Quote from: MarySue on December 08, 2008, 12:16:22 PM
The feminist movement opened things up again, but that wasn't until 20 or 25 years later.

That's more or less what I meant; I really should have written 'permanently' or something similar instead of the too-mild 'completely'. And then of course there were other contributing factors as well, both before and after.

  Nfr

QuoteWomen in the work force in large numbers created the modern feminist movement as advancement and pay became huge problems.  In other words, the jobs came before the political demands.

No they didn't.   The feminist movement existed long, long before white middle class working women utilized it to battle sexism in the work place.

Well then, your just in a battle of words, and feminists did not exist till the 1960s, in that, no one called themselves that.

Before that, middle class women used the women's movement to downgrade and subjugate all sorts of other people.

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 07, 2008, 01:51:49 AM
My Mom says that she doesn't understand what makes think I am TS because I don't act feminine enough. I've thought about this a lot but I still can't understand it. What is it that makes someone feminine? How does that relate to their gender identity? Does she have I point here? How do I know if I am feminine enough? What if I wan't to be a girl who is still kind of a tomboy? Is there something wrong with that? I am very confused now. Can someone help me out here?

"Femininity" is a bundle of preconceptions that people have about how a female should behave or how she appears her best before others. Social conventions if you want, that will make you "normal" in the eyes of most people.

Like Simone said, being female doesn't necessarily mean that you should be feminine. Some women are girly-girls, others are tomboys, and most women are in-between. How much you take to one side or the other, your comfort zone, is something you will naturally gravitate the further you transition and get acquainted and experiment with living as yourself. This is what all females do.

Quote from: tekla on December 08, 2008, 04:03:38 PM
Well then, your just in a battle of words, and feminists did not exist till the 1960s, in that, no one called themselves that.

Yes they did. 

It was called first wave feminism, included women you've probably heard of like Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollstonecraft (the latter of whom was writing in the 1790's).

In the 1960's began second wave feminism and the 1970's the women's liberation movement.  They called themselves "second wave" feminists to both acknowledge and differentiate themselves from this first wave, which virtually ended when suffrage was attained.

QuoteBefore that, middle class women used the women's movement to downgrade and subjugate all sorts of other people.

Before what?

Although I have no idea what first wave feminists called themselves, the word feminism was coined in the late 1800s, so people were probably calling themselves feminists before the 60's, although it may not have been widespread.  I was not alive that long ago, so this is all speculation.
Adrian

First Wave is a bogus term.  They - the Suffergettes - never called themselves that, though they did take on abolitionist and temperance as words to describe themselves.  They were not just middle class women, they were some of the women who in effect invented the middle class, and were very sexist, and very, very racist in their outlook.

Quote from: tekla on December 08, 2008, 07:04:30 PMFirst Wave is a bogus term.

By what criteria?  Because the "first wave" part was applied retroactively? 

QuoteThey - the Suffergettes - never called themselves that

I have to disagree with you:

QuoteThe term was coined in France--feminisme--in the 1880s by Hubertine Auclert, a key figure in France's suffrage movement. It first appeared in the U.S. in an article from 1906--discussing Madeleine Pelletier, another woman active in the European Woman's Suffrage movement.

link

QuoteThey were not just middle class women, they were some of the women who in effect invented the middle class, and were very sexist, and very, very racist in their outlook.

I'm not sure what criteria you're using here either.  Feminists invented the middle class?  That's quite a statement to make.

But yes, first wave feminists were very focused on the lives and rights of the women who composed the movement, white, middle and upper class women with the time to dedicate to a cause.  Hence Sojourner Truth's criticisms of that movement in the 1840's.

Quote from: soldierjane on December 08, 2008, 04:26:50 PM

"Femininity" is a bundle of preconceptions that people have about how a female should behave or how she appears her best before others. Social conventions if you want, that will make you "normal" in the eyes of most people.

