Re girls only

i think the history of gay and trans rights have shown the negative effects that this patholigisation can have. this kid is lucky that this particular school is obviously very liberal (there's nothing in it about parents objecting or the principle freaking out) but not all proactive reactions to "gender identity disorder in children" are quite so positive and reinforcing. medicine, in these contexts, has traditionally had a worryingly normative influence and children are particularly vulnerable to these interventions. these various prescriptions come in tandem with diagnosis which has a lot to do with this "naming."

I think Judith there might be a point that the pathologising of children's gender expression might be serving for a repository for anxiety about adult sexuality, but I'm just not familiar enough with the subject. It just feels instinctively right, that "won't someone think of the children" is actually often a way of demarking tension around a subject that ppl can't really address or even *see* in adults. (See also the hysteria about the "sexualisation of children" which is also actually mostly tension around the commodification of sexuality in adults, it just seems more noticable and therefore grotesque when it's pole-dancing and nipple-tassels for 9 year olds when it's much more uncomfortable to confront whether it's desirable in 19 year olds because of the complicating aspects of Agency.)

But it's also touching for me on those issues of how people think around gender policing, and when societal attitudes give in one place, they tighten in another.

I get a lot of confusion in mine own head over this, so I apologise if I say this in a clumsy manner. There has been over the past few years a rise in the discussion and push for acceptance of trans issues (or maybe it's just me noticing it more, but I do actually think it has increased) - which is, obviously, a very very good thing. The rise in visibility and acceptance is a sign of progress (though obviously there is still a lot of progress to be made.)

BUT - and these are only my feelings, I don't claim to speak for anyone else. To me, it feels like, in some ways, to some people, the acceptance of trans people almost pushes for reinforcement of the gender binary, rather than this bold new scribbling all over it. Because it seems like other people (not trans people themselves, but the "gender police" type people) almost have this new thing now, of, if you are one of those "gender variants" then that's unacceptable - that if you're not comfortable with your birth gender, you should transition to the other one, you still can't go scribbling outside the lines of the established gender roles. And this, to me, I dislike. I dislike being *told* that I'm "genderqueer" or whatever - no, I'm just me. Labels, to me, are an attempt to push people into categories that make other people comfortable. Rather than accepting someone in the full and complicated mess that they are.

But on the other hand, I've been hanging out on a forum dedicated to discussing a certain minority sexuality and there are a *lot* of trans ppl and genderqueer ppl and neutrois ppl there - and they themselves seem to be scribbling all over the lines quite happily, esp the genderqueer and neutrois ppl. (Though it is weird that the ppl who identify under those two labels were mostly born female - I don't know if this is because it's easier for females to identify that way, or if it's because females are more oppressed by gender roles to start with - or if it's not true at all, but just because of the general gender slant of the forum itself attracting more females.) So obviously this is way more personal for me than a story about children in a school. Because as much comfort and succor as I have found in feminism and the company of women, being in an environment where I was free to identify as non-gendered (which should really be a giveaway in itself) I have found that my personna and interests make me code to other people as "male." Which is interesting. I don't know what that shows, that even among gender neutral people, gender or at least the perception of it still has a clinging kind of stink.

I don't know what the point of all this. Probably that ppl project onto children, and stories told about children, all kinds of fears and tensions about their adults selves. Maybe.

(I hate when I type something out that looks like a reasonable length and then I post and it turns up as a wall of text. Argh.)

And that KLANG when a massive and overthought post hits the bottom of the thread and the conversation dries up into an awkward silence.

Not knowing whether to carry on talking bcuz you had another THOT or if you'll be shouted at to get a livejournal bcuz no one wants to have conversations with YOU you poxy FULE.

Realised with a bump why it is that so many more women than men specifically *identify* as neutrois or agender. I think it's because our culture so overwhelming has appointed Male as default - whether that be dress / appearance or English pronouns or just simply representation. So that a man doesn't really have to do much to dodge the issue of gender, because, when the gender of male is taken as default, they are already in the default (i.e. not-gendered) category. It's much easier for men to sidestep the issue of *removal* of gender.

I *do* think that men have it much harder taking on the characteristics of "female" gender - to be a sissy-boy or a fop/dandy is to be marked as taking on "additional" characteristics which are relegated to women (and therefore identified as bad). But for men to inhabit a space which is read as agender is much, much simpler, when your gender is already generally considered the default gender.

