When I first discovered the term androgyne and made videos about it and such, I believed that androgyne was a genuine alternative gender identity that was whole and full in itself and with a probable biological cause.
Having been mooching around the androgyne woods for a while now, my opinion has changed quite a bit.
I think the creation of an androgyne is a social/psychological phenomena and that an androgyne is not someone partaking in a different identity but someone who has not developed a normal identity when it comes to gender. So the male androgyne is a male who did not develop a 'normal' male identity; a female androgyne is a woman who didn't develop a 'normal female' identity and that there are others who identify as androgyne who are trans who haven't developed, or are developing, an identity opposite to their birth sex.
What does anyone else think of this idea?
Are you speaking from a psychological point of view, or digging down into more complicate neuro-biochemistry and the like?
psychological
Actually, I believe I've known males like you describe. And I think socialization or the lack thereof has something to do with it. I don't think I'm trans because of my poor female socialization, but I think it had a major impact on my development.
I never really got to know any nonrelative females on more than a very superficial 'acquaintance level', no female friends at all (even the sexual encounters I've had were women I did not know) and was completely ostracized and psychologically tortured by them. This continued even into adulthood.
Curiously as I've read up on this lately, this lack of female companionship is said to be common in cis males with major psych issues.
Was there a lack of proper male socialization in your background?
It is an interesting idea Pica Pica, however, I am not sure that one can get away from the biochemical component.
I understand you to say "normal," meaning as in the vast majority of humans, say some 96% of the general population, that identify in a manner that corresponds to their genetic sex. That is to say, for persons with a 46XY genotype, identify as male gender; and for persons with 46XX as female gender.
How do you account for 46XY genotypical males who present with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and who almost in every case identify as female, are phenotypically female, and have a female identity? That's about 1:20,000 "females" in the population.
In the case of CAIS, these persons produce androgens, but cannot utilize them. The testosterone is aromatized into estrogen, from the time the person is developing in the womb.
So nature, or nurture. Are these person gendered women because they phenotypically and biochemically women, or because they are brought up as women and identify as women?
From what I read about the biological vbasis of GID I am inclined to go along the the lines expressed by JamieD.
Evidence from real-time imaging of the brain at work indicates that the MTF picture is more often than not somewhere closer to the cis-females but not quiet identical. Also, certain sexually dimorphic structures, such as the BNST, areas of the putamen and cingual, have been shown to have no differences between MTF and cis-females.
So, I think the existing medical data support the view the spectrum of ci-female - MTF- androgynous - null - androgynus - FTM- cis male.
Now, that is not to say that I dismiss the power of societies in creating the gender roles, but what I asm talking about above, is stricltly , and I repeat, strictly about ou innate gender identity.
Fabuoulose topic Pica-Pica...hopefully we can keep troll-free
Quote from: peky on February 19, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
From what I read about the biological vbasis of GID I am inclined to go along the the lines expressed by JamieD.
Evidence from real-time imaging of the brain at work indicates that the MTF picture is more often than not somewhere closer to the cis-females but not quiet identical. Also, certain sexually dimorphic structures, such as the BNST, areas of the putamen and cingual, have been shown to have no differences between MTF and cis-females.
So, I think the existing medical data support the view the spectrum of ci-female - MTF- androgynous - null - androgynus - FTM- cis male.
Now, that is not to say that I dismiss the power of societies in creating the gender roles, but what I asm talking about above, is stricltly , and I repeat, strictly about ou innate gender identity.
Fabuoulose topic Pica-Pica...hopefully we can keep troll-free
Hi Peky,
I think you and Jamie may be coming at this from trans perspective rather than an 'androgyne' perspective.
Well, as we all know, normal is a very wobbly thing... but I'm not talking about '
46XY genotypical males who present with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and who almost in every case identify as female', I'm talking about genotypical males who identify as androgyne (and females who do so) and presupposing that the androgyne identity has a psychological not biochemical basis.
That for whatever reasons the psychological identification of the male with malehood or the psychological identification of females with femalehood went down a different path to create an androgyne identity. Essentially that androgynes are made as opposed to born.
Quote from: Not-so Fat Admin on February 19, 2013, 01:17:54 PM
Was there a lack of proper male socialization in your background?
