MTF with a lot of "male" hobbies?

[pretty]

When you change something as fundamental as your sex people try to cope with this by placing you in a role they can recognize and feel comfortable with. "If you want to be a woman, why did you learn to fly" is heard more often than I can recall. "Why did you choose such a masculine degree as geology?" some say. The information that more than half the students are female  seems to go past them. When changing your sex from male to female a workshop in floristry is seen as mandatory.

I think it's more that people notice the general trend. I mean even here you'd have to be totally oblivious to not notice it.

What are MTFs here usually talking about? Guns, cars, planes, wives.

What are FTMs here usually talking about? Knitting, boyfriends, fashion, yaoi.

I normally wouldn't say anything but the difference is almost comically significant and people still act like they can't tell.

But then I don't like when people act like there is no such thing as masculinity or femininity. It only becomes an issue here because MTFs are so masculine and FTMs so feminine... in the cis population it's not an issue and it holds true most of the time.

[pretty]

What if you have zero interest in these hobbies and you have never been in a relationship?

Well then you're not one of the majority of masculine MTFs.

[Jeneva]

I think it's more that people notice the general trend. I mean even here you'd have to be totally oblivious to not notice it.

What are MTFs here usually talking about? Guns, cars, planes, wives.

What are FTMs here usually talking about? Knitting, boyfriends, fashion, yaoi.

I normally wouldn't say anything but the difference is almost comically significant and people still act like they can't tell.

But then I don't like when people act like there is no such thing as masculinity or femininity. It only becomes an issue here because MTFs are so masculine and FTMs so feminine... in the cis population it's not an issue and it holds true most of the time.

Why do you constantly trying to pen us all into smaller isolated boxes?  I own no firearms and only a single gas-shock pellet rifle to protect our animals on the farm.  I only fly if I absolutely have to, and you won't be seeing me doing any major work to a car anytime soon.  I actually like knitting, but even though it helped calm my anxiety I couldn't do it long because it caused carpal tunnel type symptoms.

Your continual put downs of non-straight transsexuals get REALLY old.

I was actually talking to my therapist today about getting to meet a few more of the transpeople in this area and was relieved that they weren't all proteges of a fairly big drag queen in the area.  When I was having my extensions put in at the salon she worked at she KEPT trying to talk me into letting her do my makeup.  Finally the manager that was working on my extensions told her that maybe I didn't want my makeup so extreme.  It isn't even really feminine at the level she wears.  And before you say that she is the "essence" of femininity I should mention that her voice is atrocious and she has no intention of every even changing her name legally.  At the PFLAG meeting where TTPC (Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition) presented there were around a dozen transpeople and only 1 was one of that queen's proteges.  It was so reaffirming to see what an extreme variation is present between each transperson.  Anyway my therapist actually pointed out something VERY interesting.  Coming to terms with being trans and deciding to act on it, is a way of stepping outside of your "mold".  It is so ironic that other transpeople try to put us into their molds instead of just lettings us be ourselves.

[ToriJo]

I think there are hobbies people *believe* are masculine and femine.  That's quite different from what is actually masculine and femine.

I also think a lot of supposedly typical gender-based behavior deals more with what someone is exposed to at a young age.  If someone is suspected of being a boy, he "helps" dad change the oil, goes hunting with dad, etc.  If someone is suspected of being a girl, she helps mom cook, iron, sew, shop, etc.

Obiously if someone goes hunting from a young age, and discovers they are good at it, they very well may develop a love for it - even if they were misidentifeid as a boy when they truly were a girl.  A woman doesn't cease to become a woman based on what she is interested in, just as a man doesn't cease to become a man based on what they are interested in.

If you want to live according to the stereotype because that's what you believe a "real" woman or a "real" man would do, that's fine.  But don't criticize me or anyone else because their masculinity or feminity is not based on the same things yours' is.

Some of this conversation strikes me as the whole "what is woman?" question.  Surely we've answered that as a society by now.

I realize lots of men and women are not secure in their gender expression.  That's another reason you see the stereotypes played out sometimes in real life.  But people's insecurity doesn't make these stereotypes true.