So for women, becoming "without gender" actually involves the removal of external gender-defining characteristics (mostly that's physical, such as long hair/dresses or breasts) and therefore has to be made as a conscious decision to go against what you've been assigned, and therefore is more likely to be adopted as an *identity*, a conscious opting out, rather than a just being.

Sorry if this is all "My Gender Workbook" 101 but I'm trying to puzzle this stuff. But for gods sake don't tell me it's not worth talking about blah blah blah. {/automatic ILX defensive twitch}

Not challenging, just clarifying: Are you saying that since male is the gender default, for women to step outside of gender, they have to remove the outer trappings of femaleness, whereas for men to step outside of gender, they just decide they are stepping outside of gender? Since "gender neutral" looks like "gender default" which is male?

Yes I think that's a good summary of what I'm trying to posit (as a hypothesis, mind)

Though I'd probably say "since male is usually SEEN as the gender default" in the first sentence.

Also I'm not even sure it has to be a conscious decision for men in the way it is for women since they aren't obliged to perform gender in the same way (hence why male nerds are often claiming to be speaking "outside gender" even while enjoying male privilege.)

(I recognise that last paragraph is problematic as I'm trying to theorise about a group I'm not part of from observation of their behaviour. Maybe nerd males do have to make a conscious decision to step outside gender - but I dont think they have to strip away quite so much to get there)

i know plenty of guys that get called faggot in the street who might have something to say about the pressure to perform masculinity.

Well, to these 'naive' eyes, it seems that thesedays being 'different' is tolerated to a wider degree than before.

My wife did say once "don't take offence mind, but you do have a slight fem way about you", to which I replied "well, maybe because I never ever felt I was either gay or trad masc, I never felt I had to prove anything to people I felt I had to prove anything to"

e.g. You can have the football and go wor at Farrah Fawcett-Majors, etc. I'll have the other more interesting things...

i know plenty of guys that get called faggot in the street who might have something to say about the pressure to perform masculinity.

― judith, Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:26 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

I don't doubt this. Hence why I did say it was undoubtedly harder for men to be not-men (I.e. feminine or queer)

But positing that there might be a salient difference between not-men (meaning feminine or queer) and not-gendered (meaning default gender, usually *depicted* as male-ish)

I am just wondering if it's easier to not have to claim to be *without* gender to be non-gendered if your gender is perceived as being the "default" one.

Probably not-masculine is a better term than not-men but I'm trying to save keystrokes on a cranky iPhone

When one is already the "default gender" I think it's a lot easier to not have to deal with or think you're somehow beyond gender.

Bear in mind this line of questioning started with "why is it ppl who identify as 'agender' on the Internet were overwhelmingly born XX by about 5 to 1" and specifically NOT "who gets the rougher deal out of the performance of gender" which is rlly kinda tomato/tomahto depending who you're asking.

i know plenty of guys that get called faggot in the street who might have something to say about the pressure to perform masculinity.
― judith, Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:26 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

I don't doubt this. Hence why I did say it was undoubtedly harder for men to be not-men (I.e. feminine or queer)

But positing that there might be a salient difference between not-men (meaning feminine or queer) and not-gendered (meaning default gender, usually *depicted* as male-ish)

I am just wondering if it's easier to not have to claim to be *without* gender to be non-gendered if your gender is perceived as being the "default" one.

― Sheaths of ClammyCloth (Fotherington Thomas), Thursday, 29 December 2011 14:54 (10 minutes ago) Permalink

When one is already the "default gender" I think it's a lot easier to not have to deal with or think you're somehow beyond gender.

― Sheaths of ClammyCloth (Fotherington Thomas), Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:00 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

Bear in mind this line of questioning started with "why is it ppl who identify as 'agender' on the Internet were overwhelmingly born XX by about 5 to 1" and specifically NOT "who gets the rougher deal out of the performance of gender" which is rlly kinda tomato/tomahto depending who you're asking.

― Sheaths of ClammyCloth (Fotherington Thomas), Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:06 AM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Permalink

Facepalm.

It's not an awkward silence! I'm listening! Anything I said on this topic wd be dumb and obvious so don't mind me, I'm just taking notes in the corner.

