Quote from: stephaniec on November 18, 2016, 01:30:38 PMNot to be a downer on peoples honest thoughts, the problem with the concept of " passing " is that it inherently implies that people do not "pass " by someone else's opinion or some standard. What do we do with all those that because of nature and genes are unable to " pass"
I for one must gender others based on their narrative. And it's usually pretty obvious, given someone's presentation, what that narrative is supposed to be. Especially because they're not always going to get correctly gendered by the world at large.
There is an exception to this -- those who gender themselves outside or in between the binary are not going to be readily apparent. Such gendering
requires, I think, a narrative explanation, because now we're into a different kind of categorization altogether.
Quote from: kelly_aus on November 18, 2016, 02:46:23 PMIt isn't. Whether that's because I pass or because I stopped caring, I don't know.
Appearance is a spectrum, not a hard binary. What defines passing? Who defines passing?
Everyone participates in the construction of categories, and when it comes to basic-level categories like "man" and "woman" that construction (as it is with "cat" and "dog" or "chair" and "table") is almost entirely automatic and subconscious.
But categories are not constructed like "logical sets" with clearly defined boundaries. Rather, much like a cluster of neurons, they extend radially from a prototypical image. Any data point (such as a person) with sufficient "family resemblance" to the prototype will be categorized as such, automatically, without conscious thought. No single "feature" is typically necessary, at least at the sense-level of automatic perception, so much as reaching a minimum threshold of a number of features to trigger the neurons associated with the categorical prototype.
And because every brain has a different collection of experiences from which to form categories in the first place, the prototype in Jack's brain will differ from that in Jill's, which is why someone of ambiguous presentation can be gendered correctly by one and not the other; indeed, the fact that gendering is inconsistent is indication that one's presentation itself is ambiguous. However, given the widespread social consensus on the gender of 99.9% of the population, we can be assured that the prototypes in most people's heads are pretty damn similar.
Now, whether all that matters or not will likely depend on one's own internal truth (the needs of someone on the binary who is gender dysphoric are not the same for someone who is non-binary) and how attuned that person is to social context and construction; some people need to be gendered correctly in social context, while others only need a sense of correct embodiment.
Of course, there's more to
maintaining correct gendering over the long term than just embodiment (which includes voice). Over time, socialization and narrative become quite important as well, and those are dependent on much more variable cultural contexts.