Susan's Place Logo

News:

Based on internal web log processing I show 3,417,511 Users made 5,324,115 Visits Accounting for 199,729,420 pageviews and 8.954.49 TB of data transfer for 2017, all on a little over $2,000 per month.

Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! (Updated)

Main Menu

When no gender fits: A quest to be seen as just a person

Started by Emerald, September 23, 2014, 11:41:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Emerald

Androgyne.
I am not Trans-masculine, I am not Trans-feminine.
I am not Bigender, Neutrois or Genderqueer.
I am neither Cisgender nor Transgender.
I am of the 'gender' which existed before the creation of the binary genders.
  •  

Taka

  •  

suzifrommd

This same article was posted on another thread. Good reporting.

Though I commented on that thread that people are wired to gender people as one of the binary genders. I think it's really hard for people to fight their wiring, and it's something that needs to be understood by people who are presenting as agender.
Have you read my short story The Eve of Triumph?
  •  

Taka

well, that's one side of it. but if agender and other non-binary identities are commonly accepted as valid gender identities, people might get used to calling people "they" if their presentation is ambiguous, neutral, or unisex in any other way. it wouldn't be difficult for a he or she to correct people when they are being cautious with the pronouns, and it wouldn't be difficult for someone with a more feminine or masculine presentation to correct people either.

of course, the easiest way for all of us would be to just wipe off all gender from pronouns. people who are used to languages with ungendered pronouns, have no problems speaking of a person without ever getting specific about their gender. they'll of course assume from the rest of the story or context, but there is no need to express the assumption in any way.
  •  

Dread_Faery

We're socialised to lump people into binary categories, it's a lot different to being wired that way.
  •  

Taka

gender only matters for relatives in my language. what you'd call an aunt depends on exactly which way you're related to her. there are also words to call a man or woman by, but they are only used when that is relevant to identifying the person, or understanding what kind of person one is talking about (to most women, it matters that they are a woman, without anyone being able to tell exactly why).
for any other words, it's just not possible to make a difference. can't even do the funny thing with dude/dudette. priest/priestess is an impossible difference to make in the language. and it hasn't mattered either, shamans weren't chosen by gender. they were more likely to be chosen because of mixed gender traits or other things that placed them closer to the border between this world and the other.
  •  

Shantel

  •  

suzifrommd

Quote from: Dread_Faery on September 24, 2014, 11:24:13 AM
We're socialised to lump people into binary categories, it's a lot different to being wired that way.

I agree there's a difference, DF. I used that wording carefully.

Gender IS wired into us. That's the reason why the medical, scientific, and religious communities, despite decades of trying, can't take a transgender person and make them cisgender.

We are predisposed to see people of our identified gender as "like us" and those who are not as "unlike us". Trans people are not strange exceptions who are fundamentally different from cisgender people. They too, are wired to be their identified gender and see people of that gender to be like them and people of the opposite gender to be unlike them. The continuation of our species depends on (straight) people being able to decide who should be a romantic partner. This too, decades of intervention has failed to come up with a way to change.

Yes, gender norms are socialized. In our society women wear skirts and men wear ties because that's what we're taught. But the innate sense of who is a man and who is a woman? I can't conclude that is the result of socialization.

Make sense?
Have you read my short story The Eve of Triumph?
  •  

Rowan

I really appreciated this article. I feel like they could have put more emphasis on the fact that Kelsey was never truly female, but given the narrative nature of the article, I can see where that would be difficult.

There was one part in particular that really stuck with me:
He. It wasn't the gender pronoun that Kelsey was looking for, and it was kind of a weird thing to say. But it was a friendly stranger who was staring straight at Kelsey and seeing something different. Who recognized that whoever Kelsey was, they weren't a girl.
It was nice.

