Susan's Place Transgender Resources

     Friends,

       I have a question for discussion.  But first, the framework.  A good number of the trans-persons I know in as face to face friends are often very caught up in gender roles and often seem to conform to the standard as set by mainstream western society.

       For example, I am bit less frilly then many of the friends I have in person a more active and adventure seeking girl, confident and reliable and very committed to the ones I love while suspicious of thoughts around me (I had to cut this short ^_~).   One of my large concerns when I first went to go and seek help from a psychologist and psychiatrist was I would be doubted or denied care because I did not conform to the standard gender roles as set by society. 

        So the question, how many of the girls or guys for that matter on here break the mold a bit so to say.  How do you identify your attitude and personality, and how do you express them?  Also, of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with fitting the standard mold..it is the standard for a reason!

         Respectfully,
         -Violet

If you do things to "fit in a mold" it will come across as fake and I'm sure your therapist would catch and note it.

Be yourself.  Look around at all the people you see around you each day, do they dress the same, do their hair the same (you get the idea), NO.

While people might look at how you present yourself, the main issue for the therapist is who you see yourself as.  If you are transioning from MtF and walk into the therapists office in a three piece men's suit, it will create an impression in their mind.  If you walk in there in a party dress, it will create an impression too (probably not a good one).

Dress reasonably for your age and for who you are.

     Sarah,

      Oh I absolutely agree now, when I made the decision not to hide any longer and to start on this road I did not feel that way however.  Perhaps I have a poor sample or a small sample, but many of the people I know in person seem to over compensate quite a bit often to their determent.  And being yourself is absolutely correct. I raised these questions when I first started working with my therapist...(after thanking my therapist for not doubting me =p). 

As Sarah Louise says just be yourself. Do what makes you fee comfortable.

I over compensated in my old disguise... hell did I over compensate.

Now I am me I have changed a lot. My whole out look on life is so much more laid back.

My Style of driving has changed completely I used to drive quite aggressively and I used to concentrate on it a lot. Now I really dont care how fast I go or who goes past me. My only problem is I cannot park any more  ;D ;D

But it is just me being me now which makes me so happy..

Quote from: Violet_Camo on January 20, 2011, 09:18:35 AM
     Friends,

       I have a question for discussion.  But first, the framework.  A good number of the trans-persons I know in as face to face friends are often very caught up in gender roles and often seem to conform to the standard as set by mainstream western society.

       For example, I am bit less frilly then many of the friends I have in person a more active and adventure seeking girl, confident and reliable and very committed to the ones I love while suspicious of thoughts around me (I had to cut this short ^_~).   One of my large concerns when I first went to go and seek help from a psychologist and psychiatrist was I would be doubted or denied care because I did not conform to the standard gender roles as set by society. 

        So the question, how many of the girls or guys for that matter on here break the mold a bit so to say.  How do you identify your attitude and personality, and how do you express them?  Also, of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with fitting the standard mold..it is the standard for a reason!

         Respectfully,
         -Violet

Heh, your interpretation of them falling into gender norms seems to hint that you think they are trying to hard and not being themselves.  A lot of TS myself included dont really think about it, we just be ourselves, yet that might be being a normal average woman/man by society's standards.

I for example want a transitional house wife kind of life for myself, yet, i still do active things like surf, go to the gym, play airsoft, and geeky things like manga, anime, cosplay, video games, etc...   Hardly typical, but that is just how i am. 

It probably feels as natural to them as it does to you.

just know, there's no such thing as a "real man" or a "real woman" regardless of what society might tell us. everyone in some way "breaks" their gender roles somehow, but society sets that bar pretty high that it's well impossible for any of us to reach it.

Quote from: Violet_Camo on January 20, 2011, 09:18:35 AM
So the question, how many of the girls or guys for that matter on here break the mold a bit so to say.  How do you identify your attitude and personality, and how do you express them?

I find this to be an interesting topic.  As far as I can tell, most people I have associated with online perceive me to be male.  But when I am playing games, most other players perceive me to be female.  Apparently, my lack of interest in "PvP" modes and my desire to help others in co-op modes makes me female.  I find this ironic, as I am extremely aggressive in games where there is no cooperative modes.

Before playing games online, I was unaware that only men use curse language and challenge everyone they meet to see who has the bigger sword.  In fact, I find this unlikely.  But it is very clear that when I take an assertive position I am seen as male, and when I am in a caregiver role (particularly if I am playing a character designed for it, such as a healer) I am seen as female.

I have both masculine and feminine elements to my personality.  It depends on my mood.  But how I am perceived can clearly be predicted by gender role bias.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 20, 2011, 11:50:00 AM
I find this to be an interesting topic.  As far as I can tell, most people I have associated with online perceive me to be male.  But when I am playing games, most other players perceive me to be female.  Apparently, my lack of interest in "PvP" modes and my desire to help others in co-op modes makes me female.  I find this ironic, as I am extremely aggressive in games where there is no cooperative modes.

Before playing games online, I was unaware that only men use curse language and challenge everyone they meet to see who has the bigger sword.  In fact, I find this unlikely.  But it is very clear that when I take an assertive position I am seen as male, and when I am in a caregiver role (particularly if I am playing a character designed for it, such as a healer) I am seen as female.

I have both masculine and feminine elements to my personality.  It depends on my mood.  But how I am perceived can clearly be predicted by gender role bias.

that's why you wonder why it even matters whos male or whose female. it makes no sense sometimes, or even most of the time. why we have to be one or the other. from playing online games, you don't have to worry about physical cues, except maybe just voice, but even then, people still gender you.

There are no 'gender roles'.

I try to have the mold conform to me and not the other way around, is the best way to put it. :laugh: I haven't found any terms that are nearly well-fitting enough to get the message across easily, aside from really broad and inclusive terms like "androgyne" or "genderfluid".

Personality-wise i'm very outgoing, friendly, and talkative. I'm a social butterfly, and pretty easygoing and warm as well. I don't get annoyed easily, and i'm fairly confident. Also, I'm the type that never sleeps because there's always *something* to do. Attitude and personality-wise I cross back and forth across the male/female divide depending on what exactly you're looking at.

Quote from: xxUltraModLadyxx on January 20, 2011, 12:00:07 PM
that's why you wonder why it even matters whos male or whose female. it makes no sense sometimes, or even most of the time. why we have to be one or the other. from playing online games, you don't have to worry about physical cues, except maybe just voice, but even then, people still gender you.

It's something that's so automatic in normal society that it's hard to entirely dismiss. One of the most basic things you learn about someone when you directly interact with them is their gender. Also, when you mentally picture someone that you don't know online, they probably take the shape of an amorphous blob. But even then, gender is going to be one of the first things people try to assign to that amorphous blob based on any cues they can find.

Hi Vexing

You said

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 12:04:49 PM
There are no 'gender roles'.

There have always been Gender Roles and always will be, even though the Gender Roles can and will change.  Currently humans assign themselves a Gender Role, because the Gender Role is a term, which is associated with the social sciences and humanities to denote a set of behavioural patterns that accompany a gendered identity in a given social group or system.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 04:46:38 PM
Hi Vexing

You said

There have always been Gender Roles and always will be, even though the Gender Roles can and will change.  Currently humans assign themselves a Gender Role, because the Gender Role is a term, which is associated with the social sciences and humanities to denote a set of behavioural patterns that accompany a gendered identity in a given social group or system.

Kind regards
Sarah B

No 'role' is inherently more male or more female. They are all gender neutral.
If you ascribe a gender to a role, you have done so in error, as roles cannot have a gender.

Hi Vexing

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 04:50:12 PM
No 'role' is inherently more male or more female. They are all gender neutral.
If you ascribe a gender to a role, you have done so in error, as roles cannot have a gender.

A role can be inherently more male or inherently more female.  In societies that humans live in, they will  define what is a female role or a male role, whether it is written down or unspoken.  However, it is up to us individuals to accept or reject those rules as we see fit.

Kind regards
Sarah B

I have to say that I don't really believe in gender roles either.

Mostly, like everything else, they are tools of control, which one group of people try to use to manipulate the behaviour of a different group and as such I personally reject their validity.

In short they only exist if you allow them to. Personally I don't!

Oh - yeah - and to touch on the original point, I'm not particularly "frilly" either, but even in the 1970's I never compromised with my gender shrink. This process is supposed to be about being yourself. There is no point in swapping one ill fitting performance for another. So just be yourself and tell them that if they can't deal with it then that is their problem, not yours.

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 05:05:01 PM
A role can be inherently more male or inherently more female.

Wrong. You can ascribe femininity or masculinity to a role, but that doesn't actually make the role inherently male or female.

QuoteIn societies that humans live in, they will  define what is a female role or a male role, whether it is written down or unspoken.  However, it is up to us individuals to accept or reject those rules as we see fit.

What you're taking about here is culture and tradition. In one culture, it may be traditional for men to knit. In another culture, it is traditional for women to do the knitting. Therefore the acting of knitting has no inherent value as masculine or feminine. It is simply an action.
Roles are inherently genderless. The fact that all roles can be performed by either males or females proves this pemise. Women can weightlift, box, shoot guns, drink beer, like football, etc, etc. Therefore the 'gender' of a role is moot, as it is not restricted to one gender.

