Quote from: Cade on April 24, 2012, 06:59:58 PM
My expression tends to be practical: I get my hair cut very short because I hate going to get my hair cut, so very short makes it take longer till I have to get it cut again. I wear jeans and sweatshirts because that's the most comfortable clothing for me; style means nothing to me. (Color is important, though; if reflects my mood or gives me some level of personal power when I lack it or lets me blend into the background when I don't want it. I select my t-shirt color "carefully.")
My presentation tends to be male. I do not have any of the typical female trappings (jewelry, make-up, feminine clothing) and hence am taken as male.
EXTENDED POST FOLLOWS -- LONG, BUT SEEMINGLY PROBATIVE -- It's turning into a dissertation! Interesting . . .
Ironic that there's no "cis-designation" in this post. (WHICH IS PRECISELY THE WHOLE POINT!)
Personally, we're "in the middle" -- All sorts of "female" role performance traits (cf. Judith Butler), but I choose to "straddle" and in the straddling keep open the option of integrating both sides (sex) into an authentic self.
Cis-male here, and integrated from both ends of the "hetero-normative dyad." The "style" is "Coastal Week-End Casual" -- even there's a boutique locally that uses this tag as a marketing niche. We shop Goodwill -- Hoodies, tank tops, polar fleece jacket/pullover, beach-comber pants (men's are "clam-diggers" women's "capris" -- but basically long cargo shorts), wading sandals. Lots of layering to fit the changing weather.
(Let's note here that I do indeed have a full wardrobe of frilly, lacy, dresses, skirts, under-trappings, absurd stuff I can't wear "out" but love and horde anyway.)
Added benefit is that this gear allows me to walk, hike, recreate. Practical, functional clothing. Unisex or gender ambiguous. I concede that I shop for women's stuff that fits, works and that much of this "cross-over" is politically motivated (check my signature).
I'm gonna add my email to/from Judith Butler herein (infra) --
And so, we've considered anti-androgens, bi-lateral orchi, electrolysis -- but without equivocation, no top/bottom surgery. I don't want "to become someone else." I've been me all my 67 yrs, and it seems schizo to me to think about changing "who I am." (Besides which, I'm not broken and don't need fixing.)
Endocrine systems are fussy, delicately balanced. Trying to tweak that balance into a new/different balance point is daunting in the first place, possibly fraught with all sorts of imbalance issues for me. But mostly, I'm feeling like I don't need to tweak my body to make it conform to cultural expectations regarding the "dyad." I'm most comfortable being able to move back and forth across the line.
Finasteride, HRT, bilateral-orchi . . . down-sides seem to be fat gain, strength loss, osteoporosis. Let's add to this that we're getting serious about fitness, losing weight, improving endurance/muscle tone. In the aerobic/fitness world, I'm a "quick responder" -- gain fitness rapidly from exercise. Part of this is testosterone.
Down-side of testosterone is facial hair, body hair. Male bone structure, thinning hair (mine is medi-thick, full-body, beyond my shoulders), AND, having been chronically sexually abused as a child, I don't like seeing my abuser standing naked in the mirror! Male sex drive drives me nutz, threatening, and like being on a bucking horse! I hate it!
I'd like to take the edge off the testes . . . (Finasteride), but 83% of those using it get anxious/depressed. I'm 100% service connected for anxiety/depression. But also I wonder if the psych issues are related to "loss of sex drive" and "feminization" which is entirely the whole point! Sounds like a crap shoot.
And, having spent considerable time/effort in weight loss, body fitness, I'm hesitant to tweak the hormonal balance on a body that's all tuned up and running smoothly, health issues under control (cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes2, reflux).
Week-end beach casual -- pragmatic for recreation, and "presenting" somewhere in the middle. Clothes from both genders (unisex, ambiguous), earrings (6 ea), shoulder length hair, colored hair ties . . .
Let me post my email to Judith Butler, and her reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blow me away here!
Judith Butler, Gender/Crit. Theory, UC Berkeley,
This came up in therapy:
"Normative" suggests valorization & that accordingly, we amongst the in-between are ipso facto not "normal."
We are "normal" -- not dysfunctional, not pathological. We are a minority, but we are not "defective" -- & we shouldn't "need" radical, invasive, medical intervention to "fix" something not broken in the first place.
This is a cultural issue. Cis-women are permitted to "cross-dress" in male attire w/o raising issues of presentation/orientation. Cis-men not culturally permitted options to dress female on account of socio-cultural conventions.
But all this "in between" gender niche has always been a "normatve" feature going back at least to Deuteronomy -- who viewed the middle-orientation as an "abomination" -- and accordingly "not normative."
But gender diverse orientation is entirely normative. And cis-men shouldn't need to submit to radical, extreme medical intervention to fix what's not broken.
What about "Non-hetero-majoritarian"
-----
"SchizoMorphia" -- The anxious post-gender-transition epiphany that one still is who they (sic) are, but no longer who they were.
-----
67 yrs. old here. Cis-male, Allison Wunderland on FaceBite. Disabled veteran (PTSD, gender-dysphoria), Ph.D Eng. linguistics, critical theory 1988. We need to sit in on your classroom.
☆☆☆
Name/email redacted
Text "edited" by a not-so-smart Android app.
Let's see what she thinks . . .
Dear [Allison Wunderland]
Thank you for your message. In general, I do not reply to all the queries I get, but I am glad to reply with this one message. I am sorry I cannot pursue a dialogue any further.
On the one hand, we argue against forms of normativity that set up one model as "normal" and demeans others as abnormal or pathological. On the other hand, some of us want to be regarded as "within the norm of the human" that is, within the spectrum of gender and sexual possibilities. So in the first instance, we object to restriction and hierarchy, but in the second, we ask for inclusion and the suspension of derogatory judgment. Perhaps we ask too much of terms like normativit, norms, the normal, and normalization. IN philosophy, "normative" described positions that posit what shoudl be the case. And yet, in most queer theory, "normative" is equated with normalization. I think that is probably an error. Perhaps the struggle is for a "new normal" - to expand our ideas of normality. That seems to be the desire implicit in the remarks that I have read. I am not sure any category of identity will solve this problem.
Good luck with your reflections.
best,
Judith Butler
--------------------------------------------------
Blow me away here!