This may be a totally left field thought, but I wonder if we want to clarify different gender expressions as an outworking of the misogynistic societies that so many of us live in? If there was not a societal requirement to fit into one of the two boxes of woman or man, would there be this need to be pointing out those boxes don't fit?
This may be a totally left field thought, but I wonder if we want to clarify different gender expressions as an outworking of the misogynistic societies that so many of us live in? If there was not a societal requirement to fit into one of the two boxes of woman or man, would there be this need to be pointing out those boxes don't fit?
I think so.
However I don't think societal gender expectations can be or should be touted as the be all and end all - I fail to meet any number of masculine expectations (to the extent that I got homophobic and misogynistic abuse as a child despite being straight and male) but I have never for a second felt anything other than entirely cis with regards to my gender. That actually strengthens my belief that those who *do* feel a disjunction between their plumbing and their sense gender are reacting to something more than mere expectations.
Having said that, trans and non-binary experience is apparently more common in autistic people (two of the three trans people I know are autistic as well, and that's just to my knowledge) and that's another connection to conflict with societal expectation.
I've found an intersectional approach to be helpful in considering questions of how we come to accept or question identities. Thinking about @quetzalcoatl's metaphor of the layers of phyllo or filo pastry, that analogy works well in one way but doesn't allow for the conflicts and contradictions many of us experience in finding ourselves positioned as simultaneously misgendered, racialised, diaspora in exile, using 'crip' strategies to counter ableism, countering linguistic losses and splitting, trying to develop a sense of selves both personal and in solidarity with others.
As someone born into a colonial society in Africa, it bothers me that the loss of my mother tongue Shona still haunts me so much and how much discomfort I have with the cultural arrogance implicit in English, Portuguese and French. As children we were not allowed to speak Shona at home or at school after the age of five because it wasn't a 'real' language. Anyone who speaks a number of languages (and not by choice) has to deal with a plurality of selves since language provides the social codes and code-switches that we have to mimic or borrow in order to present ourselves as not defined by place of origin or poor linguistic performance. Redefining gender for me has been bound up with retrieving a stigmatised non-self from an erased language. For years I've had an autofiction by the queer Jamaican writer Michelle Cliff on my bedside table as inspiration: Claiming an Identity They Taught Me To Despise.
What @LambChopped wrote about the ungendered mind resonates for me because as a child I discovered that in books I could read without limitations imposed and nobody could tell me how to read as a girl or stop me from reading my favourite authors as androgynous, other unlimited minds making sense of this fractured reality or finding beauty in unlikely places. Encountering their voices on the page was a pathway to finding my own muted or stifled voice speaking back to those great generous minds around me.
Brilliant stuff, MaryLouise. I painfully amassed knowledge of gender, sex and sexuality identities through working as a psychotherapist, and listening to people's stories. Complex, multiple, contradictory, these accounts taught me that "theory is grey", compared with such richness.
I also realized that TERFs and their allies often want to describe other people reductively, so a kind of mechanical othering. However, identity is not in the third person.
This may be a totally left field thought, but I wonder if we want to clarify different gender expressions as an outworking of the misogynistic societies that so many of us live in? If there was not a societal requirement to fit into one of the two boxes of woman or man, would there be this need to be pointing out those boxes don't fit?
Yes. Some people reject the notion of gender, as an out working of sexual duality. I suppose this is the TERF position, genitals determine who I am. Once you start shifting from that, where do you stop? Well, where feels right for you. I guess there is some kind of huge movement going on, away from the rigidity of traditional sex/gender/orientation, towards fluidity, and resisted by some. In my optimistic moments, I see it as unstoppable. Even if you make LGBT illegal, it will carry on. Of course, this is also ethnocentric, what about these identities in other parts of the world?
I suppose this is the TERF position, genitals determine who I am.