It is really difficult for me to present as anything other than female- I inherited my mother's curves. I am ALWAYS referred to as she, except by those closest to me. Even though "he" is incorrect, it is still affirming in a strange way.
"You either like me or you don't... it took me 20-something years to learn how to love myself. I don't have that kind of time to convince somebody else." -Unknown
  •  

Taka

i think i get it.

i prefer to see gender as a 3 dimensional thing (for simplicity, i'm sure it's at least as bad as four dimensional thinking). a spectrum can never be more than one or two dimensions, and both fail to include notions of nothing at all, both at once, or something else entirely.

because i don't want to iterate myself too much, and can't find that thread from last year's summer, or even earlier, i'll post a different illustration that i think is pretty:


nothing at all would probably be in the black part of a three dimensional color map. a whole lot of everything at the same time would be closer to white.
when talking about color as a mix of light rather than a mix of light absorbing substances.
  •  

ativan

I thought the article was well written for what it was, an experience.
An article that explained it, instead of how it was experienced would have been better.
But I liked it, it was well written, the timing and the way it conveyed some feelings, was good.
I wish I could write that well...
But I can't,.. I can however give one explanation for it, why it was an experience that way.

People think in terms of a lot of different things that have 'ends' on them.
Good and bad, is simple enough.
Here and there.
Top and bottom.
Empty or full (that glass of water thing, get over it, it's a glass with water in it)
There are a lot of ways to look at things this way.
There are also times that we don't have to make a choice at all.
Mustard and ketchup? No thank you, I'll have it plain...
It is easily done.
The preoccupation with gender stems from maybe pro-creation, but it is also a way to take it and use it as a way to make oneself superior.
Battle of the sexes is a result of that, feminism is too. It works the suppressed and suppressor difference.
Why is it one way and not the other, what is different between them, always an impression is made.
Put into the context of top and bottom, good and bad, why is it so hard to understand?
You can well imagine a person could be anywhere in those examples.
It is just as easy to not put someone in a spectrum, and imaginary thing to begin with, as all of those are simply imagined, they are concepts.
How much reality you put into them, how much your thinking can be limited by thinking that those concepts are absolute is very limiting when you put something as simple as gender into the mix.
You can easily think of at least, over the top, over flowed, no glass at all, it's Schrodinger's perhaps.

This thing too about wiring, yep they have seen the kinds of binary and where trans people are in them.
But the thing they have also found, is that there are people who are somewhere in the middle of that.
It isn't hard to imagine that they could find a version of wiring that has none of those characteristics.
The idea that we are wired as binary has been proven by the same methods, FMRI as they have seen the binary versions of trans and can match them to cis versions that are close to the same.
But they have in fact also found that there are indeed, people who in those scans, are in between.
They show different varieties of wiring, it's finally interesting to some as if they just discovered non-binary!

Binary is a social construct, one that science has repeatedly proven through studies that there are indeed people who are neither or both.
They have experienced neither in their findings and can't understand it, because they are looking for what their world view is, binary.
But why do you think it is so ingrained into your mind as that there can only be one or the other, that most are at the ends of this?
Is it to hard to even imagine that the most is in the center and thins out towards the ends?
Or that it is like the powerball, if graphed out with time, it's a straight line between the lowest and highest number used...

It is an agreed upon solution to simplify the suppressed and the suppressors in society, and it is confusing to those who put their faith in this one or the other thinking, you bought it, you own it and since you own it, it is better than anyone elses...
Pretty much sums it up as believing in something that is little more than a simple concept in a complex world.
Is that really the limits to peoples thinking? I don't think so, but there those who insist.
But they also fall into a line with ends in societies thinking. Love and Hate. Bigots fall right in there somewhere.
There's all kinds of different words that are used to describe that spectrum...
Some of them people are down right proud to be a spot, a point, defend that little castle of thinking with what ever they have left over.

