Why don't you believe in androgyne as a gender identity?

[katia]

this is too much for me exactly one week after grs.  i'll organize my ideas and get back to ya rebis.

[Sophia]

There've been many implications in this thread that transsexuals should understand and accept everything on the basis of their own discrimination. How dare they have opinions?

I'd love to see where in my post I told people that they can't have opinions. I must of missed it while I was writing the post.

Silly me.



Actually I specifically recall calling the opinions, which they have a perfectly valid right to, hypocritical, ironic and even silly. When someone calls the sky orange, and I look at them like they're crazy, am I telling them they have no right to their opinion?

Obviously not.

And aren't you pushing my opinion down by your statements? 

As a marginalized group, they have no right to be opinionated! This is analogous to saying blacks should never ever have an opinion on any other group or it's actions. After all, 50 years ago, they would've been lynched!

Funny how I never said anything like that. I said pretty specifically that a marginalized group that holds bigoted opinions are acting in an ironic, hypocritical and, dare I say it? A stupid way.

->-bleeped-<-s have plenty right to be opinionated. In fact we all have a right to be hypocritical windbags if we so desire. That doesn't mean, however, that I and others don't have a right to call someone on their hypocrisy.

This is extreme thinking. Transsexuals are also individuals with their own thoughts, opinions, etc. Even if their opinion is misguided, they have every right to express it.

I agree. So I'm a little confused as to why you quoted my post for your tirade? Maybe you misread? Or was I unclear?

Posted on: September 06, 2007, 11:57:09 PM

(yeah ok I like visual aids )

Must resist urge to make HIV and eyeball joke.... must resist.... must resist....

[Mia and Marq]

I know people like to call out each other on every little implied or directly stated injustice, inaccuracy, or contradiction but come on folks, alot of this is sounding like some pretty direct attacks on each other.

I know I repeat this part a lot but it rings true still, if someone isn't willing to listen to ever have their perspective widened, nothing you say to them is going to change that. Its falling on deaf ears. Pick the battles you can make a difference in.

What should be happening here (and to some extend through the mess of near personal attacks it is) is that the Androgyne group(including as large a sample of the identities there in (Ambigendered, bigendered, neutrosis, Fluid, etc..)) should share what it means to be an Androgyne so that others might understand things such as how we choose to express our gender situation will differ from person to person but doesn't mean we're not valid. What also should be happening here is everyone else outside of the androgyne folks should be submitting questions that would clarify what aspects of the concept they don't understand so they can appreciate what it is and what it isn't and maybe modify their perspective on it.

Everyone ask themselves if they think what they are posting is contributing to the growth of everyone involved with this topic or if you're looking to pick at people personally to emphasis their shortcomings.

I said about everything I could last post that I made in this topic(read it if you missed it and you're interested) so I'm not going to repeat myself again in some sort of "Who can shout their ideas loudest" over and over again.

One last thing though, ideas can be very old even if the words that describe the ideas may not. Androgyne is a relatively new term but the idea is not. If you're so inclined read about Native American cultures and how they viewed gender and you'll see what I mean.

Marq and Mia
Forever the peacekeeper, job of the two-spirited,
the Gift we share

[Nero]

There've been many implications in this thread that transsexuals should understand and accept everything on the basis of their own discrimination. How dare they have opinions?

I'd love to see where in my post I told people that they can't have opinions. I must of missed it while I was writing the post.

Silly me.



Actually I specifically recall calling the opinions, which they have a perfectly valid right to, hypocritical, ironic and even silly. When someone calls the sky orange, and I look at them like they're crazy, am I telling them they have no right to their opinion?

Obviously not.

And aren't you pushing my opinion down by your statements? 

As a marginalized group, they have no right to be opinionated! This is analogous to saying blacks should never ever have an opinion on any other group or it's actions. After all, 50 years ago, they would've been lynched!

Funny how I never said anything like that. I said pretty specifically that a marginalized group that holds bigoted opinions are acting in an ironic, hypocritical and, dare I say it? A stupid way.

->-bleeped-<-s have plenty right to be opinionated. In fact we all have a right to be hypocritical windbags if we so desire. That doesn't mean, however, that I and others don't have a right to call someone on their hypocrisy.