[Padma]

Looked at more positively, people brought up in one gender haven't been conditioned to be "not interested" in the whole range of interests that the opposite gender have been told they "shouldn't be interested in", so when they transition, they're free to be interested in everything. There may well be loads of ciswomen, for example, who would be into maintenance and cars etc. if they hadn't been trained not to take an interest. The same goes for appearance.

[cindianna_jones]

I honestly can't say what is a masculine hobby any more. Men cook, sew, paint, and collect stamps. Women do woodworking, work on cars, and play football. I certainly don't shy away from anything I've ever wanted to do. I learned to hang glide, do woodworking, build telescopes, learn photography, do a little computer gaming, and write, since my change.

Chin up!

Cindi

[pretty]

Why do you constantly trying to pen us all into smaller isolated boxes?  I own no firearms and only a single gas-shock pellet rifle to protect our animals on the farm.  I only fly if I absolutely have to, and you won't be seeing me doing any major work to a car anytime soon.  I actually like knitting, but even though it helped calm my anxiety I couldn't do it long because it caused carpal tunnel type symptoms.

Your continual put downs of non-straight transsexuals get REALLY old.

I think you are taking me too personally. I don't have a grudge against gay trans people or something like that.

Really I just find it a little irritating when the trans community tries to impose their own definition of what masculinity and femininity are JUST because they don't fit the norms of the gender they are transitioning to. If MTFs don't fit in among women that doesn't mean it is fair to add a clause to what it means to be a woman. It is what it is and it should be established by what applies to the majority of people.

[Jeneva]

I think you are taking me too personally. I don't have a grudge against gay trans people or something like that.

Really I just find it a little irritating when the trans community tries to impose their own definition of what masculinity and femininity are JUST because they don't fit the norms of the gender they are transitioning to. If MTFs don't fit in among women that doesn't mean it is fair to add a clause to what it means to be a woman. It is what it is and it should be established by what applies to the majority of people.

But you are actually defining women to be what YOU want it to be.  When you do that then you are also saying that MTFs aren't women since they don't fit your definition of women.

As you said being a women is what it is and you don't get to redefine it.

[ToriJo]

But you are actually defining women to be what YOU want it to be.  When you do that then you are also saying that MTFs aren't women since they don't fit your definition of women.

As you said being a women is what it is and you don't get to redefine it.

Agreed.  I'd add that "most people's" definition of what it means to be a woman would likely be "what your mom's doctor said when you were delivered."  Slightly more enlightened people might say "what your external sex organs look like."  Or "someone capable of becoming pregnant."  None are a particularly nuanced definition, nor even includes everyone who is obviously a woman - and all of these exclude a ton of trans people no matter how well they fit gender stereotypes for their gender.  So I would suggest not using the average person's definition, since the average person's definition is uninformed and ignorant at the least.  It's also problematic to define a socially less-powerful group of people (women, in this case) by popular definition, as the power imbalance ends up letting the socially more powerful group (men, for instance) define them, which never turns out good.

I think that's even more important as a point of view for a transwoman, as a transwoman is walking in a power imbalance in general society for two reasons, not just one.

I'd probably suggest using a feminist position (first generation feminist, anyhow) that a woman doesn't cease to be a woman because she doesn't do what the popular definition says is woman.

A gay non-trans man is not suddenly feminine or a woman.  Nor is a non-trans man who is a florist or nurse suddenly feminine or a woman. It's just a guy doing something non-traditional.  But still a guy.

Finally, I think some people pass much more effectively in their gender by *not* trying to be ultra feminine or ultra masculine.  Sometimes a bit of ambiguity can actually aid passing.  Rather than someone acting as someone they are not (not everyone is a good actor, after all), acting as they are will be more natural.  If the person trying to act feminine is doing so badly, it may even come across as a caricature rather than real.  Some people would probably rather be seen as a bit of a tom-boy but clearly woman rather than a caricature of a woman.  Non-trans women are not perfectly feminine, so why should trans women be?  And if trans women should be, that would imply they are somehow different from "real women" - something I don't believe to be true.

[Jamie D]

I honestly can't say what is a masculine hobby any more. Men cook, sew, paint, and collect stamps. Women do woodworking, work on cars, and play football. I certainly don't shy away from anything I've ever wanted to do. I learned to hang glide, do woodworking, build telescopes, learn photography, do a little computer gaming, and write, since my change.

Chin up!