When I (and I'm guessing many other people) use the term 'gender role', I don't think we're talking about some inherent trait of a set of actions or behaviors that is independent of culture or environment. In terms of behavior, there are indeed gender roles since it's one of the most salient details to distinguish and group humans. I appreciate the idea of refusing to acknowledge gender roles, but they're not going to go away just because you refuse to believe them.

The fact is, there are certain behaviors associated with members of a certain biological sex, and they are colloquially known as 'gender roles'. Because biological sex is the the means with with certain behaviors are associated with.

Quote from: Nobuko on January 20, 2011, 06:14:33 PM
When I (and I'm guessing many other people) use the term 'gender role', I don't think we're talking about some inherent trait of a set of actions or behaviors that is independent of culture or environment.

Such as?

QuoteIn terms of behavior, there are indeed gender roles since it's one of the most salient details to distinguish and group humans.

And what are these roles?

QuoteThe fact is, there are certain behaviors associated with members of a certain biological sex

Which still does not mean that the role itself is gendered in any way. Because a behaviour is associated with males, does not make it a 'male' behaviour. Correlation does not indicate cause - otherwise it is irrefutable that pirates cause global warming.

I never really felt/knew of/adhered to gender roles until I came out as trans. Then I was pressed (mostly by the trans community) to be MOAR MANLY. Still not sure what that means.

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 06:31:15 PM
Such as?

There is no such as. There are no inherent actions or behaviors in biological sex, at least to my belief.

Quote
And what are these roles?

The social and behavioral norms considered 'appropriate' to people of a certain biological sex. Do I really need to explain this further? >_o

Quote
Which still does not mean that the role itself is gendered in any way. Because a behaviour is associated with males, does not make it a 'male' behaviour. Correlation does not indicate cause - otherwise it is irrefutable that pirates cause global warming.

What does this even mean? Where do I ever imply causation? You're taking definitions, redefining them, and then projecting them onto others. If you don't want to associate "behavior associated with males" and "male behavior" as being the same thing, then fair enough. But this seems more like disagreeing for the sake of disagreement as opposed to meaningful conversation, especially when you're throwing out strawmans like the 'pirates cause global warming' bit.

tl;dr: Your definition of gender role and the general definition of gender role are different, so arguing this is a moot point. What term do you use to refer to the social and behavioral norms associated with a person's biological sex anyway?

Quote from: Nobuko on January 20, 2011, 06:53:10 PM
There is no such as. There are no inherent actions or behaviors in biological sex, at least to my belief.

Excellent, then we are in total agreement  :)

Hi Rejennyrated

Quote from: rejennyrated on January 20, 2011, 05:17:43 PM
Mostly, like everything else, they are tools of control, which one group of people try to use to manipulate the behaviour of a different group and as such I personally reject their validity.

When people control and manipulate people like a boy likes pink, but is verbally abused or physical punished to conform to some idealogical system, then this is just plain, Abuse.

Quote from: rejennyrated on January 20, 2011, 05:17:43 PM
In short they only exist if you allow them to. Personally I don't!

However it does not matter if they exist or not, because fundamentally, the majority of humans on this planet are biologically male or female (not counting the variations) and if there are no gender roles per se, the majority of these humans, will assign themselves to one of these two groups.  Hence you will still have two distinct groups, no matter how they define themselves.

Quote from: rejennyrated on January 20, 2011, 05:17:43 PM
So just be yourself and tell them that if they can't deal with it then that is their problem, not yours.

As always.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 07:04:33 PM
Hence you will still have two distinct groups, no matter how they define themselves.

Sure. Having distinct groups has nothing to do with roles though. The groups could have completely unified roles, regardless of their division in other ways.
Your argument has no logical consistency.

Quote from: Nygeel on January 20, 2011, 06:43:16 PM
I never really felt/knew of/adhered to gender roles until I came out as trans. Then I was pressed (mostly by the trans community) to be MOAR MANLY. Still not sure what that means.

It means you are supposed to do something risky and stupid, and probably end up with an injury.  For example, riding a bicycle off a ramp so quickly that the wheel falls off when you land.  At least, that was my experience growing up with the guys.  We were always doing something adventurous and (sometimes) dangerous.

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 05:32:01 PM
Wrong. You can ascribe femininity or masculinity to a role, but that doesn't actually make the role inherently male or female.

Yes you can ascribe female and male characteristics to a role.  However, the characteristics are a part of the role and over time become intrinsic and hence, inherent in that role.  Therefore, a role can be inherently male or female.

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 05:32:01 PM
the acting of knitting has no inherent value as masculine or feminine. It is simply an action.

I agree

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 05:32:01 PM
Roles are inherently genderless.

Wrong, Definition of role^1,2 goes something like this, "the characteristic and expected social behaviour of an individual".  As discussed above humans define femininity and masculinity, rightly or wrongly in a given society or culture and these terms are applied accordingly. Which proves your original premise "There are no 'gender roles'." wrong.

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 05:32:01 PM
The fact that all roles can be performed by either males or females proves this premise. Women can weightlift, box, shoot guns, drink beer, like football, etc, etc.

Nobody disputes the fact, that given a role, either a male or a female can perform that role (regardless of how well that role is performed).  Gender roles and who play those roles are two separate issues. So what you wrote above does not prove your original premise.

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 05:32:01 PM
Therefore the 'gender' of a role is moot, as it is not restricted to one gender.

Wrong, the gender of the role is the point.  But restriction to play that gender role, is not.

Kind regards
Sarah B
[1] Role meaning one (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role)
[2] Role meaning two (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:role&sa=X&ei=h_A4Tbb4K43xrQeTwpWpCA&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQkAE)

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 08:42:18 PM
Yes you can ascribe female and male characteristics to a role.  However, the characteristics are a part of the role and over time become intrinsic and hence, inherent in that role.  Therefore, a role can be inherently male or female.

I don't think you're working on the same definition of 'inherent'.
For a gender role to be 'inherent' it needs to be hard-wired on some biological or universal level.
If it is not hard-wired on some biological or universal level, then it is a construct and therefore cannot be 'inherent'.

QuoteWrong, Definition of role^1,2 goes something like this, "the characteristic and expected social behaviour of an individual".  As discussed above humans define femininity and masculinity, rightly or wrongly in a given society or culture and these terms are applied accordingly. Which proves your original premise "There are no 'gender roles'." wrong.

Right there in bold.
If something is an 'expected social behaviour', then it in not inherent, because it is based on socialisation, not based on an inherent property of biochemistry.
You raise a bunch of human beings in isolation and the women won't be inherently drawn to cooking and darning socks. Different cultures have different socialised roles for men and women.
If different portions of humanity have different social roles for men and women, then these behaviours cannot be called 'inherent' because they differ across cultures!.

Quote from: perlita85 on January 20, 2011, 08:47:32 PM
I gree wit Nobuko, and I belive was the intention of Violet to discuss the tendancy of some TG TS peopel to voer do the gender roles ascribed by society. No need to get back in the semantics of "gender roles."

I agree.  This 2-paged discussion of linguistics is a waste of forum space.  It has nothing to do with the concepts posed by the OP.

I don't believe that gender roles (or stereotypes) are inherently gendered male or female, rather they are culturally learned and strictly enforced from an early age.

Personally, I prefer gender bagels to gender rolls   :laugh:

Z

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 07:07:14 PM
Sure. Having distinct groups has nothing to do with roles though. The groups could have completely unified roles, regardless of their division in other ways.
Your argument has no logical consistency.

The groups will act differently, and if they act differently, they will be role playing, why? Because they are human.  Hence my argument is logical.

Kind regards
Sarah B

i would like to take it a step further and say that i don't think gender is anything more than a human identity. yes, males and females may have brains that are wired differently, but i can't find two males or two females that are exactly the same. who is anyone to tell us what it is to be a male or what it is to be a female when there is no one set in stone example of a person doing that, that we should all worship and try to be like. what's more, anything can shift or change our genders. not as dramatically as some tabloid headline screaming "he was a she!"but, so many things about you can change. like your favorite color so on and so forth. gender truly is socially constructed as something others are expected to live up to, but like i said before, males and females may have different brain wiring, but how many of us have not done something we would've truly enjoyed doing, and instead said, "i can't do this because i'm a man/woman." pretty much everyone.

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 09:42:41 PM
The groups will act differently, and if they act differently, they will be role playing, why? Because they are human.  Hence my argument is logical.

But the behaviours displayed are not inherent. They are learned.

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 10:45:37 PM
But the behaviours displayed are not inherent. They are learned.

that's true. an example, i don't think i would want to wear makeup at all if it wasn't a cultural thing women do to appear more attractive. it's not like we come out of the womb knowing all this stuff. we have to learn it somehow.