This is extreme thinking. Transsexuals are also individuals with their own thoughts, opinions, etc. Even if their opinion is misguided, they have every right to express it.

I agree. So I'm a little confused as to why you quoted my post for your tirade? Maybe you misread? Or was I unclear?

Posted on: September 06, 2007, 11:57:09 PM

(yeah ok I like visual aids )

Must resist urge to make HIV and eyeball joke.... must resist.... must resist....

Just quoted yours and Tay's, but there may have been others. Maybe I worded it incorrectly. I just don't agree with the idea that transsexuals should think a certain way or they're hypocrites. I just object to that general view. Not just in relation to this topic, but others well. The 'but you're transsexual, you of all people shouldn't hold this view' argument everytime a transsexual holds an opinion others disagree with. That's discrimination in itself.
I don't have the opinions I do because I'm transsexual. I don't subscribe to the 'this is the opinion I'm supposed to have' club.

Posted on: September 07, 2007, 01:31:27 AM

quote author=Nero link=topic=18938.msg145833#msg145833 date=1189112922]

Well, we would hope that other marginalized groups would have acceptance, but that still doesn't explain why they don't believe androgyne is a valid identity. I don't understand why people can believe that one's gender can be opposite one's sex, but NOT believe that other gender variations are possible.
The only thing I can think is that they only see binary, and are invested in the binary.
I believe in the binary. I believe in male and female, but I also believe that nothing in nature is absolute and that not everybody fits the binary.
I see it as no different than sex. Intersexed people do not fit either sex. Why must gender?

Maybe binary wasn't the right word. I believe in male and female genders. I believe the binary has been necessary since time began. Male and female are different and made so for a reason. I also believe that just as there are intersexed people, there are intergendered (or androgyne) people who also serve a purpose in the gender triangle.
It was meant to be this way - male, female, and androgyne. Each has a role to play in humanity's survival.
Men had their unique strengths to give, as did women, and androgynes had the gift of both. A sort of mediary, if you will. Without all three genders, our species wouldn't have survived.

Nero -  just asking for clerification so I can understand what you mean -- 

So you're saying that you believe that there is a "binary", a male and a female 'option'



But that there are also "non binary" 'options'


(yeah ok I like visual aids )

and that they are all valid gender identities?

I think that's what you meant,  but I think (please someone correct me if I am wrong) that the word "binary" means two and only two.  So it means male and female. (period)  So your post reads a little weird

[Christo]

gotta tell u bro. this aint going nowhere.  we better hold hands & dance together.  if not we're all screwed.

[Blanche]

This conversation is only fruitless while people continue to hold onto antiquated notions about the binary in a brilliant display of hypocritical sickening irony, considering similar notions were used to make our lives living hells no more then 20 years ago.

If I want to "hold onto antiquated notions about about the binary in a brilliant display of hypocritical sickening irony (talk about embellishment of words here ), that is my right.  If I want to believe that the sky is orange or neon teal, that is my right.  If peeps want to fight for other's rights, why dont they engage in groups and scream their lungs out?  Do as you wish with your life and your rights.  Dont ever suggest that I do the same, understood?

[Caroline]

*nods*
Some medical writings about transsexuals refer to a total "psychosexual inversion" (ie male phenotype and total 'female' mental wiring, or vice versa).  I believe this is very much an ideal and few if any people have a 100% inversion (and few if any 0% too)*.  For androgynes it isn't simply a matter of percentages, which bits of your psyche are affected has a lot of bearing on what path is appropriate.  Some may be more concerned with physical changes, other with social, others may require both.  Indeed some may find that various parts of their personality are in conflict meaning there is no position that makes them totally feel at ease.

(*note that not being wired totally as one thing does not prohibit a person from being perfectly justified in identifying as being within the normal variance for that thing and therefore BEING that thing (I don't want people to think that what I said above devalues identifying as a binary gender))

The problem with trying to define what it is to be an androgyne is that it's trying to cover the entire spectrum of possible gender identities except for two specific 'ideals'.  I see accepting androgyne as a gender identity to be based on a very simple question:

If you believe it's possible for a person's brain to be wired the complete opposite to their body is it not also possible that the wiring may emerge as various combinations and/or with some elements absent?