Shut up, gabbneb.

^^

Let's not do "who has it worse" as we'll end up in Biafra...

Who has it "bad enough" is sufficient.

For the life of me I can't figure out why someone would be more likely to claim to be "agender" (I suppose that's supposed to be a reference to me? It's wrong, thanks) if they are more likely to be deemed to be the "default gender" (whatever that means) or if their speech is impugned (or sought to be silenced) because of their gender.

Well, in the past, 'masculine traits' seemed confined to Football, Beer and leering at 'birds' whereas fem traits were babies, fashion and so on.

Actually, whether gay or straight, the whole "Hunters" vs "Gatherers" was more accurate wrt male/female aspects, so I have found.

Maybe the 'agender' was due to not having the old-style male stereotypical content, and yet not being atracted enough to the stereotypical female ones.

OK, gibberish typing from me at a close.

Until the next message, obv.

in the past, 'masculine traits' seemed confined to Football, Beer and leering at 'birds' whereas fem traits were babies, fashion and so on.

Actually, whether gay or straight, the whole "Hunters" vs "Gatherers" was more accurate wrt male/female aspects, so I have found.

A lot of advanced, useful analysis here.

For the life of me I can't figure out why someone would be more likely to claim to be "agender" (I suppose that's supposed to be a reference to me? It's wrong, thanks) if they are more likely to be deemed to be the "default gender" (whatever that means) or if their speech is impugned (or sought to be silenced) because of their gender.

What you're saying is, "I can't understand why anyone in a position of power would give up power!". I can imagine lots and lots of reasons for not wanting un-"earned" power (as much as gendered power is earned, which it isns't) if it means identifying with something you don't feel similar to, or don't want the repercussions of.

What you're saying is, "I can't understand why anyone in a position of power would give up power!"

I don't really understand your response. Perhaps it helps to understand that my post dripped with I thought obvious sarcasm?

xpost (up 2) should I automatically assume sarcasm there?

Or is that your way of saying I'm in over my head with regard this subject, and be quiet and listen?

You might want to work on that obvious sarcasm thing.

xp

I've known a few people who perfected the art of sarcasm.

And you know what? They got everything they ever wanted in life.

Um, wow. That was unexpected. (~sarcasm~) I was actually talking about a group of women on that minority sexuality forum that I mentioned briefly above, but as usual INTERRUPTINGCOW has decided it is all about him, and is going to moo all over the joke. I mean thread.

In a funny way, this bears out what I was saying about the "hunters/gatherers" thing. Some may well see a series of thoughts and information, and some might look for one conclusion, see none, and decide there's nothing to see.

Et Set.

Damn! Am offline for a couple days and don't even know where to start reading. You've been busy!

I don't really find "hunters" vs "gatherers" to be a particularly useful dichotomy when trying to address "masculine" vs "feminine" because, well, actual studies of genuine hunter-gatherer societies (as opposed to cossetted academics ~imagining~ hunter-gatherer societies from the safety of their post-industrial homes) has shown that it's by no means simple or clear cut. Also, hugely cultural, and changes, society to society.

Also, dichotomies in general are just *unhelpful* because most lifestyles and indeed most *people* involve a mixture of *BOTH*.

I'm mostly wondering if this "agender" tag is a useful thing to try on myself, despite my horror of labels. But I just don't think it's a realistic demand. I just find it really interesting that it's predominantly women who label themselves that way. (Because, really, all a man has to do to be considered "gender: default" is to not be overtly feminine.)

What I would like is the *freedom* to be able to operate in a default mode without gender, where my gender isn't even a salient issue. But I don't think that's Agender, that's just Male Privilege. But I don't want to be ~a man~ (though it would be *interesting* to be a man for a day or two, just to see how it all works) I just want to operate in a sphere where gender (either or any gender!) is not the first thing anyone sees. Which is I guess impossible.

There are more new women hunters each year than male hunters these days, from what I've heard.

I guess I'm just fascinated by this 'agender' thing that these women are exploring, even if I'm not sure I could ever apply it to myself.

(Kind of in the same way that I am *fascinated* by lesbians but was p hopeless at being one myself.)

There are more new women hunters each year than male hunters these days, from what I've heard.