Like Simone said, being female doesn't necessarily mean that you should be feminine. Some women are girly-girls, others are tomboys, and most women are in-between. How much you take to one side or the other, your comfort zone, is something you will naturally gravitate the further you transition and get acquainted and experiment with living as yourself. This is what all females do.

With this thread, I started doing some research on what actually defines femininity, among the "experts, et al...."  And it's interesting what I've discovered thus far.  Femininity/Masculinity is pretty much oh so a sociological construct, what society has over eons defined as the typical masc/fem state.  One interesting read are the works of Judith Butler, who postulates that basically we are are just acting out according to a preconceived plan, that it doesn't really matter the person behind the act per se - I'm not totally in agreement with this and I feel that we are indeed inherently born with some form of gender disposition - but, I can certainly see many grains of truth in her position.. perhaps it's relatively simplistic but there's no denying the gravitational pull of societal constructs.... a force we all struggle with daily to escape!

Interestingly, Butler finds nothing deviant about drag, instead believing that by "imitating gender, drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself..."  It essentially does nothing but to highlight the distinctions between masculine and feminine.  Butler of course has her advocates and stroing detractors.  I'll post more as I get further in-depth....

Quote from: Aelita_Lynn on December 07, 2008, 01:51:49 AM
My Mom says that she doesn't understand what makes think I am TS because I don't act feminine enough. I've thought about this a lot but I still can't understand it. What is it that makes someone feminine? How does that relate to their gender identity? Does she have I point here? How do I know if I am feminine enough? What if I wan't to be a girl who is still kind of a tomboy? Is there something wrong with that? I am very confused now. Can someone help me out here?

Hahahah. I got this just the other day!

Sweetie, you weren't raised as a girl, so its typical that you wouldn't act 100 percent feminine. I mean... You also aren't required to. Some of my genetic girl friends are like more masculine than I am.

Keri, I'm a fan of Judith Butler, for the most part.  I think she points out well that we all end up performing gender.  I choose clothing etc that is an expression of a range of gendered behavior from day to day.  Some have interpreted her to in some ways invalidate transsexual identity but she's said that was not her argument and I don't read her that way.  In fact I think her arguments bring up important complications to consider when discussing sexuality, identity and gender.  Just because a woman has a transsexual history doesn't mean they are going to have some very feminine gender expression, sex identity is more complicated than that, but many want to pigeonhole people.

Hmm.
I'm of the opinion that a lot of what people consider 'feminine' is a byproduct of 1920s-1950s patriarchal ownership; where women were instructed by their female relatives precisely how to act, dress and think in different circumstances.
We're still dealing with the echoes of that horrible oppression and it colours people's general perception of 'femininity'.
Because I'm loud, crass, bold, assertive and highly opinionated, I've often been accused of being 'unladylike' (an expression that makes me want to vomit). It grinds my gears that there is still this perception that women are demure little flowers who never swear, get angry, hold a strong opinion or take charge.
I think it is very damaging that people still subscribe to the ideal of being 'ladylike'.
Women shouldn't have to adorn themselves with layers of false behaviour simply to meet the expectations of others.

Quote from: whatsername on December 09, 2008, 01:51:36 PM
Keri, I'm a fan of Judith Butler, for the most part.  I think she points out well that we all end up performing gender.  I choose clothing etc that is an expression of a range of gendered behavior from day to day.  Some have interpreted her to in some ways invalidate transsexual identity but she's said that was not her argument and I don't read her that way.  In fact I think her arguments bring up important complications to consider when discussing sexuality, identity and gender.  Just because a woman has a transsexual history doesn't mean they are going to have some very feminine gender expression, sex identity is more complicated than that, but many want to pigeonhole people.

I like some of the components of Butler's theories, and dislike others.  Her theory on performativity does have lots of merit in that most of our actions are based on what society as decided for us is the accepted norm, i.e. that which goes with the on-birth classification of "it's a boy/girl."  "The sexed body, once established as a natural and unquestioned fact, is the alibi for constructions of gender and sexuality, unavoidably more cultural in appearance." (Salih 2002).  And you've off and running....

