Neutrois Yabber

[no_id]

Today is a day to rant. Today is Monday.

Today I passed some time by surfing some neuter pages which took up about ten minutes since there's really not that many of them.

However, what amazed me that each single one (for as far as I noticed) hits you in the face with a big, pale billboard that says: 'Neutrois and Androgyne are not the same (rawr)'. In fact, apparently, according to a majority that voted on a poll on a forum, neutrois and agender are not the same either and agender and androgyne are also not the same. Apparently, neutrois is someone who does not identify with the female or male gender and suffers from gender dysphoria while an agender is someone who identifies with no gender but does not suffer from gender dysphoria, and an androgyne is someone floating about the binary that doesn't necessarily have issues with their gender identity. With the footnote: one must have a gender to suffer from gender dysphoria.

Wiiiieeeuuuw.
I feel like I missed an open forum on the gender law book or that someone slapped a label on my back and I just walked on happily in my own little world with an occasional passerby pointing at me and going 'oooh'.

Really? I mean, really?
I actually feel confused. If everything is made up along the way does it really make sense to throw in unofficial laws to determine what is what and what/who should get what? Should I change my usergroup to 'transsexual' now since I'd be considered 'ftn' while I really don't get the sandcastles on the playground? More labels to determine standards for who (should) get what treatment in the variant gender spectrum...

Labels: that's not that, and that's that and should get that. What's your opinion?


Sorry for the rant, but I simply felt the urge to crack my head open. 

[Flan]

labels are for soup cans
>.>
(i would make a better reply if not for that I have to leave to get zapped soon)

[Pica Pica]

It would seem that most self-defining neutrois types are purposefully and impossibly obtuse.

[Sevan]

It would seem that most self-defining neutrois types are purposefully and impossibly obtuse.

*nods*

And I SWEAR I'm not flaming when I say this but....I stopped identifying as bi-gender because...oy. Same kind of bonker-ness. Androgyn works for me.

[no_id]

I was simply amazed by the observation that someone would say 'sorry, you don't belong here'. Criterias...
Pattern-lock; the more you state who you are the more others will tell you what you are.

[Kendall]

As to the purpose for limiting who can be "this label" and "that label", I have no answers except guesses. Insecurity, painful experience(s) in the past, intolerance.

[Pica Pica]

On the other hand, I can see the joy and pleasure of positive definition...the bubbly thrill of asserting what you are. I suppose being neutrois has the awkwardness of being consistently defined by what one is not.

[no_id]

On the other hand, I can see the joy and pleasure of positive definition...the bubbly thrill of asserting what you are. I suppose being neutrois has the awkwardness of being consistently defined by what one is not.

I can relate to the above. When I figured my feelings not being of the male or female gender had a place somewhere it was a definite joyful moment with some pompoms and a lame dance. However, I find the continued self exploration journey to be more awkward since it consists more of 'does not apply to me' puns than 'yes I can relate' waves.
When I wandered the neutrois pages I felt mostly disconnected from them - they simply seemed to put more weight on the physical than the psychological. It's like there's a big gap. Hm, not sure I can put this down in words at 1:41 AM. Ah well..

[PanoramaIsland]

I'm just gender-wonky, and that's that. I escape definition - and believe me, I've tried to define myself. I've tried hard.

I'm not interested in wearing anyone's gender uniform, no matter how forward-thinking that person or group may be. I've even got a bit of discomfort with "genderqueer" at times, for that reason.

Gender cannot be spoken.

[Seshatneferw]

Labels: that's not that, and that's that and should get that. What's your opinion?

My opinion is that it's pretty hard to see what's inside someone else's head. As a consequence, it's hard for transsexuals to explain to the cissexual majority what it really means to be trans (indeed, it took a long time to wrap my mind around the idea of cissexuality, and I still don't get it completely). If it's that hard for those who just happen to be on the wrong side of the gender binary, it's harder still for those of us who don't even have the binary in common.

Each of us has our own little view of what it's like to be, and our language isn't specific enough to allow us to have common ground in discussing this. The way I understand androgyne, or neutrois, or genderqueer, or bigender, or whatever, is not exactly the same way the rest of you understand those terms. There are less examples of neutrois around than there are examples of man or table, and so the words are not as clear either. It would seem a smart thing to do to make an effort to understand each other while accepting that misunderstandings will happen, instead of trying to force one's own definitions on everyone else.

  Nfr

PS. Sorry for being so quiet lately; I've spent a few months in soup cans trying to see which labels fit. So far I've come to the conclusion that 'mushroom soup' is a better match than 'asparagus', but it doesn't seem quite right either. I guess 'shrimp' will be next, or 'intergender'.

[Caroline]

The whole labels thing is such a tricky topic (especially at 1am).  There is such a fuzzy line between on one side appropriating or diluting labels so they don't describe people's experiences particularly well and on the other side policing labels to the extent that people feel excluded.  In fact I think that line is so jagged that it's impossible to walk it without stepping on toes.  I hate to say it, but labels themselves are the problem, the notion that a single word can sum up ones gender identity seems to me to be flawed.  There are so many factors and influences...  Brevity is the enemy!

I'm somebody who likes exact definitions of words and doesn't deal well with fuzziness so I'm certainly guilty of being overly possessive of labels at times particularly when I was first coming out.  I find it so frustrating.

I've been a bit concerned by the tendency at times to describe 'neutrois' as only including those who experience gender dysphoria and/or body dysphoria.  This is really no better than those who say non-op trans women aren't really trans or aren't really women or whatever.  "Labels: that's not that, and that's that and should get that. What's your opinion?"  I think the 'should' part of that is the most dangerous.  I wish nobody felt they 'should' do or 'should' want to do anything based on their gender identity or lack thereof.

"When I wandered the neutrois pages I felt mostly disconnected from them - they simply seemed to put more weight on the physical than the psychological"  I wonder why this is so.  I suppose it could be because it's kinda easier to alter the body than to alter the two gendered society that most of us live in so some neutroises feel an added need for physical transition to offset the social/psychological issues?

The worst part of trying to define words like neutrois and man and woman and agender and androgyne is that there isn't even a consensus about what this whole 'gender' thing is anyway!