No. I have a dad and always had one or two very close male friends although the majority of my friends have been female.
I don't think I'm talking about male socialisation, as I am able to socialise pretty well with males, it's more identification. As I grew I developed an identification of myself not as a male.
I presume my clumsiness and general poor motor skills, combined with my quick verbal and language skills made me a more fitting companion for females and I could 'compete' and form better social basis with them, leading me not to identify with the males about me. That said, the fact I was a male meant that I didn't identify a female identity, leading me to develop an androgynous one. That's all.
Quote from: Not-so Fat Admin on February 19, 2013, 01:49:59 PM
Hi Peky,
I think you and Jamie may be coming at this from trans perspective rather than an 'androgyne' perspective.
Yes. That.
In saying what I am about androgyne, I'm not really saying anything about trans. I think the link between trans and androgyne may be to do with the 'symptoms' rather than the 'causes'. (To borrow an uncomfortably medical analogy).
Also, I'm not talking about androgyne as a social thing as much as a psychological thing. I'm not even talking about developing an androgynous social self, but an androgynous identification.
The reason I brought up CAIS is because those persons identify as female. Now what about person with a lesser form of the syndrome, Partial AIS. They have phenotypically "male" bodies, or intersex presentations, and generally have problems with androgen utilization.
More common than CAIS. They are often referred to as "undermasculinized." I would not be surprised if many of these individuals have gender identification which do not fall in the "normal" range.
How does this exception fit into you overall vision? Might they not be born that way?
I agree. They're called hipsters. :P :laugh:
Quote from: Not-so Fat Admin on February 19, 2013, 01:49:59 PM
Hi Peky,
I think you and Jamie may be coming at this from trans perspective rather than an 'androgyne' perspective.
Actually, I am reasoning from an extreme toward a generalization. Some andogyne identifications may very well be the result of biochemical anomalies that occurred in the womb, or even later; when a person has a sense of multiple genders, or even no gender at all. And we should remember the term "androgyne" was first applied to those with intersex conditions.
Quote from: peky on February 19, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
From what I read about the biological vbasis of GID I am inclined to go along the the lines expressed by JamieD.
Evidence from real-time imaging of the brain at work indicates that the MTF picture is more often than not somewhere closer to the cis-females but not quiet identical. Also, certain sexually dimorphic structures, such as the BNST, areas of the putamen and cingual, have been shown to have no differences between MTF and cis-females.
So, I think the existing medical data support the view the spectrum of ci-female - MTF- androgynous - null - androgynus - FTM- cis male.
Now, that is not to say that I dismiss the power of societies in creating the gender roles, but what I asm talking about above, is stricltly , and I repeat, strictly about ou innate gender identity.
Fabuoulose topic Pica-Pica...hopefully we can keep troll-free
It is a good topic, but as I am already posting in it, it cannot be troll-free. :o
Quote from: Pica Pica on February 19, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: Not-so Fat Admin on February 19, 2013, 01:17:54 PM
Was there a lack of proper male socialization in your background?
No. I have a dad and always had one or two very close male friends although the majority of my friends have been female.
I don't think I'm talking about male socialisation, as I am able to socialise pretty well with males, it's more identification. As I grew I developed an identification of myself not as a male.
I presume my clumsiness and general poor motor skills, combined with my quick verbal and language skills made me a more fitting companion for females and I could 'compete' and form better social basis with them, leading me not to identify with the males about me. That said, the fact I was a male meant that I didn't identify a female identity, leading me to develop an androgynous one. That's all.
Hmm. That's interesting. I actually have these things (though maybe not to the extent you do) as well but could not relate to females. I'm not very physically inclined. Took me a long time to learn to climb a tree. Too nearsighted and clumsy for sports. I'm not masculine in that 'outdoorsy/sports' way. Yet I felt like a boy from an early age. Course I'm trans and not androgyne.
And that might be the difference.
No, actually I was not coming from a trans perspective, I was coming from a "continuum" conceptualization.
I think that the androgynous gender identity akin to bi-sexuality on the sexual orientation axis. I think, based on the existing medical research, that both sexual orientation and gender identity exist in a continuum that is mostly if not at all biologically determined.
The interesting question one can posit is: to what extent can we bend our gender identity by pure volition?