Cindi

Cindi - you are so right.

I think the concept of "masculine" or "feminine" hobbies hearkens back to the traditional gender roles in a given society.  To the extent that those traditional roles are being abandoned, the concept of a gendered hobby becomes increasing moot.

[Carbon]

What are MTFs here usually talking about? Guns, cars, planes, wives.

What are FTMs here usually talking about? Knitting, boyfriends, fashion, yaoi.

I really can't tell a huge difference between the trans men/women here and the men/women in general society (who may or may not be trans for all I know). If there was a difference I would just say it was becasue we spent years trying to fit into a different mold, but I really don't see a big one wants the walls fall down.

As for myself, I hate guns and cars, I'm ambivalent to planes, and I'm attracted to women but have never been in a relationship and honestly haven't tried that hard. Maybe some day. I also can see the appeal to knitting but I don't want to do it, I'd NEVER want to date a man, fashion is fun as long as I think of it like a game rather than an obligation, and I've never seen any yaoi even though I probably would like some of it. My biggest interests are playing music in a male dominated style (meaning the women have historically been sidelined, not that they didn't exist), cooking when I have the time, and reading science fiction, fantasy, politics, current events, and economic social theory. The heavier stuff when I have the time and focus.

So gee where do I land.

[Kelly-087]

.

But then I don't like when people act like there is no such thing as masculinity or femininity. It only becomes an issue here because MTFs are so masculine and FTMs so feminine... in the cis population it's not an issue and it holds true most of the time.

I pretty much almost never see it. I usually see MTFs shooting for a completely over feminine persona and FTMs.. well they generally fall nicely at a comfortable level of masculine.

[pretty]

Agreed.  I'd add that "most people's" definition of what it means to be a woman would likely be "what your mom's doctor said when you were delivered."  Slightly more enlightened people might say "what your external sex organs look like."  Or "someone capable of becoming pregnant."  None are a particularly nuanced definition, nor even includes everyone who is obviously a woman - and all of these exclude a ton of trans people no matter how well they fit gender stereotypes for their gender.  So I would suggest not using the average person's definition, since the average person's definition is uninformed and ignorant at the least.  It's also problematic to define a socially less-powerful group of people (women, in this case) by popular definition, as the power imbalance ends up letting the socially more powerful group (men, for instance) define them, which never turns out good.

I think that's even more important as a point of view for a transwoman, as a transwoman is walking in a power imbalance in general society for two reasons, not just one.

I'd probably suggest using a feminist position (first generation feminist, anyhow) that a woman doesn't cease to be a woman because she doesn't do what the popular definition says is woman.

A gay non-trans man is not suddenly feminine or a woman.  Nor is a non-trans man who is a florist or nurse suddenly feminine or a woman. It's just a guy doing something non-traditional.  But still a guy.

Finally, I think some people pass much more effectively in their gender by *not* trying to be ultra feminine or ultra masculine.  Sometimes a bit of ambiguity can actually aid passing.  Rather than someone acting as someone they are not (not everyone is a good actor, after all), acting as they are will be more natural.  If the person trying to act feminine is doing so badly, it may even come across as a caricature rather than real.  Some people would probably rather be seen as a bit of a tom-boy but clearly woman rather than a caricature of a woman.  Non-trans women are not perfectly feminine, so why should trans women be?  And if trans women should be, that would imply they are somehow different from "real women" - something I don't believe to be true.

Well, the real issue here is that I feel you are comparing apples and oranges. 

It's perfectly okay to have a loose definition of what it means to be a man or woman for cis men and women. Because they are not classified as a man or woman based on what they do, and that is not the frame of reference you're talking about them in. They are classified as  a man or woman based on their physical sex.

So, quite frankly, if you use the same ruler to classify a trans person, you will establish that nobody can be trans, because a cis man can do anything he wants to, "even pretend to himself that he is a woman."

But that's not what we want to end up with. We want a definition of what it means to be a woman that can include people that aren't genetically a woman--so, something beyond just physical sex. And honestly, how do you do that? You can say that anybody who calls themselves a woman is a woman but then the classification of "woman" doesn't mean anything anymore, because it doesn't describe a group of people in contrast to another group (men) and in terms of how they actually differ. It just describes the group of people that call themselves a woman, whether or not they have anything in common with one another. That's a huge shift in defining a "woman" and that is only ever going to be acceptable within the trans community. Society is not going to accept or agree with that definition  . It's too confusing, it's too subjective, and it's not helpful for determining pretty much anything at all.