What I get hung up on for the moment is her simplistic view that the acts constitute gender identity, and not the "actor" if you will.  I think it's a little too simple, as you stated, to be able to centrifuge to such a level.  Gender has to be a tad more complex than just a determinant of one's actions; rather, in opposition to Butler, I believe that there are some innate "markers" or qualities that are gender-centric.  Prosser's argument as relates to our being TG also comforts me in that regard: " there are transgendered trajectories, in particular transsexual trajectories, that aspire to that which (performativity) devalues.  Namely, there are transsexuals who seek very pointedly to be nonperformative, to be constantive, quite simply, to be..."

Butler's theory is good at breaking down, devaluating, the barriers between what quantifies masculine versus feminine behaviors, but, for a TG perspective, it marginalizes us by taking away what it means, for us, for me, to want to be the opposite gender than what society says I should be....  So, while I do in fact follow a performativity principle in my trans expression, it is certainly much more than merely a condition of "doing" feminine. 

So, going full-circle to the stated topic of "what is feminine anyways;"  in my opinion, it's simply what society defines it as at any given moment in time, from the outward.  From the inward, it's one thoughts and feelings as they relate to those very societal constraints as to how we define ourselves.  As many pointed out, just because one likes to tear motors apart and rebuild them doesn't mean they are more "masculine" or less "feminine."  We set ourselves up for failure by holding fast to specific definitions of masculinity/femininity, definitions not of our own choosing but born of the hegemony exerted by our society.  I have to believe that there is more than just the gender binary as Butler points out... nothing is ever solely black and white, there are many shades of gray in the world.  Geesh.... my head hurts!

Agreed, I like Prosser too.

For me, what I keep coming back to is that there is sex, which is a biological thing, and there is gender, which is a performative thing where any body can reside on a spectrum of masculine or feminine behaviors. 

But that leaves something out.  I agree it ends up erasing TG experiences in some ways because if any sexed body can perform any gender where does that leaves the TG person?

I do think that's rooted in gender identity.  Gender identity as a third component, not as sex or performance but how one identifies themselves in their own mind.  And yes, Butler, in what I've read of her, doesn't address that and is a bit simplistic but I think when we discuss her work (like now ^^) it sort of begs the question; "what about self identity?" and that's a good thing too.

Quote from: whatsername on December 10, 2008, 01:43:48 PMFor me, what I keep coming back to is that there is sex, which is a biological thing, and there is gender, which is a performative thing where any body can reside on a spectrum of masculine or feminine behaviors.

I divide it roughly between biological sex, gender identity and gender role, and the problem to me is that gender role seems to be conflated with gender identity in many feminist writings. Which is understandable, since I think you only really notice the two as seperate entitities when they're not saying the same thing. But yeah, this is my take on it:

• bio sex is whether you are male bodied, female bodied or some variety of intersexed. It is rooted in your body.
• gender identity is whether you are a man, a woman or some variety of transsexed (I regard androgynes as also being a form of transsexed, since their gender identities are probably as fixed in the brain structure as mine is. Gender identity is rooted in your brain.
• gender role is whether you are masculine, femininine or somewhere inbetween (possibly transgendered? queer?) and is MOSTLY rooted in your learning and experiences. I say mostly because there are essential differences between male and female minds, for example that males generally have more structuring minds, while females have more empathic minds.

I have been thinking that there might be a fourth component as well, body image, which might be distinct from gender identity, and that gender role should be subdivided into two attributes - one that covers learned behaviours and one that covers innate ones. That's probably me just me overthinking things again though.

~Simone.

Not at all!  That's an interesting concept which I will have to give some thought to.  I can see where you're coming from though, it would go far in accounting for masculine gender presentation without stereotypically masculine gender performance...

Quote from: lady amarant on December 10, 2008, 11:54:43 PM

• gender identity is whether you are a man, a woman or some variety of transsexed (I regard androgynes as also being a form of transsexed, since their gender identities are probably as fixed in the brain structure as mine is. Gender identity is rooted in your brain.