Has a cis- heterosexual male who has sex with another cis-male in prison, temporarily change his sexual orientation?
Quote from: peky on February 19, 2013, 04:59:43 PM
Has a cis- heterosexual male who has sex with another cis-male in prison, temporarily change his sexual orientation?
Great question. What do you think?
I don't think so. A guy who makes another guy his prison b**** is probably not gay, but just wants the feeling of anal sex. They probably make it a rule not to look at each other. :laugh:
Quote from: peky on February 19, 2013, 04:59:43 PM
No, actually I was not coming from a trans perspective, I was coming from a "continuum" conceptualization.
I think that the androgynous gender identity akin to bi-sexuality on the sexual orientation axis. I think, based on the existing medical research, that both sexual orientation and gender identity exist in a continuum that is mostly if not at all biologically determined.
The interesting question one can posit is: to what extent can we bend our gender identity by pure volition?
Has a cis- heterosexual male who has sex with another cis-male in prison, temporarily change his sexual orientation?
My answer is NO. His sexual desires overrides his sensory input, fools himself into believing he is 'doing" a female, and later on makes all kind of rationalizations, but a no time his sexual orientation was changed.
i think for both sexual orientaion and gender identity you can choose not to act on them or to not express them but you cannot by simple volition alter the or change them.
Now, having said that ^^^ I am convice that the brain is "plastic' enough so that under the influence of chemicals it can change.
There is a case report of man who smoked the material inside one of those "vick vap o rub" inhaler, just to letter on show up to an emergency room demanding an SRS because he was a female. His desires for SRS lasted for 3 days. Later on to his chagrin, he went back to be a regular cis-male.
I am not an androgyne so do not really know what you feel, but as an MTF there are a lot of body issues I have and a lot of stuff that cannot be explained by socialization/ lack of male friends and role models. I did not have a lot of friends growing up and from a very early age I saw the competitiveness of the boys, and the conversations the girls were having. I almost always identified more with the girls. I hate stereotypes but whenever I heard them I would want to be the one that was associated with feminine. I hid, and became a near hermit in High School and even in College. But it is almost as if my brain and nervious system is designed to be female while my body is physically male. A lot of androgynous also feel like their bodies are off. If a boy is isolated/ lacking of friends once he hits puberty he is going to get sexual urges and if he is a normal boy, he will want to pursue girls. He will want to have sex, feel strong and dominant and to feel the way a man does. An androgyne by the very nature is not exactly male or female so there is no real desire to "pursue women" like in a straight man. However there may not also be the desire to want to be emotional/ cuddle etc. I am sorry, a lot of these are stereotypes. I do not want to be a stereotype of anything. But there is definitely something biochemical with most androgynes. I agree more verbal, and less physical may contribute in some ways but it all has to do with how many traits are which, and how strong those traits are. I know my mind and nervous system are designed to operate as female, and it is very obvious. It has to do with the way I react to stimuli.
the way I see it gender is taught by our bodies but is still largely a cultural construct. Our prehistoric ancestors, like hundreds of thousands of years ago, had some practical cultural uses for dividing people based on biological reproductive lines. It helped to distinguish those who gave birth and those who didn't and as cultures became more complex so did the idea of gender. So we have men and women (i distinguish these words as the cultural constructs of gender, compared to female/male for biologic differences) two classes of people that are extrapolated from the male/female split.
The biology has little to do with the ideas of masculine versus feminine, testosterone makes me grow hair on my face but it doesn't make me competitive, want to fix cars, enjoy football, and hate cuddling and sharing. These are all taught and conditioned from birth. Because I had a certain type of physicality in my nether regions I was swaddled in blue, called he not she, played with action figures, not dolls, couldn't wear skirts, etc. I was conditioned to fit into a cultural mold that was called masculine or man and is vaguely synonymous with male. But when we explore the whole phenomenon of gender we find lots of grey areas across time and space. Many cultures have some form of third gender or transgender identity, bodies don't come in clearly defined male and female varieties as there is a lot of space for intersexed individuals, things that were considered masculine or feminine in the past or in different cultures can change after time or compared to others.