Arguing about how much a people 'should' care about issues not directly affecting them is fairly pointless, as we know from society in general, a lot of people rarely do.  Whether it's (looking back in history), black vs gays, gays vs transgenders, transgenders vs androgynes it's evident that minority groups have the same flaw: they're made of people.  (Soylent Green doesn't give a crap about you  )

A lot of the arguments so far have been about the behaviour of specific androgynes.  There are a lot of people who make a lot of effort to dress androgynously but still identify as male or female.  There again there are a lot of phenotypically male who make a lot of effort to dress female but still identify as male.  The androgyne community has it's equivalent of crossdressers and we want to make the distinction between them and gender identity driven androgynes as much as TSs want to make the distinction between TSs and CDs.

I really would like to see people address the question I posed earlier (quoted), I think it's the crux of the debate.

[RebeccaFog]

   Everybody, please try to stay on topic.  We had entered what I thought was a nice little conversation, however, it is reverting to being noise again.

   This topic began as a request to understand the reasoning behind some people's opinions.
   I think it has the potential to be a learning experience especially with some of the nice posts I've seen from androgynes that attempt to explain our position.  I believe these posts compliment the initial question quite well.

   IF you do not believe that androgyne is a valid gender identity, please explain why not?

   IF you are an androgyne and you have a comment that addresses the reason you feel androgyne is a valid gender identity, then please state your reason.  Also, if you have a response which directly addresses a reason given by a person who does not believe that androgyne is a valid gender identity, please post it.

    Please try to avoid discussing other poster's states of minds and other off topic items.  Please???  for me?

[Ell]

Hi Rebis,

the topic? oh yes! sorry.

but if we agree, we're told not to agree, but to state reasons.

well we have stated reasons, and when we do that, we are immediately attacked and called unsupportive. 

one member on this thread said she was going to leave because she said this site was no longer supportive and "safe."

do i have to state again and again that i think IS is at the heart of the matter?

i will say again, IS (whether physical or psychological) is at the heart of the matter of transsexualism. that is equally true whether you are binary-identified or not. we're all in exactly the same boat, but, as individuals, we all have unique treatment regimens.

IS definitions, and IS treatment regimens need to be strongly incorporated into the SOC. this will help all of us fight back against opponents like Bailey and Dreger. Physical IS speaks for itself, but does not get adequate support from trans people. Psychological IS bluntly means that you are not insane because of your gender problems.

[Rachael]

the nhs gives me hrt now, cos im IS, but wont give me grs till i go through the GIC in 5 years, thats deffinately incorporated in the SOC...
R

[Pica Pica]

I'm not goint to get involved in this post...Because I don't have enough time in these internet cafes to play the arguments.

But I will try and get a description of a positive androgyny. An androgyny FOR something, and will present it to the court some time next week.....

So you're saying that you believe that there is a "binary", a male and a female 'option'



But that there are also "non binary" 'options'

I'm

[Rachael]

i like that thought, Male, and female, exist, as binary positions on the spectrum, and there is fluxuation between and around... the concept of gender spectra doesnt say male and female cant exist... i think thats some peoples problem here, misinterpriation.
R

[Sophia]

Just quoted yours and Tay's, but there may have been others. Maybe I worded it incorrectly.

There were others most likely. I could've of misread too. I was running on about 3 hours of sleep. 3 hours of sleep makes Sophie's coherence go splat and it makes Sophie speak in the third person.

I just don't agree with the idea that transsexuals should think a certain way or they're hypocrites. I just object to that general view. Not just in relation to this topic, but others well. The 'but you're transsexual, you of all people shouldn't hold this view' argument everytime a transsexual holds an opinion others disagree with. That's discrimination in itself.

Fair enough. I disagree because I feel that hypocrisy is applied based on one's actions and the words one says and the opposing duality of them. If a transsexual has said time and time again to stop discriminating based on gender identity and then does so themselves, it really is hypocrisy. They are preaching one thing and practicing the exact opposite.

But I do agree that it shouldn't be applied willy nilly and there are a lot of people that throw around the word hypocrisy just to express disagreement with a view.

I don't have the opinions I do because I'm transsexual. I don't subscribe to the 'this is the opinion I'm supposed to have' club.

I can see how you'd be pissed with that interpretation. I'm sorry it came across that way.

