-------- My huge thanks to whatshername for posting my original this morning. That was sweet and beyond the call of duty. But relieved me of a great deal of frustration.

I've since deleted her help since I found a way to post it as well which she suggested to me. She has my gratitude. -------
A lot of my compatriots here talk a lot about gender. Actually there are good historical reasons for that as the writers on "gender identity" have normally used that term. And to be honest, I find that the terminology was coined by cissexuals in order to talk about transsexuals. Note, I used the "sexual" words. Why? Because for me, that's what it's all about. No hokey-pokey!
Just my opinion, but I believe that Dr. Benjamin and Dr. Hirschfeld had their own difficulties understanding what was being told them. I mean just look at who they "saw" and how they dealt with it. Lily Elbe and Christine Jorgensen they could call transsexuals, but then Benjamin left the planet and others come up with GID. Benjamin and Hirschfeld defined the language we use to talk about this. I believe that as cissexuals they each had a total block against seeing that what they were being told was that the root of the problem was "sex" characteristics. The people who came after had an even larger problem with this, imo. Paul McHugh, for instance, has never been able to wrap his very-well educated and psychiatric mind around it.
Not gender roles. So, where does GID come from? I think it's the only way most cissexual people can begin to wrap their minds around the entire "transsexual phenomenon." And, in my experience, a number of transsexuals cannot wrap their minds around it either.
I believe that gender came into vogue as a kind of cissexual way of feeling comfortable discussing transsexuals. That became a way to discuss the "role" parts without having to dig for the kernel, which most find just unbeleiveable. Benjamin, I think, also had to gear himself to a post-Hefner era of American life. Gender, as many here decry constantly was used because "sex" for most Americans seems to be synonomous with something one does rather than something one is. Gender is much more neutral in that way.
Gender roles are not things that bother me a lot. Some traditional gender roles for females I can live with just fine. Others I cannot. I have no "typical" range of female gender roles. I work, I raise my son with the assistance of a female partner. I absolutely am mad for Premier League Football, Champions League football and international matches if they are European and South American and it can be enjoyable to watch USA and Mexico as well. I love baseball and softball.
I enjoy wearing dresses and skirts, simply because I find them comfortable. But slacks and tops I also like and wear when I need to. Sweats and shorts and a range of clothing. I like jewelry and I love using my brain to discuss stuff like this. I have no desire to be dominated by a guy, any guy. I feel no particular compunction to be docile and helpless. I absolutely hate housework except what it takes to keep the house clean and my partner does that as well. But neither of us clean the way our mothers did. Nor can I imagine either of us behaving with "husbands" the way our mothers did.
I drive well and will pit my skills against any male. I hate math. I am fascinated by biology and anthropology. I enjoy interacting with children. I interact, always have, much better with other women than with men. I have forever felt a deep sense of loyalty to someone I give my love to. I love good novels and poetry. I have no particular ability at "mapping" or geometry and when I want to discover a direction, well, I need a map, GPS or a compass. I feel a sense of other's pain and like to try to find some way to alleviate that. All of that seems pretty mixed to me among the cliched "gender" roles and proclivities.
My difficulty has always been that I haven't been blessed with the right sex characteristics before transition. I can see that might be exactly where the "het guys" have a problem with someone like me. I might "fool" them into having sex with me and then they'd be gay. Bull->-bleeped-<-!! They still be having sex with a female.
So, I have great difficulty with being "transgendered" for that reason. I don't have trouble accepting those who have no problem being "transgendered." I don't find the term meaningful to my life. Transsexual makes a lot of sense for me because that's where my problem has always lain: in my inconguent physical sex when matched with what I have always known I am and should look like.
I don't know, whatshername, if this is what you're driving at, but for me the whole "gender identity" concept may work for some, for me its a sex-difference. Male/Female biological and physical characteristics. A body dysphoria.
Gendering for me is those roles and preconceptions that are culturally and socially created to differentiate between the places males and females occupy and how we act. That, in general, has never been my difficulty.
What cis-het-males say you are taking the meaning out of is ?their? meaning of woman? So what is a woman? A pussy? Breasts? XX? (& even there, sometimes what seems to be there isn't even with XX.)
Is sex and gender, at least when it comes down to human meaning so vague as to be non-existent? As a woman who has a deep love for Lord Krishna and Gautama as well as for Mother ... I think that perhaps our lives are all a sort of magic sometimes anyway. An illusion that we all call reality. Reality is something else?
I surely haven't a clue. But this whole question at some point is gonna, if it hasn't yet, take on the quality of a metaphysical argument,
a la Aquinas and the Scholastics. (A very good reason it should be in the "Philosophy" section.) My concern isn't angels dancing on pin-heads. I just think when we get into the metaphysical parts then we reach that very blurred and then finally that totally unknowable as human place.
I've almost thought myself into saying, "This means nothing at all."
Nichole