "I knew I was a boy because even as a child, I liked playing with cars and not with dolls", honestly, I'd think that person was an idiot who had no idea about gender, and certainly wasn't mature enough to realize that she might be transgender.

I guess because after they got that surgery, they would actually be that sex, while before they got the surgery, their gender might be different, but their sex would still be the same. I almost don't dare ask, but what's gender nullification surgery?

Well, as I'm hoping you can guess it's where you nullify the gender associated with your sex, so that you have neither a penis nor a vagina, in some cases, a sexual getting it can leave a clitoris (from either birth sex), but they are, biologically, neither.

There's someone on here who wants to be both, "biologically", so that they could actually have a penis between a clitoris and vagina. If/when they figure out a way to do that, what would you call them?

That's... um... ouch. I guess I would try very hard to always call them by their name, and not ever have to use a third person pronoun. As for having both, that would make them intersexed, right? I guess in both cases, since English definitely doesn't have a pronoun for people who are both/neither sex, I would just use whatever pronoun they told me to.

*Damn it. This using singular "they" isn't as hard as I thought. Ya'll have corrupted my perfect English!*

Nah, "you" is both singular and plural. It just happens that we use the same word in both cases. And "they" is indeed plural, when properly used. :P

*eagerly starts drawing a pronoun chart on her whiteboard, then realizes that is rather ineffective for online conversations*

In its initial usage, "you" was both plural and formal. Which is ironic seeing as how it's used now, and we're rather informal as society. Seeing as "he" is "gender-neutral" when "properly" used, I think using "they" is fine if only because anti-feminism grates on me worse than how someone who faces a whole mess of discrimination just for being born to cling to anything they can to justify themselves grates on you.

Fair enough. Just wanted to point out that English does indeed have a singular second person pronoun. :P

True. But just because then, the pronoun would really reflect their actual sex, not just their gender.

Yeah, but do you see the issue that you feel you have a right to know what a person's sex is? If I get surgery, it's my business. Unless you're close family or my boss/school (who needs to know why I'm taking time off), why should I tell you? And, better yet, why should I tell you what surgery I get? Plenty of transsexuals don't go all the way, that's they're business. And what would be considered having a "male" sex in the FtM world? Metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, any of the surgeries that, let's face it, don't do a convincing job of making a penis?

True... But you have just as little right to know a person's gender. Even less, I would think, because that's an internal thing. Sex, at least, can be told just by looking at a person (mostly, of course). That's why I see the pronouns as referring to sex, not gender. Sex you can tell at a glance, though there are always cases where you'll be mistaken and the person you mis-addressed will correct you. Gender you have no way whatsoever of knowing without outright asking someone, which would be rude, to put it mildly.

Hm. Okay, that makes sense. Although, then, if "gender" is nothing more than an internal sense of sex, what's the difference between transgender and transsexual?

Transgender, by my understanding, encompasses all who aren't cisgendered, including transsexual. Transsexual usually means "only within the gender binary", so basically a transsexual is a transgendered individual who identifies as male or female. But some don't like being associated with the transgendered for some reason, then you even get the idiots who insist there is no such thing as genderqueer, which is just lovely.

I see. Genderqueer is a subset of transgender, right? With the neutrois, and androgyne, and others that were mentioned earlier in this thread? And transsexual is also considered a subset of transgender? *nods thoughtfully*

I do wish I'd just asked that at the beginning, though. For so much of this, I thought we were arguing over gender the way Marvin seemed to use it, as the societal gender roles. Actually, I think that's what most people think of, when they think "gender". Does make more sense in this context, though, and I guess I can see why it would be painful to use a different sex pronoun from what you'd feel your correct sex is.

Yup. And the problem with society basing it on gender roles is that it leads to people, as you mentioned, clinging to the ones they do fit as a way to prove what they are because the ones they don't fit will be used against them.

Of course, I hope you can see that this only perpetuates the idea of gender roles, and gives them further credibility. It's a false argument, and as convenient as it might be to use such a thing to try to prove your identity to others, it really shouldn't be used. I didn't say too much about it earlier, other than to object, but to just briefly go back to the example you used before:

When I was a kid you couldn't get me out of my Alice in Wonderland dress, the first thing I ever asked for were ruby red slippers, there's a lot of things in my history and fondness that suggest that that I'm very much cisgendered, so when I see things that differentiate me from girls I cling to them and accentuate them because it feels like justification.

My point is, that the slippers, and dress, and such didn't suggest you were cisgendered. And the other things that "differentiate you from girls", well, don't. In fact, plenty of those same girls will share those traits. In fact, whatever traits they are, I'm sure I can find some society that considers them feminine. So, it's really a very meaningless, and misleading argument. I just hate to see it used, is all.

Well, it is technically grammatically incorrect. I can see why it's informally used so often, though, as even when gender doesn't come up, those ambiguous situations are tricky. I subscribe to the standard use of "he" myself, though I know a few people have issues with that because of the implied "male is normal" bit. "She" isn't any more neutral, though, so it's always seemed a bit silly to substitute one non-neutral pronoun with another non-neutral one.

Yeah, but "She" doesn't support the "male is normal" idea, and helps to undo it by saying "alright, if that's harmless, then so is this" and gets people to think.

Eh... I guess. :/ It's just... clumsier, and tries too hard to be different. Breaks up the flow, and all that. But whichever; I'm not as strongly opinionated on that one. 8)