Why is it so hard to put gender into that kind of thinking, to be able to imagine and let you see that binary is a concept, a social structure?
No I don't want mustard, I'll have ketchup.
But for me, I'll have both, mix them together right there on top...
Or I don't want any, thank you.
Binaries have to decide if they want mustard or ketchup, but you know it doesn't always work that way, so why would you let your mind be confined by a gender concept that comes from the want of one or the other?
Because you bought in to it, as if it is a real thing, and you own it and now you have to prove it, and one way is to shut down your thinking, to deny yourself that you did indeed buy into it, a concept that is imaginary.
This is so true, look at the forest structure right here, for some of you it is imaginary, because you can't let go of the idea that what you bought into isn't real.
Dammit, you paid for it, didn't you, you did buy it, it must be real...
It is imaginary, we use it to break down that concept that appears to be a reality, try to break it away from the thinking.
We do that by talking as if it is a real thing, just like you talk about the imaginary thing you bought.
We just didn't buy it, it's imagination, we made it up to explain a different way to see your concept of gender.

I thought the article was good, I to could feel the anguish, I do all the time.
I live in the same world as the article was written in.
I thought it was biased to excuse the cis thinking, that it's just so hard and to have a little pity for their confusion because they refuse to accept something that is outside of their view that they have bought...
It was written very well that way and a lot of cis people will understand it that way.
It wasn't so hard for a trans person to get the feelings of a trans person going to college, many people here have had a similar experience.
It is easy for a non-binary, no binary person to get it and understand it, it isn't so hard when you haven't bought in to the cisietal view that they consider to be the only way because it is theirs and they own it.
I get it because I never bought that concept, my thinking is without that, I can only see gender for what it is.
It is what you want it to be. Or not be. You can use a mask or not. Some of us came with a mask.

It really isn't about learning something new, it's about getting rid of something handed down like an heirloom, it has been owned for generations.
Simply put that concept in your closet, walk out and lock the door behind you. There is a real world waiting for you to experience.
Ativan
  •  

Cindy

I think it is possible to be recognised as non-binary. It is now legally recognised in Australia. Norrie went to court to ensure their rights (although Norrie does use female pronouns for herself and wants others to use female pronouns for her). Also I think a number of countries have the option of ticking a neither box on passports for gender selection.

As ever our fight for acceptance goes in stages, the G&L movement helped to establish homosexulaity as a normal gender acceptance and now Trans*people are taking up the fight, inside the trans*community it is well time for all off our gender diversity to be accepted as normal variants and to be treated as normal human beings who deserve respect both socially and legally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrie_May-Welby
  •  

Asche

Quote from: suzifrommd on September 24, 2014, 04:47:11 PM
Gender IS wired into us. That's the reason why the medical, scientific, and religious communities, despite decades of trying, can't take a transgender person and make them cisgender
I disagree.

I would say that who we are is (in some sense) wired into us, but not gender as such.  (Actually, I would say that who we become is the result of the interaction between our "wiring" and our experiences from birth on, if not earlier.)  Gender is a concept and, like all concepts, is something we learn.  We learn what it means to be "male" or to be "female" (most of which has nothing to do with genitalia) and society tries to make us wear the one that they've assigned us.   If we find that what it means to be the gender we got assigned at birth sort of fits who we are, we are cis.  If it doesn't fit, or fits so badly that we're miserable, then we're trans.  (And if what it means to be the other gender fits us better, then we're binary trans.)

It doesn't surprise me that society can't take a transgender person and make them cis.  Society has already brought its big guns to bear from birth on to make them over to fit what their assigned gender is supposed to be.  They're trans because it didn't work.  So more of the same isn't likely to be any more effective.  But it doesn't mean that they were born with circuits that said "boy" or said "girl."

This isn't just academic for me.  I am someone who has searched for this gender "wiring" in myself, and can't find any.  There's a lot of stuff I identify with, but being male isn't one of them.  It's the body I got dealt at conception, and there's some socialization associated with it that society slapped on like cheap paint, much of which has flaked off.  I have no idea what more there could be, except for a whole pile of stereotypes and ridiculous expectations that I'm told go along with "being male," but which just look to me like stupid stuff that some telemarketer is trying to get me to buy.