So, if we are going to make the case that it's actually possible to be a woman but born in a man's body, we have to change that initial definition of "woman" only a little bit to allow for a special case (trans women). And it doesn't really matter if one individual person is atypical here or there. It's about averages. If trans women on average are greatly different than cis women, then it IS hard to put them under the same label while still trying to be accurate. Because they have different tendencies. All issues of personality come on a spectrum but there has to be an absolute peak on the bell curve and you judge sameness by where that peak is, not by whether or not there is an overlap at all. But in the first place you'd be including cis women in that label for different reasons than you are including trans women (physical sex vs self-ascribed gender). So again, the term woman becomes inconsistent with itself and to actually properly distinguish people you have to use "cis woman" and "trans woman."

I think the only workable presentation of trans issues is to make the case for the similarity of trans women and cis women  (and trans men and cis men of course--I'm just kinda speaking from my side of the issue). And you can't do that if you are trying to downplay the natural differences between the sexes. Transition is only meaningful because there ARE differences.

[Brooke777]

I love hunting, and shooting. I can work a ranch as well as the guys. That includes welding drive a tractor, birth a calf, brand a cow. But, I dont like sports, or race cars. I do enjoy a good first person shooter or RPG.  I guess you could say my hobbies are well rounded. Oh, I also enjoy making hand made knives ( no power tools).

[ToriJo]

It's perfectly okay to have a loose definition of what it means to be a man or woman for cis men and women. Because they are not classified as a man or woman based on what they do, and that is not the frame of reference you're talking about them in. They are classified as  a man or woman based on their physical sex.

I disagree.  People are generally classifed as man or woman based on their apparent sex, not their actual sex.

I also was very careful with my words - man/woman = gender, not sex.  I also think masculinity and feminity equally are distinct, not directly sex or gender, but rather the degree of conformity in society.

So, quite frankly, if you use the same ruler to classify a trans person, you will establish that nobody can be trans, because a cis man can do anything he wants to, "even pretend to himself that he is a woman."

That doesn't follow.  I do think a cisman can do anything he wants to, even pretend he is a woman.  Some cross dressers might describe themselves that way (others likely wouldn't).  Certainly the young boys who played women in historical theater aren't women.

The ruler is self-definition.  So what if the word doesn't mean whatever someone wants it to.  If what you are looking for to call a woman is "Someone who wants to have female genitals, whether they already have them or not", you need to talk about genitals, not gender.  But if you want to talk woman, you can't set up a different standard for transwoman that "because society will judge you, you have to be a stereotypical woman, and you can't do everything other women will do or I'm going to label you man."

But that's not what we want to end up with. We want a definition of what it means to be a woman that can include people that aren't genetically a woman--so, something beyond just physical sex. And honestly, how do you do that? You can say that anybody who calls themselves a woman is a woman but then the classification of "woman" doesn't mean anything anymore, because it doesn't describe a group of people in contrast to another group (men) and in terms of how they actually differ.

Yes it does describe how they differ.  They key difference between men and woman is that men want to be men and women want to be women.  Sure, that means that difference isn't necessarily useful to the family doctor ordering sex exams (so they should ask for sex, not gender, when asking medical questions that relate to sex).  It also means that I don't know if the person who is a woman is likely to have masculine or feminine hobbies and interests.  If I want to categorize people based on interest, THAT is what I need to ask about, not their gender.

It just describes the group of people that call themselves a woman, whether or not they have anything in common with one another. That's a huge shift in defining a "woman" and that is only ever going to be acceptable within the trans community. Society is not going to accept or agree with that definition  . It's too confusing, it's too subjective, and it's not helpful for determining pretty much anything at all.

Most of society doesn't have a definition of woman.  "They know it when they see it."  So this is pretty much just an academic excercize anyhow.  Ask someone who hasn't studied gender or feminism about what the definition of a woman is.  They will come up with a definition likely based on chromosomes or sex organs.  Ask about an intersexed person, a person who has their organs changed by a doctor, or a person who has an accident that affects their organs.  They'll add a bunch of special cases to the definition (enough so that the special cases cause the definition to become useless).  Heck, we can't even define it in our laws - find one law that describes what a "man" is for the purpose of marriage in one of the many places that require "one man and one woman".