Sexual orientation is taught by gender men are supposed to attracted to women and vice versa, but in reality it's more along the lines of penises are supposed to go into vaginas. When I was younger I was disgusted by thoughts of sex amongst men, and was sexually attracted to women (specifically cis-women). But as I became more and more aware of myself and my trans*androgyne-ness I realized that i was conditioned to like only women while now I see myself as just sexual and screw the prefix. If I think someone is hot and I enjoy them as a person I am attracted to them despite their bodies or their identities. The idea of homosexuality didn't come about until the 1870s the ancient Greeks and Romans weren't bisexual they just had sex with attractive people despite gender.
We live in a society that is so far beyond its roots that the old ways of seeing ourselves doesn't fit. For me being androgyne isn't about finding middle ground on the gender "spectrum" (a model I don't prescribe to) and being trans* isn't about going to the other side of the cultural divide. It's about, like Pica said, making my own identity and creating space in society for a wildly varied approach to gender and sex. And the more I find and piece together the me I want to be the more loose and vague the ways our culture organizes itself become. There is nothing concrete in our culture and our bodies, bodies are made of flesh and tissue both of which are adaptable and can evolving, normalcy is a myth to provide cultural value and social cohesion.
No longer is the human race bound to the slow toiling process of evolution and the constricts of biology, we have entered an age of self determination where we can take conscious charge of evolution like never before. I like to use the term Posr-Queer Trans-femme- Androgyne to describe myself because using labels is silly and because I am a self-created human. I have issues with my body some of which can't be changed with surgery or hormones but this body is still mine and is still me and doesn't impede me from seeking pleasure and that elusive bastard happiness. I think we should work on creating new ideas and models of thought rather than rehashing old ones to describe our current state.
Feel like I got off topic a bit, anyway /rant, have fun, love and all that's good. :-*
While I can appreciate the thoughts and information provided by those who are not non-binary,
it still comes from a binary point of view or perspective.
I can understand that it is hard to put yourself into a true view of what it is to be non-binary.
After all, I have been watching and listening to you being binary all my life.
On the other hand, I doubt very much if you have anywhere near the perspective of a lifetime of non-binaries.
From a binary point of view, it is typical to look at gender and sex as a having a line that binds them together.
That's logical. We are humans and there are females and males. Everything else must be in between.
That even makes sense to me, and that's how I would look at it if I was binary. It's a binary world.
Except I'm not. There's a lot of us who aren't. A lot.
Virtually almost everything revolves around binary gender.
When it doesn't, binaries even have words for whatever it is, when it doesn't.
There isn't a spectrum or line or continuum (the worst way to put it). It simply isn't there.
To imply that I am something in that middle of what you think is the answer is wrong.
I'm sorry, but that has as much sense as saying that born a male you are always male, regardless of what you do.
We know that's not the case.
There are many different species of animals that share many characteristics.
Doesn't make any of them in the middle of two other species. The term 'different species' comes to mind.
You could say they are pretty damn close as an example.
But you would be wrong in thinking that they are the same.
*A Zebra is not a horse with stripes on it. It's a different species.*
*Tigers have stripes. Darn. Different there, too.*
I am not in the middle of anything. It is really that simple.
I know this because I have watched and learned things about you for 60 yrs.
True, there is a range of males that have female characteristics. And vice versa.
Non-binary doesn't mean in the middle. It means not being binary. It's that simple.
I am not male, I am not female. I might share characteristics of both, but that doesn't mean I am in the middle of them.
I am a separate gender. Non-binary is simply a way of saying that in the language that we use, that is binary.
There isn't a non-binary language that would make sense to binaries. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
The term Androgyn is thrown around a lot. This is in a large part because binaries like to use it to define us.
The problem is, is that you don't have a definition. So you make one up that fits your world.
The binary world. So I just go along with it. We go along with it. But reality is...it's a binary word.
At least it's a start of the understanding that you, the binaries,
aren't the only genders in the world and anything else is in between.
We are a different gender. That's hard to conceive, I know.
Because virtually everything is a construct of a binary approach to how things work.
It's a binary world, but you don't own it. You just occupy your part of it.
And since it is most of it, we go along with the rules you have for your part of it.
This holds true in the same sense for sexuality. There are different kinds. Separate.
Not in the middle of anything.
Seriously, people have to get rid of the idea that somehow,
because we are different, we must be in the middle of other things.