If gender roles are based, on inherent characteristics based on our biological bodies or learned through socialisation.  It does not matter, we have gender roles in our society and they will be with us for the foreseeable future.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 11:29:53 PM
If gender roles are based, on inherent characteristics based on our biological bodies or learned through socialisation.  It does not matter, we have gender roles in our society and they will be with us for the foreseeable future.

In that case, you don't forsee very far.

Hi Vexing

Quote from: Vexing on January 20, 2011, 11:47:54 PM
In that case, you don't forsee very far.

Unfortunately, I 'forsee' a lot further than that. Thank you Vexing for the discussion, it was enlightening.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on January 20, 2011, 11:56:20 PM
Unfortunately, I 'forsee' a lot further than that.

Apparently not.

:police: And there, I think perhaps we should leave it, and let Violet have her thread back.

Sorry for the slight derail of which I myself was a part. Even if we didn't end up agreeing it was interesting to see the various arguments.

Right now good people lets try to get back on the original track which I think was about whether people in the early stages of transition tend to try and become the stereotypical member of their target gender, and indeed whether this is simply adopted behavior with intent of making their passage through the "therapy and assessment" stage easier.  :police:

"I have notice what Violet point it out, and ponder perhaps as an "overcorrection" mechanis. Personally, I a m what I am, most of the time playing conciously or uncociously a female role, and sometimes uncociosly playing a male role." –Perlita85, Gender Roles
 
       Perlita85, that is exactly what I mean.  It is interesting to me as often I play myself as though I am on a stage given my environment and only when in private, or on leave or in a safe place off post or very safe place on post do I let myself be myself.  My therapist and significant other refer to me as brilliant actress ^_~.  (when ever I try to let myself out in a duty environment my partner, doctor and the Chaplin all reel me in >.<)

        Vexing,
   Yes, Gender Roles are a social construct and change based on the social-cosm and social microcosm that one prescribes to.  I find myself to be far more fluid as the situation dictates unless I am at home that is, there I relax.  Gender Roles are learned, regardless as to were you fit your taught them though osmosis via your environment (personal interactions, media, and direct education among others). 

   There is no need to become combative about the discussion, the point was a discussion ^_~ and I am thankful so many of you have decided to participate.  But yes, I was curious as to what sorts of social identifies many of you hold as your own.  What sort of social diversity is there in our community?  But again, it's a discussion! I'm not about to place it on rails! :D

          Respectfully,
          -Violet
   
   

           

Nowadays, I do what comes naturally and let other people ask the questions.

Quote from: perlita85 on January 21, 2011, 08:20:59 PM
If you look at GG who are ascertive you will notice that they have learn to play the male role.

I strongly disagree with this; women can be strong and assertive without playing a 'male role'.

Vexing and Sarah-

You're both right- to a point. I will say that many of our society's expectations for people of each sex are purely constructed and artificial and that socialization explains how most stereotypical behaviors become what people are expected to abide by.  However, I think there are sexually differentiated behaviors that generally align with biological sex. Obviously this isn't always the case as it ignores intersexuality and the many children whose biological "gender role performances", as it were (though it seems criminal to use that word, and I don't think it's really an appropriate label), do not match the socially acceptable performance. But it's impossible to ignore the fact that animals have behaviors that differ between the sexes, and humans are no different.

For example, chimpanzee boys will often tangle with each other and fight with sticks, while the girls frequently carry sticks and treat them like dolls or babies. These aren't products of social construction, obviously. In the same way, humans have some behaviors which are innate and differ between boys and girls. This isn't to say that the behaviors are absolutely differentiated, perfectly, all the time, but to say that zero human behaviors are innately male or female seems misleading, at least.

Quote from: Rebekah with a K-A-H on January 22, 2011, 01:49:25 AMHowever, I think there are sexually differentiated behaviors that generally align with biological sex.

Humans are different than other animals, though.  We are smart enough to realize that we don't have to be the caregiver just because we are female.  We are also smart enough (presumably) to know that males don't have to bonk each other on the head with sticks to impress females.

Unfortunately, our intelligence hasn't really changed the way everyone behaves in practice.

Quote from: Rebekah with a K-A-H on January 22, 2011, 01:49:25 AM
For example, chimpanzee boys will often tangle with each other and fight with sticks, while the girls frequently carry sticks and treat them like dolls or babies. These aren't products of social construction, obviously.

Actually, they are. Chimps learn the stick carrying behaviour from other chimps - in tribes where there are no stick carriers, none of them develop the behaviour.
(Note: some male chimps also demonstrate stick carrying/doll behaviour, but grow out of it)

QuoteIn the same way, humans have some behaviors which are innate and differ between boys and girls.

Such as?

QuoteThis isn't to say that the behaviors are absolutely differentiated, perfectly, all the time, but to say that zero human behaviors are innately male or female seems misleading, at least.

I don't think so. Prove to me that behaviours are hard wired from birth and I'll accept your premise.

I hate to make the primitive human society argument, because it sounds sexist, and, well, kind of is sexist, but there's a reason that the robust member of the human species was the one that went hunting and the gracile one stayed home with the kids in every primitive culture I'm aware of. Considering the fact that these societies organically grew apart from each other, it's not just because they all learned it fromeach other.

Sexual dimorphism can and does affect animal psychology. A similar study to the chimp one followed a group of baby rhesus monkeys (a primate which I don't think is a big tool-user, though I'm not too familiar with them) and gave them wheeled toys and plushies. Predictably enough, the boys sought the trucks and the girls sought the plushes.

I don't really even like the argument I'm making, but I think there's more validity to it than you give it credit for.  Humans aren't tabulae rasae when they're born.

Quote from: Rebekah with a K-A-H on January 22, 2011, 02:15:30 AM
I hate to make the primitive human society argument, because it sounds sexist, and, well, kind of is sexist, but there's a reason that the robust member of the human species was the one that went hunting and the gracile one stayed home with the kids in every primitive culture I'm aware of. Considering the fact that these societies organically grew apart from each other, it's not just because they all learned it fromeach other.

Sexual dimorphism can and does affect animal psychology. A similar study to the chimp one followed a group of baby rhesus monkeys (a primate which I don't think is a big tool-user, though I'm not too familiar with them) and gave them wheeled toys and plushies. Predictably enough, the boys sought the trucks and the girls sought the plushes.

I don't really even like the argument I'm making, but I think there's more validity to it than you give it credit for.  Humans aren't tabulae rasae when they're born.

Humans are not chimps. Humans are not rhesus monkeys.

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 02:21:46 AM
Humans are not chimps. Humans are not rhesus monkeys.

They are primates, though. We're in the same tribe as our good friends Pan paniscus.

Quote from: Rebekah with a K-A-H on January 22, 2011, 02:32:40 AM
They are primates, though. We're in the same tribe as our good friends Pan paniscus.

Yes, but we're typing on computers and they're carrying sticks and throwing feces at each other.

Vexing, being a Kiwi has obviously never been to a Collingwood vs Carlton  AFL match!  ;D

There are roles in every society which are generally accepted , within that society, as being appropriate for men or women though.
For example,  until relatively recently a female plumber was unheard of, yet now is accepted to a greater or lesser degree in most Western nations.

If we keep in mind the cultural setting when discussing this subject we will perhaps achieve a better understanding of what was originally intended.

Quote from: Rebekah with a K-A-H on January 22, 2011, 02:15:30 AM
I hate to make the primitive human society argument

I hate to bust the primitive human society argument, as I am a naturalist.  But I feel the need to point out that modern societies are not primitive.  The vast majority of biological advantages for gender roles no longer apply.  For the most part, females are just as capable as being the "breadwinner" as males are at taking care of the kids.  Breastfeeding is no longer the sole resource for young babies, and any advantage that the male might have had to fulfill his role no longer applies.

If we lived in a hunter/gatherer society, then I would agree 100% that females need to stay at the house and take care of the kids.  But I (and presumably, you) do not live in a hunterer/gather society.

       My original question(s) and to BLUF it (bottom line up front =P) was first, to ask how each of you identifies in and as a member social construct.  Also to wonder just how many of you conform to a very standard western gender role which parallels your gender identity?   Or what social micro-cosum you connect with.

       I've spent most of my life in the west, I've lived all over Europe, the U.S. and I've spent time in south America and central America.  I've visited a decent portion of the east, be it for work or play.  That along with an education have afforded me a decent understanding of at social theory as it exists today. 

        Most of my experience with other TG individuals has been with another micro-cosum(s).  When I can I volunteer my talent and skills as a leader to non-profit conventions which are often fandom based.  With-in some of these other communities.  Granted this restricts my sample population from which to draw friends from and to see what other successful (in terms of the standards of living) TG individuals as many persons who attend or work at fandom based have a host of other personal and professional issues they may need to address. 

          I suppose I need to attend a gathering to get a better idea!  *ponders*

          But please...continue!  I'm loving this discussion

       

Quote from: perlita85 on January 22, 2011, 09:57:14 AM
My point is that this particular behavior or habit is completely a female one.

You obviously don't have many gay friends.

