Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Happy Memorial Day.

I realized (with Andra's help :)) that I don't know what 'bigender' means.
So what is bigender?
My understanding is that it is either of two things - a person with DID or a person who gives names to both their masculine and feminine side?
Help me out here.

I always thought it was a way of conceptualising androgyne - where male and female parts are attributed as different people. Like when I have a difficult decision and I imagine one side of me advocates one view and the other side the other... But bi-gender is a sort of permanent manifestation of it. Maybe an idea of the possible male that person could have been and the possible female, both residing in the actual androgyne.

Well,  for one thing,  it can't be a 'way of conceptualizing androgyne'.  Not on this site at least given the definitions that have been laid out.

QuoteThese are the only definitions that apply to the Androgyne community, at least on this web site.

Androgyne: An androgynous person
Androgynous: Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

I, of course,  can't speak with any authority on what exactly bigender means to those who use it as their own identification. However, i have come across two differing usages of it and are how i personally understand it.

1. Bigender ( singular ) - Basically two identifications existing at once within a singular person a la male/female etc.

2. Bigender ( plural ) - Two persons each having their own identification ( typically differing from each other ) within one physical body.


Whether or not one believes that it's possible is really irrelevant to the meaning of the terminology and the validity of those who identify as such either. Though, simply limiting it to "a person with DID" is more than a little condecending and demeaning to simply devalue a person's existance by labelling with a disorder that has an extremely high chance of not being diagnosed to said person. Unless of course that we're going to settle on the fact that all persons with GID are simply mentally disordered with psychological issues. ( seeing as there's still no defining 'physical' proof of it being otherwise. )

Quote from: JC on May 26, 2008, 05:04:08 PMThough, simply limiting it to "a person with DID" is more than a little condecending and demeaning to simply devalue a person's existance by labelling with a disorder that has an extremely high chance of not being diagnosed to said person.

Sorry for doing that. I really do want to understand more.

Not that I'm qualified to say, but I thought it was something like where you identify as both male and female, but at separate times (not simultaneously)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigender:

QuoteBigender (bi+gender) is a tendency to move between masculine and feminine gender-typed behaviour depending on context, expressing a distinctly "en femme" persona and a distinctly "en homme" persona, feminine and masculine respectively. It is a subset of transgender.

While an androgynous person retains the same gender-typed behaviour across situations, the bigendered person consciously or unconsciously changes their gender-role behaviour from primarily masculine to primarily feminine, or vice versa...

Because bigender is still a self-applied label, it is not possible to give a definitive outline of the typical bigender. Any description of a bigender is just an example of what someone who identifies as bigender might be like. Although there are patterns, the only firm characteristic is the sense of dual gender.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigender:

QuoteThe tendacy [sic] to move between masculine and feminine gender-typed behaviour depending on context, expressing a distinctly male persona and a distinctly female persona.

While an androgynous person retains the same gender-typed behaviour across situations, the bigendered person purposely changes their gender-role behaviour for the situation. It is particularly noteworthy that this concept emerged from within the transgender community rather than being adopted by the transgender community after it was created by another sub-culture (e.g. transsexual was defined first by the mental health community).

"Cameron started identifying as bigender because he felt that he belonged to both sexes."

(Very similar wording in both of those definitions...:eusa_think:)

When I told my friend that I wasn't "normal", for want of a better word, I came out as bigender, as at the time I felt that I identified as both female and male. However, these definitions seem to focus on actual behaviour, as opposed to just a mental state, and still rely on the idea of binary (rather than permitting there to be a 'grey area' in a person's behavioural/mental identification), so I think "bigender" is almost like the genotype and phenotype, while "gender fluid" can be genotype, or phenotype, or both.

On singular bigender...

It's generally stated that male and female are the sexes opposite to each other (go ask a feminist about 'oppositional sexism') and that everything else is intergender (inbetweeny), however I don't believe that's true.  The opposite of female is 'non-female' (see male or neutrois for example), the opposite of male is 'non-male'. However you define gender, 'maleness' and 'femaleness' are two separate properties.  To draw an analogy to sexual characteristics, estrogenisation and androgenisation are two separate processes, some people have breasts and facial hair without any artificial hormonal intervention!

People's model of gender is often extended beyond the binary by placing people on a line between the 'extremes' of male and female.  So you can be 100% male / 0% female or 70%/30% or 50%/50% or 0%/100%. 

That very simple model doesn't fit everybody though.  I am neutrois, I am 0%/0% NOT 50%/50%.  If I exist then I see no reason why people who are 100%/100%, i.e. bigender, can't exist either.

i wonder what would happen if we had a scale like this to show how much stake a person has in the perceived gender binary...

neutrois...                                                                                                                                  ...Cisgendered
                           '                                                                                         '
                          Me                                                                                  Bigender?
             (what i call pregendered)                                                     (Up near the men and women)

QuoteSorry for doing that. I really do want to understand more.

