Re girls only

:D

i dunno - i think there might have been a period in the 60s/70s that were more relaxed in terms of gendered toys for kids. I struggle to believe that things were better in that regard in the early 60s and prior.

I have thought about this article a fair amount since reading it, too.
I think that is a good thing.

As far as it raising more questions than it answers. It seems like the only way to get around accepted notions of gender stereotyping are to challenge them.

this is all classically foucauldian, that the response to any disruption of regimes of gender is to just keep producing new categories. "variant."

this is probably better than just straight up gender policing but yeah id definitely opens up a its own set of problems.

Not the sort of problems that mean you shouldn't talk about/explore it, though? Doesn't the discourse have to work through some levels to get closer to an "ideal" level?

I think it really depends where? Meaning, in what culture? And under what circumstances? And in which class? And when? (Remember that little boys were dressed in dresses for their early years until just over a century ago.) There were so many ways in which gender is coded differently. This idea of "gender variance" includes this idea of a unified gender construction which is just so manufactured itself.

x-posts to Sarahel

i think the idea behind "variant" isn't new categories, but referring to there being a spectrum or continuum of gender, with "variant" perhaps being a statistical reference to variations from the mean.

I have been experiencing a lot of trouble with "Gender" recently (LOL not Judith Butler) and just really... argh. I don't even know where to begin. But I think labels are part of the problem for me.

Variations from the mean? Who decides what the ~mean~ is, when it's all been made up? Mostly for maximising profit, these days?

while i feel that it is important and necessary to challenge these gender norms, i think it's also important to make kids aware of their existence. i think there's been a significant emphasis in the past 10? years in American education of teaching kids to fit in socially, but in an empowering way, as opposed to a "thou shalt not color outside the lines" way. And it's more, what you would call, holistic than when i was a kid, where as long as a kid was doing their work and not making or being involved in trouble, if they were weird and other kids disliked them, the teacher would generally ignore the issue. And in the spirit of "no child left behind," it tries to assimilate (in as neutral a way as possible) every kid, as opposed to writing off those on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

It seems to follow the trend, as i see it, of the school system doing the jobs of parents.

god bless them for it because the parents of the kids who bullied me incessantly throughout elementary + middle school certainly weren't doing the job

Yeah, I totally see the point of making kids *aware* of the existence of gender expectations (I think that expectations prob is a better word than norms) in order to challenge them - or in order to stop the bullying of kids who do not meet those expectations. I think this is a totally worthwhile thing to be doing.

And I don't know if the shifting of that role from "parents" onto "teachers" is such a bad thing either, because the nuclear family is such a recent invention itself that I'm not sure why "parents" got that role in the first place. (This is a whole nother kettle of fish.)

I guess my problem is with the translation of gender expectations into gender *norms* - I don't think it's just a semantic quibble, though I really lack the ability to adequately express why at the moment.

i'm not saying that shifting that role from parents onto teachers is a bad thing, however, that's a lot of responsibility to put on teachers, who have so much as it is, and don't get paid nearly enough. Also, there's only so much a teacher can do without the parent's cooperation/support.

Well, I have watched two girls grow up into the people they wanted to be.

Key, to me anyway, should be: Not that we are "all the same really", but that "we are all different"

I was a pretty weird kid (socially awkward tomboy with hyperactive imagination) and I feel like if 6y/o me was in school these days I would probably get diagnosed as having... something

so I am kinda on the fence abt whether it was better for me to suck it up and tentatively grope my own way towards not getting yelled at in the street, or whether it would've been good to have it explained to me how to walk past strangers without being spat on, or how to organise myself and learn something while unattended in college instead of dropping out, but also have official validation that I shouldn't be expected to be anything other than weird and other people should get used to it, not me

these are things I think about as I am vaguely, terrifiedly considering parenthood, and wondering what I should do if my children are diagnosed with the things I was not

this is not a gender post, but since 80% of the things yelled at me during my teenage years started with "are you a boy or a girl" (and since my college experience involved rocking up on a 90% male course and finding myself without a support network) it possibly could be

god bless them for it because the parents of the kids who bullied me incessantly throughout elementary + middle school certainly weren't doing the job

appropos of nothing, i suppose, but i had this problem throughout high-school, and i know how terrible it can be. sorry to hear you had the same generally problem.

same "general" problem. senility is creeping in fast.

Easiest way to think about it as an adult is just to project the idea to kids that injurious behavior is never acceptable from anyone, but after that problem is eliminated, it's all pretty much ok by you. Kids pick up on this quickly and the more explicit you are with this message, the stronger the effect it will have.

In regard to bullying, it is impossible to eliminate it for the same reason that you can't stop people from lying: it is an obvious strategy that kids will discover no matter what adults model for them. All you can do is be vigilant about it and stop it whenever and wherever you see it happening, and give kids as many alternative tools to work with as you can, for when you aren't there to be the cop.

its been noticed that the growing need to pathologise "gender variance" in children, has risen as that kind of language has been retracted from adult sexuality. an acute illustration of this is the fact that the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to contain an entry for childhood gender identity disorder was also the first not to mention homosexuality. i mean i think what bothers me is the introduction of this new terminology of "variant."

its kindof impossible to think through this example without the context of gender policing children in general (it's interesting that its a "tomboyish" girl as well. people are a lot more comfortable with tomboys that with sissy boys). The only way to escape from these gender categories is to produce this new category of variant. and i disagree that its not really making a new category. to say it is just opening a spectrum of positionality doesn't really get away from the fact that all positions are defined in terms of differentiation. this solidification of a "type" under a specific name gives rise to a whole technology of integrating the child into a class of "normal" boys and girls.

i mean obviously there is a lot that is positive that can be taken away from this. the strategy the teacher is using is pretty empowering, the dislocating objects and behaviours from specific gender coding.

so is the issue one of "naming" something that was already viewed as an inferior "other," but not defined?

naming is just part of a process by which these children become the object a particular set of scrutinies.

but it isn't like they weren't subject to a set of scrutinies before the term was defined/pathologized.

it is just changing the dynamics of the problem, rather than creating a problem that didn't exist before.

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?