Posted on: September 07, 2007, 11:52:07 AM

This conversation is only fruitless while people continue to hold onto antiquated notions about the binary in a brilliant display of hypocritical sickening irony, considering similar notions were used to make our lives living hells no more then 20 years ago.

If I want to "hold onto antiquated notions about about the binary in a brilliant display of hypocritical sickening irony (talk about embellishment of words here ), that is my right.

Of course it is. When did I say you didn't have the right to do that?

But are you saying I don't have the right to say that its a brilliant display of hypocritical sickening irony?

That would be even more ironic.

  If peeps want to fight for other's rights, why dont they engage in groups and scream their lungs out?

What do you think I'm doing hun?

  Do as you wish with your life and your rights.  Dont ever suggest that I do the same, understood?

Ohhhhhhh, are you telling me not to express my opinion about what you ought to do?

That's very very ironic considering the words you said:

If I want to "hold onto antiquated notions about about the binary in a brilliant display of hypocritical sickening irony (talk about embellishment of words here ), that is my right.

If I want to tell you that you're being hypocritical, that you're wrong, and that you should be fighting for other people's rights, and if I want to embellish a little (I feel it applies perfectly and you have yet to provide convincing reasons why not), that is my right.



I hope you see the irony at least.

Posted on: September 07, 2007, 11:57:50 AMEllen please stay on topic. And since Tay has been banned its not like Tay can see your assessment of Tay's situation. So your advice can't help Tay when written here.

Hi Rebis,

the topic? oh yes! sorry.

but if we agree, we're told not to agree, but to state reasons.

Actually I wouldn't mind hearing reasons for agreement, honestly. I like knowing people's motivations.

well we have stated reasons, and when we do that, we are immediately attacked and called unsupportive. 

Well Ell, people have really only been called hypocritical. They actually are being unsupportive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You can't support everyone, and people like, say, axe murderers with homicidal psychosis who feel a need to kill, shouldn't be supported.

The reasons are addressed simply because they can be. If someone had a perfectly workable reason to not believe (like a religious reason), I'd likely shrug and go, "Alright, fair enough."

one member on this thread said she was going to leave because she said this site was no longer supportive and "safe."

Um Ellen? That is unrelated to this thread. If you want to know why I'm leaving you may PM me, but making assumptions does no one any good.

do i have to state again and again that i think IS is at the heart of the matter?

i will say again, IS (whether physical or psychological) is at the heart of the matter of transsexualism. that is equally true whether you are binary-identified or not. we're all in exactly the same boat, but, as individuals, we all have unique treatment regimens.

IS definitions, and IS treatment regimens need to be strongly incorporated into the SOC. this will help all of us fight back against opponents like Bailey and Dreger. Physical IS speaks for itself, but does not get adequate support from trans people. Psychological IS bluntly means that you are not insane because of your gender problems.

That's actually a really smart idea. If we changed up the definitions to fit the IS system or a similar system, instead of treating it as a GID as a disorder (i.e. what Layman like to call crazy) we'd be a lot more successful socially and medically.

Any ideas on what processes we should put into effect to get this going?

[Seshatneferw]

the concept of gender spectra doesnt say male and female cant exist...

Indeed not. Moreover, dividing the whole spectrum into 'male' and 'female' is an entirely reasonable thing to do -- there is no objective criterion for deciding how many parts you must divide the spectrum into. It's just that the more categories you have, the better people will fit into the categories.

In this sense, conceptualising gender is rather like conceptualising colour. Again, there is a spectrum that can be divided into separate colours in a variety of ways -- but this does not happen in a completely random manner. It was shown in the 1960's that there is a pretty universal order for colour terms: if a language has only two, these are the ones corresponding to 'black' and 'white'; if three, 'red' exists as well, and so on. There seem to be physiological reasons why this is so, just like there are good biological reasons why the first two gender terms are 'male' and 'female'.

I'd prefer to consider myself green instead of a very faded shade of black, but that is not the only way to look at things.

  Nfr

[RebeccaFog]

Hi Rebis,

the topic? oh yes! sorry.

but if we agree, we're told not to agree, but to state reasons.

well we have stated reasons, and when we do that, we are immediately attacked and called unsupportive. 

one member on this thread said she was going to leave because she said this site was no longer supportive and "safe."

do i have to state again and again that i think IS is at the heart of the matter?

i will say again, IS (whether physical or psychological) is at the heart of the matter of transsexualism. that is equally true whether you are binary-identified or not. we're all in exactly the same boat, but, as individuals, we all have unique treatment regimens.