Nothing wrong with asking questions, hon. Four-year-old kiddies do it, why not us? :angel:

(That said, however, four-year-old kiddies also pick their noses and tell you about their breakfast when you've asked if dogs go "moo", so... ;))

Quote from: Pica Pica on May 26, 2008, 05:25:49 PM
i wonder what would happen if we had a scale like this to show how much stake a person has in the perceived gender binary...

neutrois...                                                                                                                 ...Cisgendered
                           '                                                                               '
                          Me                                                                         Bigender?
             (what i call pregendered)                                           (Up near the men and women)

I notice you have cisgender on the right, 99+% of which are male and female identified.  What makes you think all men and women are invested in the 'percieved gender binary'?  I know plenty of men and women who think that the gender binary is rubbish and don't give a crap about it.

seemed like a good idea at the time.

Bet you some of the people who "don't give a crap about it" are those with the worst gender issues but are too 'macho' (is there a female version of macho? Ditsy?) to say/do anything.

Ah, I just don't get homo-/transphobia. (Arachnophobia I'm well acquainted with and appreciative of, but homophobia...? ???).

Shun the non-believer! Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!! Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Nero on May 26, 2008, 04:24:45 PM
I realized (with Andra's help :)) that I don't know what 'bigender' means.
So what is bigender?

I can't answer from personal experience as I'm not bigender. I'm not even 100% sure what I am  ;) but that's inconsequential for now.

There were a number of threads about being bigender a year or so ago. I just searched the archives, here's an excellent one from Marq and Mia.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,15935.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,15935.0.html)

Here's another compiling various threads.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,9148.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,9148.0.html)

Quote
Androgyne: Bigender: Two Genders/Identities
For Context https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,14749.0.html
More Questions About Bigender https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,15935.0.html
Splitting in Two. https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,8581.20.html
Bigender vs Crossdresser. https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,7227.0.html
Do bigender go out, when in fem mode, in fem attire? https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,11713.0.html
Am I transsexual, or a bigender androgyne? https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,11307.0.html
Torn between two https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,14589.0.html
All about us https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,14824.0.html
Making Progress https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,14962.0.html

Hope this helps

Zythyra

Quote from: Lutin on May 26, 2008, 06:20:31 PM
Bet you some of the people who "don't give a crap about it" are those with the worst gender issues but are too 'macho' (is there a female version of macho? Ditsy?) to say/do anything.

Ah, I just don't get homo-/transphobia. (Arachnophobia I'm well acquainted with and appreciative of, but homophobia...? ???).

Shun the non-believer! Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!! Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!

Er, what?  I was trying to say that there are plenty of cismen and ciswomen who (despite being binary identified) are not invested in the gender binary, are not trans/homo/non-binary phobic in the slightest and do not place perjorative connotations on not conforming to gender stereotypes.

If I'd pay more attention, these things wouldn't happen...

My two cents are with Pica's vid.  So yeah.  Go read that.  :P

QuoteEr, what?  I was trying to say that there are plenty of cismen and ciswomen who (despite being binary identified) are not invested in the gender binary, are not trans/homo/non-binary phobic in the slightest and do not place perjorative connotations on not conforming to gender stereotypes.

Ha! Sorry, yeah, no idea what I was on. Thought I was thinking that when you said "I know plenty of men and women who think that the gender binary is rubbish and don't give a crap about it" that you meant that people genuinely don't care about gender issues and *can* (but not necessarily *do*) act hostile-ly towards people who identify as having GID. If that makes sense, which it very well may not - my brain has gone on holidays. I've been writing a politics essay now for five days straight, and I'm completely thinked out  :icon_headache: :P. Euuggggh...

And you're right, Jaimey, Pica's video *was* good. :icon_yes:

Quote from: Andra on May 26, 2008, 05:20:07 PM
It's generally stated that male and female are the sexes opposite to each other (go ask a feminist about 'oppositional sexism') and that everything else is intergender (inbetweeny), however I don't believe that's true.  The opposite of female is 'non-female' (see male or neutrois for example), the opposite of male is 'non-male'.

The problem with this approach is that it isn't how people usually view either the concept of 'gender' or the concept of 'opposite'. In the grand scheme of things, calling 'male' and 'female' opposites does not require that they are the opposite ends of a single property, just that one can draw a straight line where those two typically are at the opposite ends. And that certainly holds.

Quote from: Andra on May 26, 2008, 05:20:07 PM
People's model of gender is often extended beyond the binary by placing people on a line between the 'extremes' of male and female.  So you can be 100% male / 0% female or 70%/30% or 50%/50% or 0%/100%. 