Life could just as easily regard Transsexuals as in between, too.
Never male, never female. But we know this isn't the case.
So why would you think that any of the non-binaries are in the middle of something?
Male and female are not the ends of anything. Think about this, it's important.
They are considered to be the ends, because somebody decided they are.
They could have just as easily decided they are so close together that they are the same thing.
And non-binaries are the ends of a spectrum.
Does this make a spectrum sound pretty stupid? It does from my point of view.
We use the term Androgyn here on this forum as a tradition as much as a way to keep it simple.
Because there are more terms and ways to describe us than there is space and time to do it justice.
It's a pretty big range of characteristics, or combinations of them.
It's pretty easy to think one way, get some more information, and then think another way.
Most stuff in the world is like that. The same holds true for any gender, Trans* or not.
We change our minds so often that we are surprised to find out we did, sometimes.
And we also hold on to bits of information as if they are sacred.
We do this, it's our way of coping with the world. Which is always changing, too.
It's totally realistic to expect yourself to change your idea of what your gender is.
Just because you thought about it. Schrodinger told me this is true. ;)
If we didn't do this, we wouldn't grow and learn more about ourselves.
So, of course we change our thinking. To what works for us best, at the time.
We can change our view of the world anytime we want to. We own it.
Ativan
Brains are so much more complex than the rest of the body, with so much more opportunity for subtle variations. It makes sense to me that if bodies can have more variety than just male or female, brains definitely can.
I had no shortage of opportunity and ability to be a man, and the only reason I'm not is because I'm just... not.
Hmm, I guess I could still be the kind of androgyne "who identify as androgyne who are trans who haven't developed, or are developing, an identity opposite to their birth sex"... I guess it's true that I haven't developed an identity opposite of my birth sex, but when you put it that way it makes it sound like I'm
supposed to. I'm going to keep thinking of myself as MTA rather than a half baked MTF, even if I can't conclusively prove that that's the right way to think of it.
Quote from: Kia on February 20, 2013, 06:02:24 PM
Because I had a certain type of physicality in my nether regions I was swaddled in blue, called he not she, played with action figures, not dolls, couldn't wear skirts, etc. I was conditioned to fit into a cultural mold that was called masculine or man and is vaguely synonymous with male.
If gender is largely a cultural construct, then what makes you different than all the people who were raised like that and turned out to be men?
Quote from: BlueSloth on February 25, 2013, 01:32:27 AM
If gender is largely a cultural construct, then what makes you different than all the people who were raised like that and turned out to be men?
I agree with this and also add that I don't believe that only one factor can explain the phenomenon of androgyny.
You might be absolutely right but this is only a part of the picture. Factors include, psychological, religious, cultural, biological, social, genetic, educational background and many more. They all take part in creating a complex phenomenon such as androgyny.
I am also not really sure what you mean by normal. Is there such a thing as normal? One situation can't apply to another.
Normal: conforming to the conventions of ones group.
Now, normal becomes a question of what or which group.
And do you conform to it. ::)
Also a city in Illinois :P
QuoteIf gender is largely a cultural construct, then what makes you different than all the people who were raised like that and turned out to be men?
You kind of answered it yourself
Quotethe only reason I'm not is because I'm just... not.
I don't know what it is that makes me not a man. All I know is that there is a dissonance between my identity and my body, and how my society perceives my body. Androgyne is the only label that can attempt to capture my identity relative to a binary culture.
Quote from: Kia on February 25, 2013, 07:29:44 PM
I don't know what it is that makes me not a man. All I know is that there is a dissonance between my identity and my body, and how my society perceives my body. Androgyne is the only label that can attempt to capture my identity relative to a binary culture.
Yeah... so, I still don't get why you said gender is largely a cultural construct.