So, if we are going to make the case that it's actually possible to be a woman but born in a man's body, we have to change that initial definition of "woman" only a little bit to allow for a special case (trans women).

No, we don't.  The case has already been made, along with the related case that it's okay to not fit your gender role.  It was made in decades ago when people who do study this (this is an academic question after all - one of us pursuading the other won't change anything real in the world, so academics are a good place to start when studying this) differentiated sex and gender.

I think the only workable presentation of trans issues is to make the case for the similarity of trans women and cis women  (and trans men and cis men of course--I'm just kinda speaking from my side of the issue). And you can't do that if you are trying to downplay the natural differences between the sexes. Transition is only meaningful because there ARE differences.

I agree that transwomen and non-trans women need to be seen as the same, from a perspective of gender in particular.  But saying "transwomen are only women if they are close to stereotypically feminine but non-trans women are women no matter what" is not making the case for similarity, it's pointing out a huge difference.  One person (the non-trans woman) gets to be a woman no matter what, while the other (trans-woman) only gets to be a woman if judged woman-enough by others.  In otherwords, this wouldn't be being treated similarly.  It would subject trans-women to a different standard.

Your argument also assumes as a basis that non-stereotypically femine transwomen shouldn't be called women.  You make that as as an assumption when you say that we need a definition that is based on more than body parts, but shows a real difference - and that the definition should essentially include three groups of people (I know there are other categories - I'm simplifying it):

* Ciswomen who are feminine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc
* Ciswoman who are masculine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc
* Transwomen (or maybe more precisely "non-cis-women" who aren't cismen) who are feminine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc

You want a definition that allows these three categories.  That was the basis of your definition.  That's where we differ - I'd agree if the above three categories described "woman", that your definition is great.  But there's a forth (and a fifth and a sixth and a seventh...) category of woman - transwoman who are masculine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc.  And you can either just say "They aren't women, and here's my new definition of woman" (since the standard definition would exclude the femine transwomen, it obviously can't be used).  But if we're making a definition that differs from society's definition, why not include my forth category?  The only reason not to is if you don't want it to.  That is the root of this argument.

Society doesn't need a definition that has a bunch of special cases to handle different types of women.  It needs a simple definition (which means no special cases).  Someone with a woman gender identity is a woman.  Identity and actions don't always line up in stereotypical ways, nor should they be made to.  Why should a woman (or a man) have to live in fear that their identity is based on the whims of the times and society?

[pretty]

I disagree.  People are generally classifed as man or woman based on their apparent sex, not their actual sex.

I also was very careful with my words - man/woman = gender, not sex.  I also think masculinity and feminity equally are distinct, not directly sex or gender, but rather the degree of conformity in society.

That doesn't follow.  I do think a cisman can do anything he wants to, even pretend he is a woman.  Some cross dressers might describe themselves that way (others likely wouldn't).  Certainly the young boys who played women in historical theater aren't women.

The ruler is self-definition.  So what if the word doesn't mean whatever someone wants it to.  If what you are looking for to call a woman is "Someone who wants to have female genitals, whether they already have them or not", you need to talk about genitals, not gender.  But if you want to talk woman, you can't set up a different standard for transwoman that "because society will judge you, you have to be a stereotypical woman, and you can't do everything other women will do or I'm going to label you man."

Yes it does describe how they differ.  They key difference between men and woman is that men want to be men and women want to be women.  Sure, that means that difference isn't necessarily useful to the family doctor ordering sex exams (so they should ask for sex, not gender, when asking medical questions that relate to sex).  It also means that I don't know if the person who is a woman is likely to have masculine or feminine hobbies and interests.  If I want to categorize people based on interest, THAT is what I need to ask about, not their gender.