I think this is my cue.

Quote from: lady amarant on December 10, 2008, 11:54:43 PM
I have been thinking that there might be a fourth component as well, body image, which might be distinct from gender identity, and that gender role should be subdivided into two attributes - one that covers learned behaviours and one that covers innate ones. That's probably me just me overthinking things again though.

Welcome to the club, then -- this makes very much sense. For some time now, my biggest issue with the concept of 'gender identity' has been that for me there is a very clear distinction between the physical and the social, also on this level. In the physical sense (or 'subconscious sex', as Julia Serano calls it) I really cannot see a difference between how I feel and what several MtF's describe. In the social sense, though, I'm convinced I'm no more a woman than I'm a man, and that is as much a part of my gender identity as the physical side is. I think the social part of the identity may be learned to some extent, though, and not completely inborn.

  Nfr

Quote from: tekla on December 08, 2008, 12:32:26 AM
Um, fifty years ago was 1968>69 and that was not the case.  All this was just really heating up, but women had jobs, careers and wore pants by 68.

HEY! Dont add ten years to my age girl!
You musta went to my school...

sorry, off topic

Quote from: lady amarant on December 10, 2008, 11:54:43 PMI divide it roughly between biological sex, gender identity and gender role, and the problem to me is that gender role seems to be conflated with gender identity in many feminist writings.

...

I have been thinking that there might be a fourth component as well, body image, which might be distinct from gender identity, and that gender role should be subdivided into two attributes - one that covers learned behaviours and one that covers innate ones. That's probably me just me overthinking things again though.

I think body image may either be something that intersects with gender role and non-gendered beliefs.  If you feel your gender is supposed to be thinner/pretty, you will feel more inclined to be thin/pretty, but you may have personal reasons (not related to gender) that will nudge you act in that way (expecting all people, men and women alike, to be thinner/prettier than most people expect -- or wanting to be thinner/prettier than you think your gender is obligated to be).  While I do not recommend this belief, it's not sexist to believe men should be aggressive if you think women should be aggressive.

As for the first quote, that's exactly how I understand it.  I identify as a "male androgyne" for these reasons: The fact that my biology is male (sex) is irrelevant, and the fact that I identify as male (gender identity) does not trigger a TG label and makes me "male."  The fact that my attitudes towards gender roles is that men, women, and any people of other hypothetical genders should be able to have the same opportunities, values, and expressions is what brings me to claim the "androgyne" and (in the broadest definition) "TG" labels.  Although "androgynous male" feels a bit more natural to say, so maybe I will use that now.

Regarding gender identity versus gender role, that seems to pose massive problems with some feminist writings.  Most feminists, at least the well-educated ones, seem to make this distinction, and they do well to bash the role rather than the sex or gender.  This is not to say one can't point out certain advantages that males (as according to sex or gender) in general enjoy at the expense of women, but a number of so-called feminists make the mistake of overreaching at trying to speak to for what every man believes, does, and wants -- and they ultimately undercut the appeal of the movement, especially when extremists on the other end of the spectrum will be eager to pounce on those statements and generalize them to speak for the entire feminist movement (it's not that some traditional sexists wouldn't hesitate to fabricate evidence, but you don't want to give them any gifts, either).

Hi Aelita,

When I started active transitioning last year at 60 years old I would have believed anyone who said you are noit femmine enough or you are too manly. 30 Years ago I was denied transition by the Psychiatric folks because I was not femmine enough. It cost me all those years of gender angst and confusion til now also.

Guess what? One year later with HRT and diet and "ATTITUDE" I will be going full time in Jan-Feb as soon as the name change hearings get scheduled. I am a female, always have been, always will be and just happened to get stuck in a wrong body. And Pssst, Im 6' 0" tall 195 and am passing, no I am being myself.

Dont let the naysayers ever talk you into believing you are not who you believe yourself to be. Its who YOU believe yourself to be that counts. Never again will this girl fall for others beliefs. Hugs Baby.

Wendy