What about grabblers?

http://cbswycd.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/miranda_buck-e1288260433120.jpg?w=385

Well, of course no definition/dichotomy ever works 100% of the time.

It's more that when a male decides to transgender towards becoming female, they have to live 'as' for a year before any operation is offered. So they do 'lessons' in walking 'right', and so on.

Is this reinforcing the cliche?

FT, what are the implications of the 'agender' term? If you start w/ Butler, gender always exists whether it is explicitly masculine, feminine, genderqueer, etc. There's no getting away from it since there's not way of getting away from cultural mediation/construction. Is agender refuting both traditional performances of gender AND the idea of gender itself? If you're agender are you making a claim of a-culturality? Does agender have anything to do with an absence of affect?

Mordy, those are all really great questions and I'll try to think of a non-confrontational way of asking these people if they have personal answers to them.

I have asked a couple of times if there is some resource or wiki about agender - there is for Neutrois but that seems a lot more ... hard core for a better word. Like it's actually trying body modification in a similar vein to trans ppl, in order to rid themselves of physical gender. But this agender thing seems to be something which is almost being made up as they go along (that is not a criticism - that's its strength, that it's self defined, not a label that others put on them.)

I like the idea of something that is about resisting stereotypes and saying "these boxes don't apply to us, please take them away" a lot more than I like the idea of having to change one's body. That's just personal, though. I'm fine with my body, I just dislike other people's ideas about what the secondary characteristics of my body *mean*.

Do any of these posters also relate to, or consider themselves asexual, or is this something entirely different?

Well, given that it is a forum dedicated to asexuality, many of them are on the asexual spectrum. But asexuality and agender are absolutely not the same thing at all.

Although there seem to be a much higher proportion of trans, genderqueer and agender ppl in the asexual population than the general population (perhaps because if one is questioning one set of identities it makes sense to also question the other) but they do not appear to be *correlated* much at all - i.e. not all agender ppl are asexual, not all asexual ppl are agender.

So, yeah, it's something different, even though exploring that particular avenue does seem to lead to people also questioning the other.

It's more that when a male decides to transgender towards becoming female, they have to live 'as' for a year before any operation is offered. So they do 'lessons' in walking 'right', and so on.

Is this reinforcing the cliche?

― Too Many Headphones (MarkG oo la showaddywaddy), Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:51 PM (2 hours ago)

i mean, there are various concrete examples of how the idea of gender "variance" consolidates a straight binary understanding of gender. the very regulation of these "transitions" from one to the other is the most obvious example. although trans might be understood as a gender in and of itself, and by that i mean that there are many trans people who self-identify as trans, these same people would be denied treatment unless the goal of a transition is to be a "real" woman or man.

it just seems pretty unhelpful to try to understand why a certain group of people have this desire more so than others. i mean surely we should just work to create a space of openness about gender (which is what that teacher was doing that i was into) rather than trying to account for or explain or i guess diagnose certain ways of performing gender.

The only reason I'm even trying to understand why a certain group of people have a certain identity more so than others is because I'm trying to figure out if it might be a helpful term or descriptor or identity or way of understanding myself.

Like, I am also reading a super-interesting book about recent studies of Sexual Fluidity, and how it looks as if it might be very prevalent in women. And knowing that it is prevalent in women, and knowing that I was born female help me to fit together the pieces of whether that is something which might ~apply~ to me.

I do actually find this helpful for myself. Like "are people who are similar to me, doing this thing as a way of dealing with something that *I* find difficult" - anything beyond that is I guess problematic bullshit theorisation and I should leave it off. But trying to find out more about this thing to see if it fits me, I find that helpful.

It probably doesn't fit, nothing ever does, but I don't think it's unhelpful for me to try to explore it.

Girls thread cont.

Kind of an unfortunate thread title

cuntinued

Lady, Love Your Cont.

a friend of mine:
http://www.kveller.com/blog/parenting/the-c-word/

Alright, I've never heard that Essentially, the point of that book was that the word “cunt” used to be an honorific term for the female ruler of a country before and if true, it's awesome, but also kinda sad. Because it can just join the long list of terms (see Dale Spender) of female-specific words that started off neutral (or part of a pair like master/mistress or courtier/courtesan) but they got turned into sexual slurs basically.

I think in that case it's a very fortunate thread title.