Most of society doesn't have a definition of woman.  "They know it when they see it."  So this is pretty much just an academic excercize anyhow.  Ask someone who hasn't studied gender or feminism about what the definition of a woman is.  They will come up with a definition likely based on chromosomes or sex organs.  Ask about an intersexed person, a person who has their organs changed by a doctor, or a person who has an accident that affects their organs.  They'll add a bunch of special cases to the definition (enough so that the special cases cause the definition to become useless).  Heck, we can't even define it in our laws - find one law that describes what a "man" is for the purpose of marriage in one of the many places that require "one man and one woman".

No, we don't.  The case has already been made, along with the related case that it's okay to not fit your gender role.  It was made in decades ago when people who do study this (this is an academic question after all - one of us pursuading the other won't change anything real in the world, so academics are a good place to start when studying this) differentiated sex and gender.

I agree that transwomen and non-trans women need to be seen as the same, from a perspective of gender in particular.  But saying "transwomen are only women if they are close to stereotypically feminine but non-trans women are women no matter what" is not making the case for similarity, it's pointing out a huge difference.  One person (the non-trans woman) gets to be a woman no matter what, while the other (trans-woman) only gets to be a woman if judged woman-enough by others.  In otherwords, this wouldn't be being treated similarly.  It would subject trans-women to a different standard.

Your argument also assumes as a basis that non-stereotypically femine transwomen shouldn't be called women.  You make that as as an assumption when you say that we need a definition that is based on more than body parts, but shows a real difference - and that the definition should essentially include three groups of people (I know there are other categories - I'm simplifying it):

* Ciswomen who are feminine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc
* Ciswoman who are masculine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc
* Transwomen (or maybe more precisely "non-cis-women" who aren't cismen) who are feminine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc

You want a definition that allows these three categories.  That was the basis of your definition.  That's where we differ - I'd agree if the above three categories described "woman", that your definition is great.  But there's a forth (and a fifth and a sixth and a seventh...) category of woman - transwoman who are masculine in behavior/appearance/attitude/hobby/etc.  And you can either just say "They aren't women, and here's my new definition of woman" (since the standard definition would exclude the femine transwomen, it obviously can't be used).  But if we're making a definition that differs from society's definition, why not include my forth category?  The only reason not to is if you don't want it to.  That is the root of this argument.

Society doesn't need a definition that has a bunch of special cases to handle different types of women.  It needs a simple definition (which means no special cases).  Someone with a woman gender identity is a woman.  Identity and actions don't always line up in stereotypical ways, nor should they be made to.  Why should a woman (or a man) have to live in fear that their identity is based on the whims of the times and society?

I think maybe the wrong emphasis was taken from my post. 

And sorry this is kind of long and I don't know if I got everything in there I intended to say or even worded it very well because honestly this kind of stuff wears me out really fast and I've tried to write this reply several times and kept kind of quitting halfway.

Anyway, the point is that, yes, as an academic exercise you certainly could define men and women like that. But what help would it be?

No matter what way you look at it, we are going to have to fall somewhere within two extremes: either we call people men and women only by their personal gender identity, whatever that may mean to them, or we call people men and women only by their physical sex. Society's standard is the latter and occasionally it makes exceptions for trans people since after a while they actually resemble their target sex. But anyway, that's the standard we deal with and that's the reality of it.

Also note the language there: "call people."  That's what matters in real life.  And if I talked about strictly defining people then that that was lazy of me and I'm going to have to back away from that terminology.  What people *truly are* is a silly question because it is totally dependent on semantics.

And then, why don't we just think about the former definition a little bit. People are a man if they say they are a man and a woman if they say they are a woman.  Well to me, the important question is--at that point, what do those words even mean anymore?  If they are unrelated to a person's physical sex and they are unrelated to a person's masculinity and femininity, all they say about a person is which word they like better.  They're reduced to trivia about a person--like learning that they like the color blue.  The words "man" and "woman" only are so important right now because people think of them as reflecting on a lot more than gender identity.

The point that I am trying to make here is that for the words to mean anything, and actually be in contrast to each other and not just arbitrary things not even worth talking about, there has to be something that defines what is "womanly" and what is "manly."  And you have to be able to be womanly or manly without consciously claiming yourself as such.

And I have to say, a world where solely gender identity decided who we called a man and who we called a woman would ironically put trans people back in a terrible place. If it's taken as true that sex, gender and masculinity/femininity are all completely independent of each other, then you've set up an environment in which it's perfectly reasonable to deny someone a physical transition, and it's perfectly reasonable to keep someone out of their target sex's bathrooms, and all that other fun stuff.  Because what they self-identified as would have no bearing on what their physical sex should be. The two would be totally unrelated.