If I remember correctly you identify as a cis-man? I do not believe it will help me understand an intra-feminist dispute to have a cis-man cis-mansplaining what he supposes is the position of one side - even where that is not the side I would wish to support.
I suppose this is the TERF position, genitals determine who I am.
If I remember correctly you identify as a cis-man? I do not believe it will help me understand an intra-feminist dispute to have a cis-man cis-mansplaining what he supposes is the position of one side - even where that is not the side I would wish to support.
I can't see "I suppose" as an attempt to splain anything. It is a confession of self-uncertainty which is not a usual aspect of splainers.
Socially conservative patriarchal men are very much included in the TERF or as they like to call themselves Gender Critical movement while men such as trans men and gay men who refuse to abandon the T in the LGBT are very much among their targets and victims. It's in practice a pro-patriarchal movement.
This may be a totally left field thought, but I wonder if we want to clarify different gender expressions as an outworking of the misogynistic societies that so many of us live in? If there was not a societal requirement to fit into one of the two boxes of woman or man, would there be this need to be pointing out those boxes don't fit?
I think in general, the answer appears to be that this is different - that a male person who doesn't wish to behave in ways that his society calls "male behaviour" is not the same as a person who does not wish to be male.
@Gwai talked about their own personal journey along these lines earlier: that they were content for some years to be a woman who wasn't confined by "traditional" gender roles and expectations, but that they now find a self-description of non-binary a better fit.
Socially conservative patriarchal men are very much included in the TERF or as they like to call themselves Gender Critical movement
Bigots can be intersectional, too! Your socially conservative patriarchs are happily TE, but I don't think they're even slightly RF, are they? Whereas TERFs do seem to be reasonably outspoken about the rights of cis-women.
Socially conservative patriarchal men are very much included in the TERF or as they like to call themselves Gender Critical movement while men such as trans men and gay men who refuse to abandon the T in the LGBT are very much among their targets and victims. It's in practice a pro-patriarchal movement.
Please stop legitimating it as feminism.
And alas, some cis gay men have joined the TERF side - imo, largely to solidify a very narrow definition of masculinity within the gay men's community that already exists to exclude many men, eg bisexual men, men of colour, plus size men etc etc.
I would however say that much like when Christians say that Christians who do xyz heinous thing are not really Christians otherwise they wouldn't do such a thing, I don't think that saying that TERFs aren't really feminists is actually helpful. There are many ways in which mainstream feminism has marginalised and excluded women who have various additional marginalised identities, and it's all part of a wider sense of transmisogyny within feminism being rooted in colonialism and policing who gets to claim womanhood by demanding certain women civilise themselves before they can do so.
There is also the issue that the famous TERFs nowadays are overwhelmingly not radical feminists, but liberal feminists* - along with being overwhelmingly cishet, white, and middle-class/wealthy. There are clearly exceptions, but it does frustrate me that TERF has become a synonym for transphobe when it's a very specific transphobic ideology, and nowadays liberal feminists are more likely to be transphobic than radical ones in my experience.
*the basic difference is that liberal feminism states that the patriarchy can be reformed to bring about women's liberation which liberal feminism usually frames as an individual benefit centred around choice, and radical feminism states that the patriarchy must be dismantled in order to bring about women's liberation - which is usually framed as something fundamentally necessary for all women everywhere. There are various subgenres eg Marxist feminism, but that's the main difference. Radical feminism tends to be less amenable to capitalism, which ime means it actually tends to be closer to trans feminisms.
No I'm talking about men who describe this kind of transphobia as radical feminism and identify with it, describing themselves as this sort of feminist. Meanwhile that movement is not outspoken on women's rights - it's outspoken on drumming up a moral panic against trans folk.