Actually, I'm heartily sick of the "being male" thing , and I'd chuck the whole thing entirely, body and soul, except that I'm rather attached to being alive. :)

"...  I think I'm great just the way I am, and so are you." -- Jazz Jennings



CPTSD
  •  

Taka

Quote from: Sarah7 on September 25, 2014, 05:20:33 PM
Kind of, I guess. To me it's like everyone has arbitrarily decided to graph everyone on how good they are at underwater-basket weaving versus how many hamburgers they eat a year. And while I have nothing against underwater-basket weaving or people who eat hamburgers, I haven't ever actually done any underwater-basket weaving and I'm vegetarian, so it's kind of irrelevant to me. Only then every single person I meet seems desperately obsessed with my underwater-basket weaving to hamburger consumption ratio, so I've been forced to educate myself somewhat academically on these topics to not appear entirely alien to everyone around me, and therefore can manage to stagger through a conversation or two on the subjects.

However, that is apparently not sufficient. People who have a high underwater-basket weaving to hamburger consumption ratio are expected to dress a certain way, as are those with a low underwater-basket weaving to hamburger consumption ratio, but in an entirely different way. And they are expected to have corresponding interests and talents and desires and behaviours and... And at this point my head really hurts and I'm totally confused and I want to go hide in my room.

So sure, I can be called "agender" and I can be placed in the black part of the 3D graph or whatever, but it's still like... why? Why do I have to do this? Why do I have to participate in this? Why do I have to be defined by the things I lack? I'd rather be defined by the things I AM: person, body, mind, editor, queer, feminist, socialist, radical, partner, lover, child, sibling, big dork.

The only model of gender that's ever made much sense to me is the galaxy, where there are all these single points representing each person and the only relationships between them are the ones that are created by the observer. So I can just be a single point of light, off by myself, being a person without anything else attached.
haha. yeah, that's much better.
the feeling of being boxed by the wrong criteria is something i definitely recognize.
"why don't you knit or something instead of sitting with that pc all the time?"
is what they ask me.
i would have thought it was obvious how little i like to knit, by the fact that i don't do it.

and the universe is much better. colors never work until there are at least four dimensions to draw the map.
and even then, things fold and bend in ways that the universe does much better than a graphical presentation of something that is still too abstract to actually draw.

you should join our discussions more often. reminding us that we are wrong about you, would be very educational for us.
i don't have any problems with accepting that other people live a different reality than me, and would like to expand my mind until it explodes in a multitude of impossibilities that suddenly just are right there to see.

Quote from: Asche on September 25, 2014, 07:20:53 PM
It doesn't surprise me that society can't take a transgender person and make them cis.  Society has already brought its big guns to bear from birth on to make them over to fit what their assigned gender is supposed to be.  They're trans because it didn't work.  So more of the same isn't likely to be any more effective.  But it doesn't mean that they were born with circuits that said "boy" or said "girl."

This isn't just academic for me.  I am someone who has searched for this gender "wiring" in myself, and can't find any.  There's a lot of stuff I identify with, but being male isn't one of them.  It's the body I got dealt at conception, and there's some socialization associated with it that society slapped on like cheap paint, much of which has flaked off.  I have no idea what more there could be, except for a whole pile of stereotypes and ridiculous expectations that I'm told go along with "being male," but which just look to me like stupid stuff that some telemarketer is trying to get me to buy.
the way it seems to me, there is wiring, probably finished around the time a child is 2-3 years old. but that doesn't mean everybody has a wiring that says "boy" or "girl". some have a wiring that pretty much shouts it out to them, others have a different wiring. some transsexual persons have known since they became aware of gender, that they were the opposite of what their parents said. that sounds like something which is wired very strongly into someone's brain. but other people, both cis and trans, don't have the same wiring for gender. some have a kind of a little bit of this or that, others have nothing of anything, and all these things together with life experience and meetings with societal norms, will form a person's sense of gender.