IS definitions, and IS treatment regimens need to be strongly incorporated into the SOC. this will help all of us fight back against opponents like Bailey and Dreger. Physical IS speaks for itself, but does not get adequate support from trans people. Psychological IS bluntly means that you are not insane because of your gender problems.

Dear Ellen,

   I agree with you.  I believe your idea is valid.

   Nobody wants to force you to disagree.

   What has happened is that the responses seem to come in bursts.  I wanted to monitor them better, but I've been tied up with my (crummy) job and I lose my grasp.


   From now on:  if anyone feels attacked, please do not respond to the attacker.  Please send me or one of the other mods a message saying who it is that you feel is being mean and what post it is.  Actually a quote of the offending post will be helpful.  Then maybe state why you feel that the message was offensive or an attack.
   As I said.  Do not reply to the attack in any way other than to point it out.  I don't know where I'm going with this, but we'll see.

[Yvonne]

I don't believe in androgyne as a GI because I don't believe in "other variations" of gender besides the binary.  Gender is psychological and a social construct.  If ppl aren't exposed to anything outside the binary, how could they belong to a "third gender"?  There isn't anything in society that supports this except in ancient tribes.  My question remains though, gender is a "social construct" thus, how could someone say they are "third gender" if there's nothing in our modern society that supports this belief?

[Mia and Marq]

You would agree then that ancient tribes(and native americans) supported nonbinary gender within their society. Modern days these roles have been repressed by the influences of "modern society" significantly. Repressed does not mean destroyed. They're still there, ask the native american descendants (I live about 3 minutes from Cherokee). Does that count as something in modern society.

Gender is not a social construct in that ones gender is not determined by society. What gender is defined as ends up being different from person to person because the person interprets what society tells them each gender role means and that interpretation isn't usually the same as the next person. Since its an interpretation, its not inconcievable that unless you're subjected to nonbinary people, ones interpretations can possibly not include anything inbetween.

In conclusion, you don't believe in "other variations" besides the binary as you stated directly in your post. Yes. That is your incentive, you never have to change your opinion if you don't want to. But in order for the variations to not actually exist everyone else would have to agree only two options exist. Something to think about.

Marq and Mia
Remember everyone, respect the opinion
But offer additional insight to be considered

[Yvonne]

Gender is not a social construct in that ones gender is not determined by society. What gender is defined as ends up being different from person to person because the person interprets what society tells them each gender role means and that interpretation isn't usually the same as the next person.

That doesn't tell me what gender is.  If gender is not a social construct, then it would have to be biological.  No luck there either.

[Caroline]

I don't believe in androgyne as a GI because I don't believe in "other variations" of gender besides the binary.  Gender is psychological and a social construct.  If ppl aren't exposed to anything outside the binary, how could they belong to a "third gender"?  There isn't anything in society that supports this except in ancient tribes.  My question remains though, gender is a "social construct" thus, how could someone say they are "third gender" if there's nothing in our modern society that supports this belief?

If gender is a psychological construct what is to stop a person constructing a social gender for themselves that matches various innate feeling that they have?  If somebody is exposed to two distinct things and feels that they're a mixture of characteristics of those two things then they can easily identify as a mixture.  Being exposed to other people who feel the same is not necessary.  The term "third gender" is a bit problematic, but I won't go into that here, it's not really relevant.

Many kids grew up KNOWING they were trans (even if they dont know the word), without any knowledge of other trans people existing (more so in the past, but it happens even now).  They idea that a person could be mentally the opposite to their physical sex was constructed by them due to certain innate feelings.  The same is possible for n people with their feelings that their body should be unsexed.

[Yvonne]

Many kids grew up KNOWING they were trans (even if they dont know the word), without any knowledge of other trans people existing (more so in the past, but it happens even now). 

Sorry but that is not correct.  Many kids grow up KNOWING THAT THEY ARE BOYS (MEN) OR GIRLS (WOMEN) not "TRANS".  Transsexualism is not a gender.  They identify as boys or girls because they relate to any of these two genders (sexes).  On another note, I could "interpret" a certain treatment as being "African American"  that does not make one now does it?