I don't consciously act female or male.  I just do.   I can't be overly masculine because none of the behaviors that are said to be "masculine" in Western Society really appeal to me...I kind of like dressing up and doing my nails and not getting dirty (etc, etc, etc.)  But I like to play "manly" sports...as long as I can take a shower straight away. I'm not going into a job that is male-dominated, either, but I can't be certain on that because I really don't know how many men are high school history teachers and how many women do the same job.

Anyway, I pretty much do what I want, society views be damned. (At least, things that won't get me in trouble with the law.)

Quote from: LukasGabriel on January 22, 2011, 01:59:35 PM
I kind of like dressing up and doing my nails and not getting dirty (etc, etc, etc.)

But life is only FUN if you are getting dirty.  You've got to explore, hunt for fossils, get off the trail, trip over a treelimb, and climb over boulders.

If people didn't consider me to be a boy, I would be such a tomboy.

Hi Vexing

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 02:02:04 AM
Such as?
I don't think so. Prove to me that behaviours are hard wired from birth and I'll accept your premise.

Babinski Reflex, sexual attraction, sleeping, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight".

Just a few of the many that all humans share from birth.

Kind regards
Sarah B

    VeryGnawty,

     My GSD and I absolutely agree with you, we love going on 3 day back packing trips ^_~ a ruck sack for me and him and a map and a compass.  Then we just explore!  It is soooo nice to get away from everything.  Path finding and backpacking are very relaxing or exciting depending on the route you pick elect!  But not everyone loves to explore.

      :icon_sad: Now I miss my GSD!

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 22, 2011, 02:04:46 PM
But life is only FUN if you are getting dirty.  You've got to explore, hunt for fossils, get off the trail, trip over a treelimb, and climb over boulders.

If people didn't consider me to be a boy, I would be such a tomboy.

I've physical issues that prevent from doing much exploring or climbing....and then I don't like to get dirty, unless it involves looking for fossils.  I would love to be an archaeologist one day, but other than that, no dirt please. XD

Quote from: LukasGabriel on January 22, 2011, 03:04:52 PM
I would love to be an archaeologist one day, but other than that, no dirt please. XD

Looking for fossils is extremely dirty.  Most of them are buried.

Quote from: Violet_CamoMy GSD and I absolutely agree with you, we love going on 3 day back packing trips

Yeah!  Backpacks are great.  You can carry hand shovels (for hunting fossils), digital cameras, sleeping bags (for camping on the mountain), trail mix, and a harmonica.  I don't actually know how to play a harmonica, of course.  It's for scaring off dangerous animals.

The other thing I always thought would be fun is hunting for meteorites.  But I don't have a metal detector.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 22, 2011, 03:23:58 PM
Looking for fossils is extremely dirty.  Most of them are buried.

Oh, I know that.  I love fossil digging and stuff like that. It's really weird because I love to do that and go camping, but I don't like getting dirty.  >> I guess my love of history is too much to deter me from getting dirty.

Quote from: Sarah B on January 22, 2011, 02:48:10 PM
Babinski Reflex

This is the only relevant point.
Fight or flight isn't strongly gendered.
Sexual attraction has nothing to do with gender identity (I can't believe you're claiming that on a site like this) and sleeping, face perception and language acquisitions come from socialised behaviour. From the moment of birth we are hit with gender socialisation, which skews all gender testing.

Hi Vexing

Show me where I said "sexual attraction has anything to do with gender indentity".

Secondly,  prove that sexual attraction, sleeping, face perception, language acquisitions, or "fight or flight are not innate in humans.

This really boils down to the old argument nature vs nuture.

Kind regards
Sarah B

I think both Cait and Sarah are right, but Cait is arguing from a biological point of view and Sarah from a cultural point of view. Certainly from a cultural point of view, certain behaviours are hardwired into the dominant cultural discourse especially once they obtain the status of being myth (i'm talking about Roland Barthes' concept of myth where a social ordering renders a statement of fact as 'natural', therefore making it incontrovertible). Yes, these behaviours and the gendering associated with them are inherently constructed, but within the framework of society, their status as myth means they are viewed as inherently gendered. Obviously with all things cultural these behaviours can and do change (society is fluid after all), the best example i can think of being dressing babies in blue or pink to denote gender, that shifted some time around the late victorian times from pink would be used to denote maleness in a baby, to it denoting femaleness in a baby (I'll try and get a citation for that). So yes, gender roles do exist, they are part of the language of control used by society to order things, even though they are not inherently biological traits.

As to the original question I don't think i overdo things in terms of trying to play a role, though i'm sure others would disagree with me, I largely like the same things i did pre transition and I certainly don't think i'm deliberately playing a role to validate my identity as female.

The problem is that we can't argue with Cait, because it is impossible to find a double-blind study of children raised without gender cues to see how they were treated. Even infants are reactive to their environments, and if we can't control the environment, we can't prove anything.

I wish I could remember the author of the study, but I read within the past few months about a particular study that explored how different people treat infants - even newborns! - based on presupposed gender. I know there have been a number of these, but tihs one was particularly good about counting waiting time to respond to cries, face contact OFFERED by the adult, adn so on.

All the studies in the world that show that baby girls do X and baby boys do Y don't mean a thing if we are working from the assumption that people are incapable of treating known baby girls and known baby boys the same. Gender socialization happens the minute you are born! No one is going to win a nature vs. nurture argument, given that constraint.

Given the existence of hard-wired biological expressions, including natal sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, I would find it profoundly bizarre if there wasn't SOME component of gender expression that had hard-wired roots. But I certainly can't prove that, and I don't believe that ANY test can be created to prove it (due both to gender as a social construct AND the statistical outlier problem). Beyond that, I highly suspect that the individual variance would be so  large that proving an actual, hard-wired difference in gender expression or roles between the 'average' male and the 'average' female would be virtually meaningless in telling us something about any individual in the data sample.

Hi Helena

No I'm not just arguing from a culture point.  In fact you could say I'm from both camps.  We have innate traits that are hard wired, sleep for example,  However, where and when depends on our location and social surroundings and in language every human being is wired in the mind for language.  What language we speaks depends again on what society we are in.

To say that sexual attraction is not innate in human being would mean its a learned behaviour, and if its a learned behaviour one can unlearn that behaviour.  Try telling that to 'gays', that your behaviour was learned.

Human sexuality is an inherent human behaviour as well as our gender identity.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Hi Sean

Quote from: Sean on January 22, 2011, 04:07:00 PM
Given the existence of hard-wired biological expressions, including natal sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, I would find it profoundly bizarre if there wasn't SOME component of gender expression that had hard-wired roots. But I certainly can't prove that, and I don't believe that ANY test can be created to prove it (due both to gender as a social construct AND the statistical outlier problem). Beyond that, I highly suspect that the individual variance would be so  large that proving an actual, hard-wired difference in gender expression or roles between the 'average' male and the 'average' female would be virtually meaningless in telling us something about any individual in the data sample.

Which is basically what I'm saying also, we have innate traits (for want of a better word) and when we are born, socialization will modify those traits.

Kind regards
Sarah B

In our community, there is a typical statement which goes "Who would choose to be transgendered".  So if 'gender identity' is not an innate part of human being.  Then it is a learned behaviour, which accordingly can be unlearned.  However, much to the ''transgendered' communities failed attempt to unlearn this behaviour.  We are only left with that gender identity (to whatever extent) is innate in all human beings.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on January 22, 2011, 04:15:13 PM
Hi Helena

No I'm not just arguing from a culture point.  In fact you could say I'm from both camps.  We have innate traits that are hard wired, sleep for example,  However, where and when depends on our location and social surroundings and in language every human being is wired in the mind for language.  What language we speaks depends again on what society we are in.

To say that sexual attraction is not innate in human being would mean its a learned behaviour, and if its a learned behaviour one can unlearn that behaviour.  Try telling that to 'gays', that your behaviour was learned.

Human sexuality is an inherent human behaviour as well as our gender identity.

Kind regards
Sarah B

But I'm not saying human sexuality isn't an inherent trait, I just don't think it's gendered. The term gender roles would perhaps better be described as gender stereotypes or gender cliches, these kind of behaviours are constructs of the dominant cultural discourse and have just been around so long that they have obtained the status of myth and have thus been rendered incontrovertible. Should the dominant cultural discourse within society change, these patterns of behaviour, which are considered innately gendered because that's what society tells us, could switch or just fall from general usage. For example the fact that girls play with dolls, is considered an innately gendered behaviour when in fact it is an entirely socially constructed one, it's just that within the cultural frame work that we live our lives in, it has obtained the status of being an innate behaviour so that when someone goes against this, i.e. a boy playing with dolls or a girl climbing trees, the cultural framework labels that behaviour as other and excludes the individual from the bit of society that is labeled normal (which is usually white, middle class and male). The actual behaviour its self isn't gendered in the slightest.

There may very well be some some innate behavioural traits that are actually gendered from a biological point of view, but when i see the term gender roles I take it to mean socially constructed roles. It's the media and cultural studies student in me, it's just how i look at the world.