When it comes to anything that doesn't involve principally attacking a subset of other women (or their other targets who are also stigmatised by patriarchal values), they're either missing in action or actively doing harmful stuff like online attacks on rape crisis centres, or progressive female politicians, supporting abusive men to get back into positions of power in politics while attacking the women who whistle blew on them, working with the religious right and far right against contraception and abortion etc etc. If you think this is being outspoken for my rights I can only say I beg to differ and regard them as an extreme danger to me as a woman because of this and I stand in solidarity with the other people they endanger. This is a pro-patriarchal endeavour that calls itself feminism but isn't.
Ah sorry, I misunderstood your previous comment. Yes, it is truly remarkable (!) the number of cishet men who suddenly find that they have a great passion for feminist theory when it gives them an opportunity to bully a vulnerable group of women online.
When I think of TERFs I tend to think of the likes of Julie Bindel who has serious feminist activist chops with no time for patriarchy but is nonetheless a raging transphobe (biphobe too, apparently). For some folk anything that conflicts with their ideology is to be ripped apart.
When I think of TERFs I tend to think of the likes of Julie Bindel who has serious feminist activist chops with no time for patriarchy but is nonetheless a raging transphobe (biphobe too, apparently). For some folk anything that conflicts with their ideology is to be ripped apart.
But people use the term to describe all transphobes. I've heard people describe Mike Pence as a TERF. Also, transphobia and biphobia *enforce* the patriarchy, not to mention her stance on sex workers (and it is a stance on sex workers and not just sex work) - there is a reason that TERF and SWERF (sex worker exclusionary radical feminism) are so often mentioned in the same breath by trans people and their allies. They're often the same people.
Ah sorry, I misunderstood your previous comment. Yes, it is truly remarkable (!) the number of cishet men who suddenly find that they have a great passion for feminist theory when it gives them an opportunity to bully a vulnerable group of women online.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
We seem to be describing people who aren't any kind of feminist at all, but are claiming the label "TERF" as a cover, because it sounds nicer than "transphobic bigot". Or perhaps people who just think "TERF" is a word that means "transphobic bigot" - I can't believe that Mike Pence would ever describe himself as any kind of feminist, and I can't believe that anyone with a brain would ever describe Mike Pence as any kind of feminist.
(Re Ms Bindel's stance on sex work / sex workers, I don't think you can "hate the sin, love the sinner" in regards to sex work any more that you can in regard to homosexuality.)
To be fair to the person who called Mike Pence a TERF, it was a very young person. But yes, it does seem like it has become just another term for 'transphobic bigot' which is frustrating when it comes to discussing transphobic feminists specifically.
I suppose this is the TERF position, genitals determine who I am.
If I remember correctly you identify as a cis-man? I do not believe it will help me understand an intra-feminist dispute to have a cis-man cis-mansplaining what he supposes is the position of one side - even where that is not the side I would wish to support.
Do you have any other discussion-stifling comments?
If it helps, @NOprophet_NØprofit as a host, I confirm that womankind.org.uk seems the kind of source that is appropriate for Epiphanies. (And that it is not academic, though academic links are fine Epiphanies-wise)
It wasn't a request for academic types of information. Thanks.
On the other hand I found it really helpful - thanks Doublethink. I was fairly sure from the context in which the term was used that I understood it and your link clarified it further for me, especially the Venn diagram. Sometimes a picture really is worth a torrent of words.
I wasn't so much thinking of trans as the number of young people I see identifying as non-binary or gender fluid. There seems to be a need to show that male and female, straight and gay are constricting boxes that don't fit all. I agree that trans is something else.
When I grew up in the 1970s and early 80s the imagery was not so rigidly masculine or feminine. There was the androgyny or ambiguity of, say, David Bowie, Adam Ant, Spandau Ballet, Marc Bolan, Freddy Mercury, Slade, Twiggy, Pauline Black (Selecta), Yazoo, Boy George, Annie Lennox, Patti Smith, Annie Hall, Grace Jones - platform boots, flares, long hair and jackets on everyone, followed by punk, my parents' perpetual complaint that they couldn't work out whether anyone was a man or woman from behind. Toys and clothes were not gendered in the way they are now. I really didn't grow up thinking I had to look and behave in a certain way to be a woman, because the role models weren't fixed.