That very simple model doesn't fit everybody though.  I am neutrois, I am 0%/0% NOT 50%/50%.  If I exist then I see no reason why people who are 100%/100%, i.e. bigender, can't exist either.

Yes. The various gender options do not all fit on a single straight line; it's more a multidimensional space, where 'male', 'female' and a number of others are simply areas where people congregate. How we divide this space into separate sections is to some extent arbitrary, although some divisions are more natural than others. Also, if one wants to project that space into one dimension, the most clear gender differences will be visible on a straight line between 'male' and 'female', with all the rest lumped together in the middle -- but like you say, that is a very one-sided view of what's going on.

(Oh, and Lutin, today I had a couple of slices of dark bread for breakfast. It wasn't too bad, but the coffee I had after getting to work was really yummy. :eusa_shhh:)

  Nfr

Quote from: Seshatneferw on May 27, 2008, 03:40:36 AM
The problem with this approach is that it isn't how people usually view either the concept of 'gender' or the concept of 'opposite'. In the grand scheme of things, calling 'male' and 'female' opposites does not require that they are the opposite ends of a single property, just that one can draw a straight line where those two typically are at the opposite ends. And that certainly holds.

The approach is problematic because other people are too uneducated on the issue to see the concept that way?  Sorry, I don't see that as being *my* problem.

Quote from: Seshatneferw on May 27, 2008, 03:40:36 AM
Yes. The various gender options do not all fit on a single straight line; it's more a multidimensional space, where 'male', 'female' and a number of others are simply areas where people congregate. How we divide this space into separate sections is to some extent arbitrary, although some divisions are more natural than others. Also, if one wants to project that space into one dimension, the most clear gender differences will be visible on a straight line between 'male' and 'female', with all the rest lumped together in the middle -- but like you say, that is a very one-sided view of what's going on.

You saying that a person with no sex characteristics and a person who has both D cup breasts and a dense beard are not clearly different?  Trust me, when I walk around in a tight t-shirt with a binder on, my lack of sex characteristics is pretty obvious to those around me.  The only reason 'male' and 'female' are seen as the end points is due to them appearing to vastly outnumber everyone.  People can't conceptualise what they don't know exists...  I don't understand why you're trying to defend the status quo on this :/

Quote from: Lutin on May 26, 2008, 07:43:36 PM

And you're right, Jaimey, Pica's video *was* good. :icon_yes:

Take a cold shower.

Quote from: Andra on May 27, 2008, 04:37:19 AM
The approach is problematic because other people are too uneducated on the issue to see the concept that way?  Sorry, I don't see that as being *my* problem.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation with them, then yes, it is your problem too, not just theirs.

Quote
You saying that a person with no sex characteristics and a person who has both D cup breasts and a dense beard are not clearly different?

Of course they are different -- but from the point of view of our hypothetical fundamentalist redneck, they are similar in that neither of them belongs celarly to one gender.

Quote
I don't understand why you're trying to defend the status quo on this :/

I'm not. I'm just trying to say that the issue goes deeper than just being able to say that 'male' and 'female' are not opposites. Sorry if I gave a wrong impression.

  Nfr

Quote from: Andra on May 26, 2008, 05:20:07 PM
On singular bigender...

It's generally stated that male and female are the sexes opposite to each other (go ask a feminist about 'oppositional sexism') and that everything else is intergender (inbetweeny), however I don't believe that's true.  The opposite of female is 'non-female' (see male or neutrois for example), the opposite of male is 'non-male'. However you define gender, 'maleness' and 'femaleness' are two separate properties.  To draw an analogy to sexual characteristics, estrogenisation and androgenisation are two separate processes, some people have breasts and facial hair without any artificial hormonal intervention!

You rang? :laugh:

As a feminist, I think 'oppositional sexism' is absolutely the largest difficulty most of us have. We come to 'think' that female and male must be polar opposites, and those opposites are mostly defined as 'what is not male, MUST be female.' Which is obviously a crock of cow-made fertilizer.

The opposite of human, regardless of identity (I want to thank Andra for pointing out something I said that I did not mean the way it was received. Very poor wording and thoughtlessness on my part.) is "not human." Our ranges exist within each of us and tend to be developed in ways that are conditioned by the culture and the society we live in.

All humans have ranges of emotional and mental congruity with our so-called "gender-specific" ways of being. A lot of people sublimate what they truly feel and want with what they feel they are 'supposed' to feel and want.