Quote from: Sarah B on January 22, 2011, 04:58:41 PM
In our community, there is a typical statement which goes "Who would choose to be transgendered".  So if 'gender identity' is not an innate part of human being.  Then it is a learned behaviour, which accordingly can be unlearned.  However, much to the ''transgendered' communities failed attempt to unlearn this behaviour.  We are only left with that gender identity (to whatever extent) is innate in all human beings.

Kind regards
Sarah B

One wonders then why we have identical twins, where only one of the twins displays gender identity disorder.
If it's an inherent/innate function, shouldn't both of them be transgender?

Quote from: Helena on January 22, 2011, 05:20:05 PM
But I'm not saying human sexuality isn't an inherent trait, I just don't think it's gendered.

I'm also of the opinion that they are two different traits.

Quote from: Helena on January 22, 2011, 05:20:05 PM
There may very well be some some innate behavioural traits that are actually gendered from a biological point of view, but when i see the term gender roles I take it to mean socially constructed roles. It's the media and cultural studies student in me, it's just how i look at the world.

A very good view in my opinion.

Kind regards
Sarah B

I always saw role as a part you play and as such is mutable. Gender role being no different.

I do know of some MTF who over exaggerate in clothing and mannerisms when they first start dressing and going out. This calms down after a time and may be from them  becoming more cognizant of what real women act and dress like.

Few people can play a role cold can they?

Hi Vexing

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 05:28:30 PM
One wonders then why we have identical twins, where only one of the twins displays gender identity disorder.
If it's an inherent/innate function, shouldn't both of them be transgender?

A very good point.

However, an explanation as to why one is transgendered and the other is not, depends on how the twins develop invitro in other words the Degree of Seperation  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin) or better still whether the twins have one sac, two sacs, one placenta or two placentas and how hormones will affect the foetal brain.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Sorry Perlita, those are nothing but unverified theories. The etiology of transsexualism remains an unknown, else there would be peer-reviewed papers being upheld as the definitive reason behind transgender behaviours - and massive media coverage of these breakthroughs.
And I've yet to see either of these things happen.

Quote from: perlita85 on January 22, 2011, 08:49:47 PM
Sorry Vexing but you are wrong. I am not at my office so I just have a  few peer-review papers backing up what I posted. Could anybody provided guidance as how to attach to a post?

You've found the root-cause of transsexualism?
A definitive and categorically proven root-cause?
Don't bother posting it on here - go straight to the press! Alert CNN, ABC and the BBC!

Quote from: perlita85 on January 22, 2011, 09:19:59 PM
Is that the best you can come up with. You truly disappoint me girl. Hum... I will find a way of posting some of the papers

I'm deadly serious; this information, if credible, should be distributed immediately to the media.

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 05:28:30 PM
One wonders then why we have identical twins, where only one of the twins displays gender identity disorder.
If it's an inherent/innate function, shouldn't both of them be transgender?

yeah, but then i've also seen an old talk show on the internet. i think it was jenny jones. there were identical twin transsexuals chanel and gabrielle. and then i also saw this other documentary years ago. it was about identical twins who were seperated at birth, but when they just discovered at 20 years old. they were so alike, it was very peculiar. from the way they dressed, the shampoo they liked best, and so much else. if they were raised in the same household, that probably wouldn't be so. most identical twins i've seen or heard about are very different, that it's peculiar, because most of them are raised in the same household. the twins that had one as transsexual and another not could have been it's own "abnormality." there's been many studies that do show male and female babies are wired differently, but that's why i say male and female, because sex is the real difference, while gender is this impossible to keep up with manual on everything culture expects from "boys" "girls" "men" and "women."

No true scientist throws around the word 'fact' so haphazardly, I'll say that much. Even before seeing anything concrete, I already have a real hard time believing these studies you're referring to draw conclusions anywhere near as concrete as you're implying.

Quote from: Nobuko on January 22, 2011, 11:42:28 PM
No true scientist throws around the word 'fact' so haphazardly, I'll say that much.

I can't stand when people with so-called "objective" viewpoints use the word "fact" at least a dozen times in any given argument.  It is one of my pet peeves.  It shows they don't understand how science really works.  Even "facts" with well-described mechanisms are still just theories.  They can be, and often are, modified when we gain newer information.

A fact is nothing but an opinion which is held in too high a regard.

And people conflate the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Quote from: Nygeel on January 20, 2011, 06:43:16 PM
Then I was pressed (mostly by the trans community) ....

My therapist works with a lot of trans people and tells me that they're often quite sexist or have very clearly defined roles and stereotypes.  Like TS women who are very excited about getting further along in their transition so they can dance or cook more.  I often feel very misogynistic myself when talking about why I'm trans. I think I should be female but actually don't want to change much.  My therapist often says "you sure don't take anything for granted."   I often think that living and succeeding as a man, despite how odd it seems, is the most feminist thing I can do.  Like I'm getting away with something.

Quote from: Sarah B on January 22, 2011, 04:58:41 PM
In our community, there is a typical statement which goes "Who would choose to be transgendered".  So if 'gender identity' is not an innate part of human being.  Then it is a learned behaviour, which accordingly can be unlearned.  However, much to the ''transgendered' communities failed attempt to unlearn this behaviour.  We are only left with that gender identity (to whatever extent) is innate in all human beings.

Who would chose to be narcissistic, or abusive, or careless with money?  There are going to be scientific reasons for GID and there are going to be social reasons for GID.  We don't all have the same levels or types of GID or for the same reasons.   

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 03:29:48 PM
From the moment of birth we are hit with gender socialisation, which skews all gender testing.

Vexing, I am mostly with you and was all the way with you before I had a kid and got confused.  I have a toddler and I tried to avoid gender stereotypes at all costs with him.  His first word was ball and then bus.  He got excited seeing vehicles very quickly.  I was more than a bit surprised by this and would often take him into the girl's toy section and offer him toys.  He was never into them but went crazy over the trucks and cars and robots in they boy's section.  I started reading up on it and found stuff like this:

http://www.parenting.com/article/the-real-difference-between-boys-and-girls (http://www.parenting.com/article/the-real-difference-between-boys-and-girls)

Apparently boys respond to motion and mechanical interactions before and more intensely than girls.  This isn't in itself a gender role but would lead to some gender based behaviors.  Natural selection would find this advantageous for the hunters in hunters/gatherers society.  There would have to be aggressive reproductive traits that help alpha males breed.

We're all mutants so there can't be any role or inherent trait without exception, but I think it'd be strange not to think that there are primitive mind traits that are generally inherently different in males/females.  At birth or caused by glands later.

Quote from: Vexing on January 23, 2011, 12:49:48 AM
And people conflate the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Actually, theory and hypothesis mean the same thing (most of the time).  It is the context that decides which word is appropriate.  A theory is a generalized set of propositions used to explain a phenomenon.  A hypothesis is a proposition (or set of propositions) which is a part of a particular scientific investigation (i.e. study)

So my use of the term "theory" over "hypothesis" was correct in this case.  Sorry, Vexing, but you are going to have to try a lot harder than that.

I suppose we should be getting back on topic.  So let's get on topic.  Gender roles are a set of theories.  The idea that men are better a learning physics is a theory.  The idea that men are better at learning physics (when the idea is used in relation to a test of men's learning abilities) is a hypothesis.  Discuss.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 23, 2011, 01:51:46 AM
Actually, theory and hypothesis mean the same thing (most of the time).  It is the context that decides which word is appropriate.  A theory is a generalized set of propositions used to explain a phenomenon.  A hypothesis is a proposition (or set of propositions) which is a part of a particular scientific investigation (i.e. study)

So my use of the term "theory" over "hypothesis" was correct in this case.  Sorry, Vexing, but you are going to have to try a lot harder than that.

I wasn't directing that comment at you.

Quote from: Vexing on January 22, 2011, 09:29:21 PM
I'm deadly serious; this information, if credible, should be distributed immediately to the media.

If it's peer reviewed it's already in the public domain, so the media already have access to it. If the media already has access to it that means that if this information hasn't appeared outside specialist journals, that it simply isn't consider news worthy enough. Don't you just love how media works?

Hi Japple

You said

Quote from: japple on January 23, 2011, 12:59:05 AM
There are going to be scientific reasons for GID and there are going to be social reasons for GID.  We don't all have the same levels or types of GID or for the same reasons.

Which is what, I have already said:

Quote from: Sarah B on January 22, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
Which is basically what I'm saying also, we have innate traits (for want of a better word) and when we are born, socialization will modify those traits.

Kind regards
Sarah B

Quote from: Sarah B on January 23, 2011, 03:11:48 AM
Which is what, I have already said:

I think I was saying something different. I'm saying there are those that will have GID for born biological reasons (Intersex, endocrine, regular mutation) and those that will have GID for social reasons (paraphilia, psychosis, adjustment..)  and potentially GID for post-birth environmental reasons. (transcription factor..) and probably more...

This is kind of like listening to people arguing about what causes autism. To me, what causes it is irrelevant, as long as the people with it can live fulfilling and meaningful lives, and be happy.

I've got AS, so I guess I'd just mess up the statistics with my opinions and views on things.