some will find themselves on the cis side of everything, happy to be identified as having most in common with those who have a very clear feeling of being that gender. and some will find themselves on the trans side of things, where they'd either feel ok being identified as a member of the opposite sex's gender group, or feel like neither fits at all and start searching for something else to be identified as.

but, as i tried to explain, i don't believe that gender is wired as either boy or girl. that's too much of a simplification, even if there are brain structures that will tell a person that this or that body type would be kinda natural to have. and brain structures that create sexual attraction to males or females.
scientists should study the non-binary genders and sexualities more though. i think there are a whole lot of amazing answers to be found if you go outside the quest to prove the existence of biologically wired binary gender or sexuality.
  •  

Asche

In a sort of "esprit de l'escalier", some more thoughts to my previous post:

From what I have observed of people, I am convinced that people have their "nature" (again, a product of both inborn wiring and experience) but that this nature is to a greater or lesser extent malleable.  Some people are more malleable than others, and in any one person, some aspects of their nature are more malleable than others.  (I've noticed this because my family mostly consists of less malleable people, and I'm always amazed by the extent to which most people can unconsiously become what they're expected to be.)

Anyway, I suspect that trans people are people who don't directly fit their assigned gender mold and aren't malleable enough to squeeze into it.  So the cis population consists of people who naturally fit into their assigned gender and people who don't but are able to morph themselves enough to fit into it anyway.

The fact that people who present as trans can't be re-gendered to their assigned gender doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has a hard-wired gender.  It could just be that the people who could be re-gendered have already been (re-)gendered to their assigned gender.  Nobody has tried taking a random selection of cis people to see how many can be re-gendered; it would be obviously unethical (so why is it ethical to do the same thing to trans people??)  Not to mention that you couldn't shield the experimental subjects from the enormous pressure society exerts to make people cis.  But if you could perform the experiment and exclude the confounding influences, I theorize that you'd find that some could and some couldn't have their gender switched.

Another "pensee d'escalier":

It matters whether you think that
(a) your gender is something you're born with (except maybe a few people who have this birth defect of no inborn gender), or
(b) people come in all varieties, and gender is a social construct that society tries to squeeze people into, with greater or lesser success.

Option (a) says that cis people are normal, trans-binary people are wired backwards, and non-binary people are defective.  It also encourages Science(tm) to look for Cures(tm) for the abnormality.  With a little gene therapy, we can assure that everyone is born cis.  (Ugh!!)

Option (b) says that the problem of trans-ness is a problem with society's choice of constructs.  We're just examples of normal variation, and the problems come because society doesn't allow for it.  Sort of as if the entire clothing industry only made stuff in size 6 and 16.  ("Donate to the fund to find the cure for wrong-sizedness!")  Our lives are like a visit to the hospitable Mr. Procrustes.
"...  I think I'm great just the way I am, and so are you." -- Jazz Jennings



CPTSD
  •  

Taka

random selections of cis people have been tried re-gendered in the past.
at the same time when they thought gender is a social construct and mutilated intersex infants to make them female in body, they also did that same thing to little boys whose penis had been too badly damaged to have any hopes of a satisfactory penis as they grew up. of course parent would tell them that all they had to do was treat them like the girls they now were, and everything would be fine. gender is a social construct, and social conditioning would make them into good women as they grew up.

pretty much all the parents ran into trouble with their little girls when they insisted on being boys already in early chiødhood, even without knowing of their own medical history. but the doctors still kept saying that with enough social conditioning, those poor little boys would end up finding their place in society as good women. that really never happened, and many childhoods were completely ruined by the view that gender independent on brain structure.

even if you personally don'y have a sense of gender, that doesn't mean others can't have it. when i feel gender, i feel it strongly. i have always admired and seriously tried to live up to the old strong female ideal. but i keep failing at it for the simple reason that i'm not a woman. doesn't help that i fit the mold perfectly, it's just not me.

even if gender studies say that gender is a social construct, biologists find evidence of hardwiring and brain structures causing a sense of what gender one really is.
  •