And I find it especially true of TSes. We frequently react to stereotypical socio-cultural definitions and proscriptions about how one deports him or her self if we are a particular gender. We often become caricatures of real live human beings in our quests to be 'accepted' for whom we are. At the same time we deny what moves us and what we think and feel for fear that we won't present ourselves properly. That improper presentation we are concerned will out us or that someone will read us.

The one thing that most radical feminists seem to feel denigrates womanhood by MTFs is that stereotypical presentation of 'feminity.' So many are simply over-the-top and appear to, and actually do, undercut a lot of basic behavioral arguments about women being allowed to be whom we are. Their incessant and often ridiculous quest to somehow live-into a 1950s-60s model of feminity as knock-off June Cleavers and Carole Brady's makes them and females look downright stupid, imo.

And, tbh, imo it is because they are so damned convinced that they must fit some stereotypical role that defines 'feminity' as never liking sports, never being able to face a spider alone, always talking like Minnie Mouse or Betty Boop and always having to adore make-up, skirts (for which there ARE some very good reasons to prefer for some of us, just often not the reason they give for doing so) and being sexualized by men that undercuts a lot of trans-people with radical feminists and other feminists as well.

Humans are simply not as simple and cut-and-dried as the stereotypes. Social custom and its enforcement demanded for a long time that women wear dresses. Women adore make-up. Women find all the fluff in Cosmo and Glamour to be definitely interesting.

I'd rather read Utne Reader or Serano's last book or Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness than 'women's' magazines. I chose my clothes and when to wear make-up for my own comfort and desire, not out of some 'presentation' I am supposed to make.

And guess what? That works out more than fine.

Relegating humanity to stereotypical "opposites" is just plain silly.

Nichole 

Quote from: Nichole on May 27, 2008, 10:43:35 AM
The opposite of female AND male is "not human." Our ranges exist within each of us and tend to be developed in ways that are conditioned by the culture and the society we live in.

You do realise you're replying to a neutrois right?  You should read 15 posts up, which mentions how I identify. This reads to me like conflating gender role with gender identity or conflating masculinity with male and femininity with female.  I don't see how society and culture have 'developed' my gender identity at all.  I subscribe to the view that it's something inate not something nurtured :-\

As for the rest of your post.  Very much agreed.

See also apologies above and below.

If innate-ness was all that bothered you, let me add it.

Do I believe there are certain biological facts that make us 'tend' toward certain ways of feeling out gender and sex? Well, yes, Almost certainly the reason so many humans regard themselves as one or the other I due to horman-bathes or the lack of them
in uetero. I do find that there appears to be a natural inclination among estrogen-laden individuals to move 'closer together' when threatened than is true of testosterone-laden individuals. Estrogen appears to enhance wiring for 'communion' and testosterone enhances wiring for 'agency.'

There also does appear to be a favoring of 'intuitive' behaviors that appear to be hormonally-affected with both hormones. However, the natural inclinations do not seem as completely determining as do the factors of conditioning to make stronger whatever that inclination happens to be.
Those traits seem to me to be the most noticeable effects of different hormones.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on May 27, 2008, 12:19:13 PM
Yes, I understood that leaving out your particular identification was going to be problematic for you, Andra. I tend to lump us all in there as human and the male-female bits, along with the neutrality, is simply a part of human. Some humans partake, perhaps, more of one than of the other. Others perhaps balance or mostly balance such inclinations.

Ah so you realised you were calling me "not human" then?  Thanks.

Luckily I've stopped expecting any bloody better around here...
...
...

Quote from: Andra on May 27, 2008, 12:51:06 PM

Quote from: Nichole on May 27, 2008, 12:19:13 PM
Yes, I understood that leaving out your particular identification was going to be problematic for you, Andra. I tend to lump us all in there as human and the male-female bits, along with the neutrality, is simply a part of human. Some humans partake, perhaps, more of one than of the other. Others perhaps balance or mostly balance such inclinations.

Ah so you realised you were calling me "not human" then?  Thanks.

Luckily I've stopped expecting any bloody better around here...
...
...

That is a case of taking offense when none is intended. I apologize for my thoughtlessness in defining human unintentionally as 'male and female.' It was thoughtless and thank you for clarifying to me my thoughlessness. Please accept my apologies and I would ask them as well of any others I unintentionally left out. Of course, I believe we are all human. 


Nichole

locked for just a bit. sorry for starting this.

Quote from: Nero on May 26, 2008, 04:24:45 PM
Happy Memorial Day.

I realized (with Andra's help :)) that I don't know what 'bigender' means.
So what is bigender?
My understanding is that it is either of two things - a person with DID or a person who gives names to both their masculine and feminine side?
Help me out here.

I don't know. I don't have a clue. It sounds like another explanation for androgyny. Okay... so maybe I have a clue.  However I'll support anyone who identifies as such ;)

C