Gender roles (what is deemed masculine and feminine) are made-up by the culture. In the 18th century, macho men wore makeup and high heels, and cried in public (the more who saw the man being moved to tears by anything in existance, the better).
Pink was the colour of flesh, and it was derived from red, the colour of blood. Super macho. Blue was just Virgin Mary's colour, a calm and non-intrusive colour, totally girly. Now, that has changed. Men aren'r supposed to cry in public anymore.
There are certain behaviours that are "gendered" per se, such as childbirth (most women can do it, almost no men). Those that say that only men abuse women, are wrong. Violence is not a male behavior. It is a behaviour dependant on physical strength. Most males are physically stronger than  most women, and that is why most men are more prone to being physically violent than others.

When I was a kid, I preferred green. No blue, no pink, just green.

Quote from: perlita85 on January 23, 2011, 12:03:39 PM

NOTE that this study is 16 yeas old! Much has been discovered since

Perlita..

This is facinating stuff.

Do you have any information or sources on the current state of the research?

Hi Perlita,

What's your PHD in?

Thank you Dr. Perlita for the explanation and citations. Very clear.

I would like to add one psychotherapist's point of view. Gender is a social construct that varies over time and across cultures. As far as I know, every culture has assigned gender roles, although some have more than two genders. I believe this is because our brains function by creating and following patterns of perceiving and patterns of behaving that are usually culturally consistent. We need patterns to function. Some people have more rigid patterns, and get very upset when something does not fit their patterns. Other people have more flexible patterns and can adjust more easily to change. Others have learned chaotic patterns and cannot function coherently. The fact of needing patterns is a biological need; it is how our brains function. I believe gender roles are an example of such patterns. Social content filling a biological and social function.

When I saw this topic, I had a little different interest than the direction this discussion has taken so far. For me, it is an issue of understanding what it means to me to be transgendered. Partly it touches my internal debate. One the one hand, my logical side argues that I was assigned a male identity at birth based on my physical morphology and chromosomes. I lived, more or less successfully as a male for almost six decades. It is not logical to think at this late date that I am really a woman inside. One the other hand, my intuitive, experiential side expresses the unhappiness I have always felt, the lack of fit. I experience "fit" when I wear women's clothes, and wear my (long) hair down. I feel comfort when I shave my legs (a totally cultural artifact). I love being called mam, and regret the frequent embarrassed follow-up of "oh, sorry; sir". And I felt such relief when I realized one day dressed in my male work "drab," that the clothes do not make me male or female. A woman could wear what I was wearing - was wearing what I was wearing. Gender markers invite others to identify me as male of female. I decide what I really am. But how? Why? Why am I not accepting the "logical" answer?

As a therapist specializing in stopping domestic violence and abuse, I also have spent a significant part of my life trying to "deconstruct" male behavior - especially the negative male identified behaviors of violence, destructive competition, bragging, dominance, and so forth. I have a career trying to help men (and women) stop being violent and abusive. I also try to help women (and men) stop being self-destructively co-dependent. Some of these problems clearly come from how societies and families raise boys and girls to be men and women.

So, eventually, I thought, "why would I or anyone want to be one of the violent self-absorbed and self-destructive limited people that men are taught to be - male privilege notwithstanding." I try to help damaged men (and women) heal and be less trapped in what they learned that does not work. And I try to make sense of my own dissatisfaction with being assigned maleness. After all, I was trying to be part of the solution; a different kind of male.

Alternatively, I appreciate what I have learned from my trans brothers who do not show the negative characteristics I associate with socialized maleness. Being male is not - per se - bad. The social stereotypes are not the core of maleness - whatever that is. Some people are "OK" with being male.

I think gender roles are social explanations and prescriptions for gender identity, but gender identity is not at its core socially determined.

If I have to stay male I will die. It is not me no matter what my body and almost everyone around me tells me.

So what is it in me that says this? What is this "not logical" drive? Why am I not alive in my "assigned" gender? It would be so much simpler. More logical and socially accepted, approved and so on.

From my perspective gender roles are all too real, too much of a barrier and a trap, too overwhelming even as I cannot accept them as valid, or accept living within them any longer.

So, back to the original question; do some trans-people over-do the gender role markers while they are learning their new behavior? I think over-doing is a natural part of learning a new way of being in the world. Gender role stereotypes give a "pattern-map" for how to behave for someone who was raised to behave differently. It makes sense people would over-do at first just as teenagers sometimes do. Later, with more experience it is easier to have the confidence to do what ever you want.

Sorry for rambling a little, but I really need to work this through. And thank you Violet for the original question.

Kendall

(a 61 year old child)

Quote from: Kendall on January 23, 2011, 11:55:30 PM
So, back to the original question; do some trans-people over-do the gender role markers while they are learning their new behavior? I think over-doing is a natural part of learning a new way of being in the world. Gender role stereotypes give a "pattern-map" for how to behave for someone who was raised to behave differently. It makes sense people would over-do at first just as teenagers sometimes do. Later, with more experience it is easier to have the confidence to do what ever you want.

That makes a lot of sense and changes my perspective quite a bit.

Darn therapists.

Quote from: Kendall on January 23, 2011, 11:55:30 PM
So, back to the original question; do some trans-people over-do the gender role markers while they are learning their new behavior?

I'm not learning anything.  If anything, I'm UN-learning all the things that I've been forcing myself to do all these years, because my natural personality was always clamouring to come to the surface.

     On the concept of unlearning...that I understand.  Sometimes you get so good at acting that it becomes hard to stop.


     

Totally forgot I posted in here...

@VeryGnawty Mayhaps it's about that.

@japple I don't really know what you mean when you say "I often think that living and succeeding as a man, despite how odd it seems, is the most feminist thing I can do."

loks like a fascinating topic but i don't have time to go through 6 pages tonight.

so i selfishly post in order that i might find the thread more easily tomorrow!

Quote from: Nygeel on January 24, 2011, 03:05:04 AM
@japple I don't really know what you mean when you say "I often think that living and succeeding as a man, despite how odd it seems, is the most feminist thing I can do."

I also don't understand that comment.  I thought that feminism was about empowering women.  Pretending to be a man didn't empower me in any way at all.  It still doesn't.  I'll be glad when I have no more use for pretending.

guess I'm strange, it made sense to me. Most feminists seem to think progress is acting/doing things men do. If you are female whether or not male bodied, then acting/doing male things is seen as feminist.

I hate joining these threads so late.

I first want to address (Vexing? Your name is a dot so I'm not sure.)

Quote from: VexingI don't think you're working on the same definition of 'inherent'.
For a gender role to be 'inherent' it needs to be hard-wired on some biological or universal level.
If it is not hard-wired on some biological or universal level, then it is a construct and therefore cannot be 'inherent'.

For it to be hard-wired on a biological level, wouldn't that more appropriately make it a 'sex role'? Sex refers to biological identity, after all, not gender. But that's really just pointless nitpicking and not why I highlighted this post.

I see that you're extremely objective, but I think that taking objectivity too far becomes... pointless. Yes, we as humans can't consider anything without ascribing our own subjective values, concepts, and constructs to them. With the very act of existing as separate consciousnesses and not as a hive mind, we are being subjective from each other - let alone the universe. But that's kind of the inevitable ending point of that train of thought - chasing objectivity becomes a vain pursuit, and distracts from the subject at hand. I suppose objectivity might be the only subject that could ever matter, really - absolute truth - but after a while of that charade I made the *personal choice* to ->-bleeped-<- it all with objectivity, because that's not the point of being human. And perhaps the universe really isn't so Newtonian after all.

I could be reading way too much into your position, and if that's the case, sorry for that and I blame my being up for 48 hours straight. It was a fun rant though.

Quote from: Vexing"This isn't to say that the behaviors are absolutely differentiated, perfectly, all the time, but to say that zero human behaviors are innately male or female seems misleading, at least."

I don't think so. Prove to me that behaviours are hard wired from birth and I'll accept your premise.

I might agree that nothing is hardwired in us, absolutely, objectively, with 'gender'. But certain roles or actions can still by their own virtue be of one gender. I'm curious as to your opinion on, say, nursing. The act and role of breastfeeding is completely female. Yes, it's something that can only be done with a female anatomy, and no, the desire to / appreciation of it isn't hardwired into the female sex (FtMs would obviously agree), but the actual love and connectedness that is felt while nursing can only be expressed, I believe, on a female 'wavelength.' Not all cisgendered women love it - I had an aunt who hated and refused to do it - but I don't think anyone who is gendered solely as male would feel a sense congruency during that act, and I would accept any who did as a case-ruiner.

Quote from: jappleI often think that living and succeeding as a man, despite how odd it seems, is the most feminist thing I can do.  Like I'm getting away with something.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 24, 2011, 05:16:52 AM
I also don't understand that comment.  I thought that feminism was about empowering women.  Pretending to be a man didn't empower me in any way at all.  It still doesn't.  I'll be glad when I have no more use for pretending.