We aren't (or at least myself and those I know were not) raised and taught that individuals have power over their bodies and their identities. I was conditioned to be a boy taught what I had to do to become a man and berated for doing things which are considered unmanly. If I wanted to wear skirts, play dress up or do "girly" things my brother and other boys would harass me emotionally if not physically. Binary culture provides two distinct social roles for people to play based on their bodies and sexual potentiality. Men and Women but on close analysis the biological basis for this isn't as concrete as the culture wants us to believe. Some people are born intersex, some have chromosomal dispositions which don't match their sex characteristics, and there's the trans* phenomenon. Culture creates gender as a way to define and contain individuals. People feel comfortable when life is understandable and easy, the binary provides that. At a glance there is sufficient evidence to support a "girls and/vs boys" scenario, girls have breasts and vaginas boys have penises and hairy arms. That just isn't the case in actuality; we are a network of individuals with the power to self-determination. meaning despite my body I may culturally express myself however I like; I may augment my body in anyway I like as well. Bepenised individuals are free to be women and uterine individuals are free to be men the only thing standing in their way is the culture.
As many people can attest the binary status quo can be pretty brutal. Ignorance, discrimination, and their ugly cohorts reinforce the binary on those who stray to far; they are a feedback system that impose cultural cohesion. If individuals can be what or whoever they want the status quo will fall apart. So to prevent this we condition children to be men and women; the majority of people are okay with their conditioned cultural role applied to their bodies thus "cis". But those of us who fit into the trans* or "other" categories are not happy with the way our bodies are labeled and the way we are conditioned to be. I often ask myself if I would still feel dysphoria, if I would still want hormones, still want to break and burn every masculine thing about myself if I didn't live in a binary culture. Though the fact is that I do so instead of wallowing in depression and finding liberation in suicide or alcohol I have to wander out into the unknown territory beyond given gender identity to create my own as a self determined individual.
I remember when I came out to brother I asked him how he knew he was a man, his response was that he didn't know. His gender was given to him and for some reason unknown to him and I it clicked and fit. I was given the same gender but for some reason it caused friction and dissonance and drove me to some f@cked up places until i realized that "man" was not what I was but what I was told to be so I decided to be something different. If gender were a merely biologic or psychological state then I would just be a mentally unstable freak (not that I'm not), but because gender is abstract, is dynamic (as this online community is evidence to) then it must formed from something a little less concrete such as culture; culture is dynamic as well it changes and evolves as time goes on taking gender roles with it. Now we are redefining gender as a whole which will therefore require a reassembly of our culture.
Kia: Hmmmmm.... ok, I think I'm starting to get it... basically you're calling the labels gender and I'm calling the underlying reality that's being labeled gender. Sort of. Right? We agree on so much, it's got to be just an issue of semantics or definitions.
Ya I think that sounds about right I tend to confuse myself sometimes so... :P
My issue is really with the labeling yes, as the way I see it the being is to dynamic to contain in things like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
All those things are just ways that we understand and make sense of generally nonsensical existence and they tend to consume our identities and prevent us from experiencing a truer self.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaninahat.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fschrodingers-cat.jpg&hash=f5689b4783a36f4bbddba38b20f51dbe280ee847)
Quote from: Kia on February 27, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
All those things are just ways that we understand and make sense of generally nonsensical existence and they tend to consume our identities and prevent us from experiencing a truer self.
*Because we tend to hold on to bits of information and hold them sacred*
The rate that information is changing on a lot of topics, even ones not discussed here, is monumental.
People who share some information together as a group, do so as a way to make sense of everything that is changing in their world.
When that group is the majority, confronting that information with something different or new, is upsetting and goes against their view of the world as they see it, and thus want it to be. It's hard to except changes, sometimes.
When a group of people come along and upset that status of information, they are viewed as someone who is trying to take their world apart and put it back together as something different. Different is then viewed and interpreted as a lie, or something along those lines.
Just look at how many people interpret the bible literally. As if God really spoke like the King James court did. That version of the Bible being the one most quoted, at least in this country. And how taking information from it out of context has been viewed as OK. By some accounts, it defies the information that is available to be able to view it differently. Look at how adamant some are that science is false information because it defies the literal interpretations and out of context thinking.
This same thing is what has happened with information about gender and sexuality. Modern Psychology is how old? Doesn't it come from the 1800's? Yet it is taken as seriously as if it is unbending truth. But at the same time, Psychologists working in the fields of gender and sexuality have taken some big strides in current knowledge. And still there are those who hold on to old and outdated information as being something sacred. Because it holds together a greater majorities view of the world as correct.
It is hard enough to keep up with current knowledge, let alone accepting that it replaces what you know to be true.