Anyway... at the end of the day, I'm just trying to be realistic here  . I feel like the perfectly subjective, any-way-you-like-it picture of gender is not helpful and people only are even interested in it because they are on the outside looking in (to a society where gender and sex are intrinsically linked, as is masculinity and femininity with sex).  Personally, I don't care what you *define* me as, I am transitioning because I am feminine and I want to be able to properly be myself and express myself as I am.  Appearances and impressions are what really penetrate in a human world.  You can redefine gender any which way you want and it's not going to change the fact that most males are masculine and most females are feminine and there is a palpable difference... and a feminine male or a masculine female is going to have social and interpersonal difficulty as a result of that which would be eased if they changed their physical presentation to be in harmony with their gender (gender in the sense of the word that considers masculinity and femininity).

I don't know. It's frustrating for me  . I don't think there's a totally great answer that makes it 100% comfortable and easy to be trans. It's just not a pleasant condition. I don't think you make it any better by stripping all the meaning from gender either, though. And I think people like me who never felt masculine and who never did traditionally male things despite being encouraged to do them, feel that that is all written off by people who are trying to somehow force it to not seem strange that they lived a normal male life for a long time with no real problems fitting in as a man.

[eli77]

No matter what way you look at it, we are going to have to fall somewhere within two extremes: either we call people men and women only by their personal gender identity, whatever that may mean to them, or we call people men and women only by their physical sex. Society's standard is the latter and occasionally it makes exceptions for trans people since after a while they actually resemble their target sex. But anyway, that's the standard we deal with and that's the reality of it.

Also note the language there: "call people."  That's what matters in real life.  And if I talked about strictly defining people then that that was lazy of me and I'm going to have to back away from that terminology.  What people *truly are* is a silly question because it is totally dependent on semantics.

So you're talking about our capacity to integrate into society as female... yes? Passability plus maybe a little bit extra in terms of commonality with other women.

But I think you're making a pretty critical mistake here. There isn't one international society, one international group of women, one international standard for womanhood. Instead there are smaller, tighter-knit groups of people with similar social class, education, sexuality, ideology, environment, etc. Those are the actual groups we are talking about being a part of, of being accepted into.

Rather than trying to compare me to a sort of amalgamated ideal of "woman," wouldn't it make more sense to compare me to the women who are like me? I'm a Canadian, 20-something, urban, middle-class, white, university-educated, queer, feminist, liberal, geeky, hipster girl. Wouldn't it make sense to compare me to that model? In which case, I fit right in. And you probably wouldn't (not enough piercings ). Because that isn't your group.

Your standard of femininity makes wicked sense to you, because you match up with the other women who are part of your group. But it wouldn't work for me. It would be a handicap for me.

It probably sounds bizarre to you, but my short hair, my tomboy style, and my lack of makeup helps me fit in as female in my world, just as much as my soft high voice, my curvy hips, and my habit of talking with my hands.

[NotThereYet]

Hi Sarah,

I totally agree with you: there is more to fitting in than just gender. You seem to have found your niche and I am happy for you. One thing though: how did your get your curvy hips? ;-)

Cheers,
Andi

[Padma]

It probably sounds bizarre to you, but my short hair, my tomboy style, and my lack of makeup helps me fit in as female in my world, just as much as my soft high voice, my curvy hips, and my habit of talking with my hands.

^---this.

If I wore a skirt and heels and makeup, I'd feel (besides being totally not me) very out of place amongst all my dyke and hippy friends I happily hang out with, and fit in with. So I look like the woman I am, and I get accepted for it because I'm comfortable - by both my friends and by women in general, so far.

For all practical purposes, "all women" is whoever you're with at the time.

[MCMCyn]

I worked in open wheel auto racing for 27 years and I'm still involved on a crew. In fact, my profile photo has the roof of the modified in it.

I'm still love watching football and hockey. I'm a Boston Bruins diehard. I love punk rock and old school heavy metal.

Yet my genetic female friends still refer to me as "The Priss" , so I certainly wouldn't let any stereotyped "gender" hobbies prevent you from being you.