From one perspective, it's feminist because a woman was able to say "eff you" by beating men at their own game. At the same time, it completely isn't, because it involves giving femininity up entirely and conforming to mens' rules. I guess the decider is where your heart lies - are you sticking it to them, or rolling over?

Quote from: HelenaIf it's peer reviewed it's already in the public domain, so the media already have access to it. If the media already has access to it that means that if this information hasn't appeared outside specialist journals, that it simply isn't consider news worthy enough. Don't you just love how media works?

Imagine that - the media wanting to skim over anything related to us freaks. Don't worry, we'll be popular someday - and then we'll hate the fact because we'll be flooded with trend-following posers and every idiot who diagnoses themself with a single glance at Web MD -_-

Quote from: KendallSo, back to the original question; do some trans-people over-do the gender role markers while they are learning their new behavior? I think over-doing is a natural part of learning a new way of being in the world. Gender role stereotypes give a "pattern-map" for how to behave for someone who was raised to behave differently. It makes sense people would over-do at first just as teenagers sometimes do. Later, with more experience it is easier to have the confidence to do what ever you want.

In the gothic subculture, we get people we call babybats. They're the ones who just found out they're goth and are oh-so-completely into it - or rather, their shallow perception of what goth is. They do their makeup horribly, make atrocious fashion decisions, and generally annoy the hell out of the rest of us until they grow out of that phase or move on. I would definitely agree that it's easy to overcompensate with something that's new to you - it takes a certain level of maturity or innate familiarity to see past the surface and connect with something at its core. And when you do, you aren't just emulating a look - you're emanating that thing from your own merit.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 24, 2011, 05:16:52 AM
I also don't understand that comment.  I thought that feminism was about empowering women.  Pretending to be a man didn't empower me in any way at all.  It still doesn't.  I'll be glad when I have no more use for pretending.

LordKAT: Thanks.  That's pretty close to what I was thinking. Though I'm more of an Ani Difranco, Camille Paglia - You go girl feminist. 

VeryKnawty: I don't think you and I are very much alike, so we probably have different POVs, but what I mean is that when I put on a suit and go into a corporate boardroom and make a deal I feel like I'm getting away with something.  Like I've been given this "treat" of being a white male and I should take advantage of it.   It's a mistake that I'm a man, but I should use it to my advantage...I'm pulling the wool over people's eyes.  I can make sure a woman is heard in a business conversation.  Most of my friends in business are women and I mentor several women but I see their glass ceiling from my side.  I can hire women. I can empower women in the workplace.  I set up a group to help high school girls in certain careers.

Sometimes I pretend I'm in an 80s body swap movie and I get to clean things up.

I feel much much more comfortable with women at work and work with several totally misogynistic a-holes but I can play their game.  They like me because I have power and am smart in business.  I can tell them when they are being inappropriate and they will react in a disarmed way.

death_chick: I don't think I give up femininity at all...although I've made a big effort to let go of perceptions and stereotypes of masculinity and femininity.  I am on the creative side of business so I don't act like the typical suit.  Even me wearing a suit is ironic sing I usually wear what a designer would wear.   That being said I LOVE wearing a suit.  It feels like war paint. Battle gear. I wear leather bottomed dancing shoes and just glide around...fluid and indestructible.

Nygeel: hope that makes more sense?

Quote from: Violet_Camo on January 20, 2011, 09:18:35 AM
     Friends,

       I have a question for discussion.  But first, the framework.  A good number of the trans-persons I know in as face to face friends are often very caught up in gender roles and often seem to conform to the standard as set by mainstream western society.

       For example, I am bit less frilly then many of the friends I have in person a more active and adventure seeking girl, confident and reliable and very committed to the ones I love while suspicious of thoughts around me (I had to cut this short ^_~).   One of my large concerns when I first went to go and seek help from a psychologist and psychiatrist was I would be doubted or denied care because I did not conform to the standard gender roles as set by society. 

        So the question, how many of the girls or guys for that matter on here break the mold a bit so to say.  How do you identify your attitude and personality, and how do you express them?  Also, of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with fitting the standard mold..it is the standard for a reason!

         Respectfully,
         -Violet

I'm answering before reading the thread so as to give my own thoughts -

i'm very much a gender role conformist, and I actually take a lot of mental comfort from that.

In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that my fundamental nature - that is the sort of woman I see myself as naturally being (and not, repeat NOT as a fetishistic desire) is very much a girly-girl and a feminist's nightmare.

In my ideal "alternate universe" life, I'm a stay at home mom and my man does the yard work and all the "manly" stuff and i tend to wear skirts ad such just because i like leaning to the feminine side. I'm not a caricature - climbing on a chair when I see a mouse or such as that - but I am a bit submissive, a bit dependent, a bit "helpless" and i like it that way.

That is my nature, even now, it's just that life circumstances don't allow the full flowering of that tendency.

That said, within the limitations of my age and my physical limitations, I very much do the stereotypical girl stuff (dye my hair, get my nails done, can't leave home without makeup, and etc) and would be lost trying to do otherwise.

Quote from: . on January 20, 2011, 07:07:14 PM
Sure...

Chiming in here without having finished this exchange because I can't resist, lol.

I think it's true that a given act, whatever it is, has no gender. and you will scarely find an act that is not biologically based (inserting a tampon, shaving a beard) that is not practiced "cross gender" even by those who are secure in their cis-gender.

BUT

I don't think I would be so fast to rule out the concept of "gender roles" - there CLEARLY is SOME thing going on in our heads beyond the particulars of the action in question.

i recall there was once a study designed to support feminist theory to the effect that you could give little girls - pre-schoolers - boy toys and vice versa and they would play just the same as their opposite gender peers.

But they didn't. In large measure the girls rejected the trucks and the boys rejected the dolls.

Further,when we see signs of gender dysphoria in pre-school children it manifests itself precisely in "gender role" type behavior - the "boy" who MUST have a skirt, the "girl" who abhors her long hair.

All these things point to SOME component of our selves that inherently absorbs the cultural concept of gender roles on a VERY early level and fels a tendency to conform to them.

it CAN'T be that these are inherited (in the sense that what is a cultural norm for a female in one culture is not in another) but the mental tendency to identify what is "boyish" and "girly" is clearly something that goes well beyond an artificial cultural construct.  Even when "girly" in one culture is not the same as in another.

SO

In light of that reality, it CAN, I think, be said that some activities have "gender roles" in the sense that in each culture, the very young child will identify and usually gravitate towards those actions which are identified with their own perceived gender in that culture.

And the shorthand for that very complex observation is that, in short, there are roles that, if not "inherently" gendered are at least predominantly gendered.

Thus the concept "gender roles"

Quote from: perlita85 on January 20, 2011, 08:47:32 PM
I have notice what Violet point it out, and ponder perhaps as an "overcorrection" mechanis. Personally, I a m what I am, most of the time playing conciously or uncociously a female role, and sometimes uncociosly playing a male role.

I think Sarah points well very well taken.

Love to all,

Perlita

perhaps if I had transitioned younger I might have "overcorrected" in some way i can't now but I find that, for me at least, my "girly-ness" is very much a manifestation of qualities I always had and either had to combat, channel into a maleish outlet, or simply be seen as "less male" on.

For instance, the things I hated about my appearance had no "manly" way to correct so I pretty much just wallowed in my "ugliness" and never took much care of myself, developing some horrendously bad habits I still pay for today.
Alternately, I have always been far too "helpless" for a normal man. The number of times i called on some male relative or in-law to fix something on my car that the average man (around here at least) can do in his sleep is staggering.

I get the point about "compensating" and there are a few ways in which I find myself wanting to (and utterly failing if I try) to compensate (primarily in speech patterns) but I'd say 98% or more of the presentation you'd see if you saw me on the street is very authentically my natural self, not an affected "role playing" character.

Quote from: rejennyrated on January 21, 2011, 03:14:23 AM
:police: And there, I think perhaps we should leave it, and let Violet have her thread back.

Sorry for the slight derail of which I myself was a part. Even if we didn't end up agreeing it was interesting to see the various arguments.

Right now good people lets try to get back on the original track which I think was about whether people in the early stages of transition tend to try and become the stereotypical member of their target gender, and indeed whether this is simply adopted behavior with intent of making their passage through the "therapy and assessment" stage easier.  :police:

OOPS!!

Sorry! If i read the whole thread first i forget what i was going to reply to!

Quote from: . on January 22, 2011, 08:02:34 PM
Sorry Perlita, those are nothing but unverified theories. The etiology of transsexualism remains an unknown, else there would be peer-reviewed papers being upheld as the definitive reason behind transgender behaviours - and massive media coverage of these breakthroughs.
And I've yet to see either of these things happen.

Slightly off topic. I recently saw a rather compelling discussion, from a scientist with no obvious agenda (political or cultural) which was a scating review of the whole concept of "peer reviewed"

the upshot being that the internal politics and prejudices within the scientific community made the concept of "peer review" lending validity to a study a joke.

Not being a scientist, I'm not in a position to defend the claim but being, as it were, a student of human behavior, i find the likelihood of his being correct very high.