Accepting the truth is a hard thing to do.
It means having to confront your fears that your truths may not be true after all.
There are many people out there who use that fear to justify their own fears, because they start to feel left behind.
They are unwilling to accept a new truth, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a new and different truth.
It is one way of looking at the bigotry that we face as the truths about gender and sexuality become more evident.
For some, changing your thinking goes against the majority. That puts you in a position of being outcast.
For others, it just confirms what you already really knew. New knowledge flows around that rock of past truths.
Labels are nothing more than shorthand ways of stating a definition.
When we can't accept a change in those definitions, the labels become false, stale at the least.
Labels are as dynamic as definitions need to be.
To be changing our thinking is to think dynamically, and the definitions of those labels have to change along with it.
Or stop using labels that have outgrown their usefulness. Just like old truths.
*We need to stop holding on to some labels as if they are something sacred, also.*
Ativan
Quote from: Jamie D on February 28, 2013, 11:08:14 AM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaninahat.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fschrodingers-cat.jpg&hash=f5689b4783a36f4bbddba38b20f51dbe280ee847)
LOL! You still have to open the box to confirm what you think has appeared in the window.
Any good scientist will tell you that is the only way to truly confirm whether it is true.
Unfortunately, Schrodinger's box didn't come with a window. Makes me wonder if he had thought about that...
Ativan
Ativan.. I think I love you :o
I think there might be something to your theory, or it least it might hold true for a lot of people. For me, it's a lack of identification with most forms of masculinity that leads me to reject that gender identity. I just don't relate to it, in general.
Still, even when I was a kid, before I knew that it was possible to do HRT or transition or anything like that, I used to think some weird hormonal thing had gone wrong in the womb, like I had almost been born a girl or something. Though there was less dysphoria about it back then; it was more of a casual observation.
Quote from: peky on February 19, 2013, 04:59:43 PMI think that the androgynous gender identity akin to bi-sexuality on the sexual orientation axis.
Ativan already adressed this, but I will also add:
In some respects I consider myself male without hesitation.
In others I tend toward what is commonly considered feminine, and consider myself a girl "in spirit" as it were.
In others I find I don't really identify with gender at all; it's not a paradigm that I can find relevance in.
I suspect Pica Pica and Ativan are both on to something here.
I was just reading a book that presented the idea that language is inherently dualistic, and reinforces dualistic thinking. While there are words for moderation and in-between states, the concept of being in the middle has its antithesis too in the concept of being at the extremes. And so certain kinds of experiences of non-duality cannot be communicated very well in language. Granted the book was talking about mystical experiences, but I immediately saw the application to gender identity.
To be fair, sexuality is not so simple either. It's not just one spectrum -- there is attraction, preferred role(s) and so on -- and each aspect of it is not really a spectrum.
The question about being "temproarily gay" misses something: the act and the identity are not the same. A virgin can identify as straight, gay, bi, asexual, etc. A woman who's had sex only with men can still be bi. Someone who experimented with gay sex may in fact be straight even if they enjoyed it.
Sorry to ramble. Back to the idea of development. I strongly feel certain gender-related taboos and am kind of embarrassed by them. I don't want to be perceived as effeminate. I have mostly been unable to shop in womens' sections of stores. I am afraid of the idea of trying to present myself as anything other than a man, though I do push at the boundary just a little sometimes because the non-masculine aspects of my consciousness demand it. At the same time, I am very much opposed to the competitive, dominant, "strong" and "tough" and warlike paradigm of masculinity *and* to the simpering, approval seeking, traditional feminine paradigm as well. They both strike me as wrong and harmful and uncomfortable.
When I was a child I thought nothing of putting myself into other female roles in play, though, and post-adolescence that came back to me along with an inner voice that seems female. (I'm waiting for the first roleplaying game where you can be an androgyne without also being some really odd/ugly race. I've faked it fairly well a couple of times.)
I spent the majority of my life thinking I was male, and only in the last couple years finally it occurred to me that there is something not cisgender and not "fully" transgender. Though I would argue it's not on the halfway point of another damned spectrum, either :)
I don't know how that fits the idea of "development." I clearly got the early social messages about gender roles and presentation. Somehow that did not turn into a static gender identity, but it imitated one between roughly ages 6 through 39.