Quote from: perlita85 on January 23, 2011, 12:03:39 PM
Hi, Ladies and Gents,

I am and have been a scientist most of my adult life. Like all scientists I work using the scientific method: observe, make an hypothesis, test the hypothesis, conclude, share result with the scientific community (e.g. publish result in a peer-review journal); eventually somebody independently verifies my FACTS and when a series of proven fact accumulates a THEORY on the given phenomena is given. As more facts accumulates the theory is polished and refined, and that is the way modern science work and has come to explain many natural phenomena, including complex human behavior.

I find it fascinating - and it seems to be almost an internet meme - that no matter how well one sources their scientific views, or how qualified the poster, if the assertion contradicts the other posters' views, the slur is "they don't know what science is" or "how science works"

I do not know from personal experience the qualifications of any poster in this thread to speak authoritatively on the subject (except that i myself am massively unqualified) but as an outside observer, hearing one poster slur the other posters' understanding of "what science is" is tantamount to me hearing that person concede the argument because I stop taking them seriously on the point in question.

To use that particular retort against a published scientist would be embarrassing to me.

I don't mean to slag on any poster in this thread - I purposely didn't take note of any names  - i just mean to say that the open statement, which amounts to "clearly you are not as informed as me" seems beneath a discussion on this level.

Quote from: Kendall on January 23, 2011, 11:55:30 PMOne the other hand, my intuitive, experiential side expresses the unhappiness I have always felt, the lack of fit. I experience "fit" when I wear women's clothes, and wear my (long) hair down. I feel comfort when I shave my legs (a totally cultural artifact). I love being called mam, and regret the frequent embarrassed follow-up of "oh, sorry; sir".

Yes Yes YES!

that is EXACTLY my experience. it makes NO logical sense that "artificial" gender constructs like shaved legs or painted nails give me peace but they DO!

Quote from: Violet_Camo on January 24, 2011, 01:39:01 AM
     On the concept of unlearning...that I understand.  Sometimes you get so good at acting that it becomes hard to stop.


   

Agreed.

here are some things i still do that i HATE - hated when i was acting the role which required them - but they are so ingrained in habit that they are the devil to be rid of.

Quote from: death_chick on January 24, 2011, 11:18:02 AM


I first want to address (Vexing? Your name is a dot so I'm not sure.)

I noticed that too. i find it...vexing.

:P

Quote from: japple on January 24, 2011, 09:19:23 PM
VeryKnawty: I don't think you and I are very much alike

Apparently not.  I take no pleasure in lying.  Even if I can pull the wool over men's eyes and take advantage of the way my body looks, I don't feel like it empowers me in any way to do that.  It gives me a huge advantage, but in a very sinister and devious way.  It is not in my natural personality to do that.  I had to learn to do that for survival.

I hate every single thing about pretending to be male.  It is not a "treat" being a white male.  It is a curse.  It is not candy.  There is nothing pleasurable about hiding what I truly want just because some people would make my life more difficult if they knew about it.

Japple, I'm glad you can at least find some sort of value in infiltrating the world of men.  I, however, cannot.  The only value I ever got out of being a man is what I learned from it.  Everything else is torture.  I am not a spy.  This is not James Bond.  I am not an actor.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 25, 2011, 05:32:45 AM
Apparently not.  I take no pleasure in lying.

I'm not going to take offense in what I am doing being called lying or sinister.   I'm not lying. I am male-bodied.  While I am male-bodied I am able via good coping mechanism to compartmentalize my despair over being the wrong gender and function in society.  When I become female-bodied I don't imagine myself changing personality-wise at all.   People's perceptions of me will change and that is what sexism and racism is.  If I have good ideas and verbalize them with people perceiving me as a a white male I will get further than if said the exact same things with the same delivery as a non-white male or younger male or female. (in corporate America today.)   Even with transition I will never be a white woman, I will be a white trans-woman.

When it comes to the gender roles and advantages to me it's less about masculine, feminine, passive, aggressive, and more about perception. 

I don't wallow over being trans.  I have an autoimmune disorder that until twice-weekly injections left me pooping on the floor and crawling from my car to house.  I don't wallow.   These things make me sad and are difficult but I am still going to get up and live life the best that I can.

You can call it acting but I call it strength.  No one gets to pick their body.  No one gets to pick their life.  I'm not going to take anything for granted and have been at this for a long time.  Frankly this has put me in a position where i don't have to struggle through transition. I'm not going to lose my spouse because I told her on our first date. I can't lose my job, I own the company. I can afford the choices I make financially.

I'm proud of myself for how I've dealt with this issue.  There is nothing sinister going on here.

i was thinking that very long ago when women were treated very badly, had no rights, and only lived to give birth, and be the homemaker for a man. they also had no say in anything, it was whatever the man said. plus, women could not talk in the presence of men. i wonder if the people who were biologically male, but had GID would have even wanted to become women. i wonder how they would've handled those feelings, because GID is not a new thing. it's been in people forever. today, it seems like women have much more power. i know alot of households today, what the woman says goes, and the dad is more like a friend to the kids.

and then think about other species of life, bees for example. the queen bee is the one that's in charge and get's served (female.) while all the rest of the bees in the hive are just worker bees.

Quote from: perlita85 on January 25, 2011, 04:47:30 PM
While peer-review may not be perfect, and may in occasion be marred with fraud, t is the best we have. Science is not perfect but what is the alternative? Say in the case of GID? If it is not biological, then what causes GID? Social or psychological traumas? If that was true, then over 80 years of psychological and sociological studies would have discover the common cause? right? If not psychological, then what, evil spirits?

Please don't misunderstand - I am as firmly convinced as it is possible for a layman to be that the major factor, to such an extent as to be the only meaningful factor, is biological.

I was digging at the implication that producing a "peeer reviewed study" would settle it - that is that she was placing too much stock in that as an argument ender as so many tend to.

But no, in this particular instance, your peer-reviewed studies confirm for me that which I already understood intuitively - I have no dispute with their conclusions  (albeit I am not learned enough to have an opinion on WHICH biological factor makes the most sense)

Quote from: FallingStar on January 26, 2011, 12:52:52 AM
i was thinking that very long ago when women were treated very badly, had no rights, and only lived to give birth, and be the homemaker for a man. they also had no say in anything, it was whatever the man said. plus, women could not talk in the presence of men. i wonder if the people who were biologically male, but had GID would have even wanted to become women. i wonder how they would've handled those feelings, because GID is not a new thing. it's been in people forever. today, it seems like women have much more power. i know alot of households today, what the woman says goes, and the dad is more like a friend to the kids.

and then think about other species of life, bees for example. the queen bee is the one that's in charge and get's served (female.) while all the rest of the bees in the hive are just worker bees.

sort of like having GID in Saudi Arabia in the 21st century you mean?

Quote from: Tammy Hope on January 26, 2011, 04:14:17 AM
sort of like having GID in Saudi Arabia in the 21st century you mean?

probably, there's lots of other countries in the world where women don't have nearly as much rights as here in usa.

Quote from: Kendall on January 23, 2011, 11:55:30 PM
Thank you Dr. Perlita for the explanation and citations. Very clear.
do some trans-people over-do the gender role markers while they are learning their new behavior? I think over-doing is a natural part of learning a new way of being in the world. Gender role stereotypes give a "pattern-map" for how to behave for someone who was raised to behave differently. It makes sense people would over-do at first just as teenagers sometimes do. Later, with more experience it is easier to have the confidence to do what ever you want

A most interest thread, but thank you Kendall for the last paragraph specially, I can really relate to that, in my situation I find myself embracing a role that most other GG females are rejecting, what most women may find imprisonment I find it liberating, I got married last August, then became a fulltime housewife, other women friends of mine trying to give me advice ''pauline are you mad, fulltime housewife'' but I found it very liberating, I love being a housewife to my Husband, I have now found my role as a woman and my Husband treats and excepts me as a woman and a lady.

Dr Perlita your contribution to this thread has been very interesting and fascinating, thank you. Pauline

gender roles? a mold?

*tuts* some parts of society has become more relaxed, it's just that some people wish to keep their thinking the same-afraid of change.

Sure, there are gender roles in society, to be honest. It's a kind of a 'it's there, so it's there' type of mold. People who don't fit into the mold get teased, and perhaps persecuted by other people.

In my opinion, i feel that it's up to each person to decide if the 'gender roles' should be applicable to them.

In a more personal opinion, i feel that it does apply very little to me, in fact, i can break the hold internally to prevent society from having the invisible hold.

For 26 years I was in the  role of a 1950's housewife, nurse and mother to my severely handicapped wife. She did all the traditional male stuff like finances etc and i did all the traditional woman's stuff.
I had a hard time with my initial CAMH interview because I did not fit the tg mold they were looking for. I have lived the role for so long in thought and feelings that I am not driven to express it visually as much as  a lot of girls. I am very grounded which may have worked against me in the interview. I am not going to kill myself if they deny my transitioning. I didn't cry myself to sleep as a child wanting to be a girl. I just never compared myself to either gender so  gender roles and mold never entered my life. I am just a girl regardless of any role I could try to play.