The people identifying as gender non-conforming like Eddie Izzard and Grayson Perry would have fitted into that culture without anyone really noticing.
I suspect that it is no coincidence that the 1970s were the start of the women's liberation and gay rights movement. And it was only the start as there was so much still unresolved. Was there really such a backlash through the 80s and 90s that 50 years later, are we looking back and wondering how and why we've lost that freedom?
CK - as a fellow child of the 70s/80s it's certainly interesting to me to see how societal attitudes to such things have changed. I wonder if part of it may be explained by the idea that every generation rebels against its predecessor*? So if the generation of the 70s/80s was in part characterised by such a level of androgyny and ambiguity then the rebellion of the following generation could have resulted in higher levels of gender conformity and essentialism? Which would in turn explain why so many children's toys and clothes are so ridiculously gendered - because that following generation are now parents themselves and that's what they want their kids to be like? But of course, those kids will in turn rebel against such conformity...
Obviously this is all very "broad brush", as most sociological speculation tends to be. But it would provide an explanation for why the trajectory of societal views of gender hasn't been consistently in the same direction. Perhaps progress in such areas is more of a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing, but over a timescale measured in decades?
.
*= as an aside, I've often wondered if I should bring my kids up listening to dance, rap and disco music, so that when they rebel they'll start liking rock, metal, and all the other good stuff
I'd be more inclined to look at marketing, and how capitalism has realised that you can make more money selling a family boy toys and girl toys than you can letting them share non-gendered ones. Clothes are much the same. The only children's clothes that arguably might need to be gendered are pants.
My feeling is that a lot of the rigid childhood gender roles was led by toy companies, though I don't know how to put evidence on that. I seem to remember merchandising tie-in cartoons from the late 80s being clearly divisible into those aimed at boys and those aimed at girls (thinking of eg He-Man and She-Ra).
Disney Princess dates back to 2000.
Eddie Izzard specifically identifies as trans now and uses she/her pronouns, so best not to categorise her with Grayson Perry. Genderfluid and other nonbinary people often DO identify as trans - they don't necessarily, but they are included if they want to be. The white stripe on the trans flag represents nonbinary trans people.
Also just FYI, nonbinary can be a specific identity but is also an umbrella term, with genderfluid and genderqueer etc being types of nonbinary identity. It is NOT the same as being gender nonconforming which can apply to trans or cis people. For eg, a trans butch lesbian is gender nonconforming, but so is a feminine cis gay man. Many trans people including nonbinary people aren't gender nonconforming. Cis people who use gender as part of performance such as Grayson Perry or pantomime dames are not actually gender nonconforming unless it is also the case in their private life, eg many drag queens are feminine queer men in real life too. Comparing genderfluid people to eg David Bowie and Adam Ant is actually not welcomed by trans and nonbinary people - genderfluid is a trans identity, not a performance.
Also as an aside @Marvin the Martian - I know your comment about music was tongue in cheek and not intentionally in poor taste, but given the marginalised people that dance, rap, and disco are associated with, especially disco, I found it unhelpful. The anti-disco backlash was literally created as a homophobic and racist movement, and actually the giant burning of disco records took place on the 10th anniversary of Stonewall. Rock music historically has positioned itself in opposition to those marginalised groups. They may have used androgynous imagery, but by and large were resolutely by and for white cishet men.
Also as an aside @Marvin the Martian - I know your comment about music was tongue in cheek and not intentionally in poor taste, but given the marginalised people that dance, rap, and disco are associated with, especially disco, I found it unhelpful. The anti-disco backlash was literally created as a homophobic and racist movement, and actually the giant burning of disco records took place on the 10th anniversary of Stonewall. Rock music historically has positioned itself in opposition to those marginalised groups. They may have used androgynous imagery, but by and large were resolutely by and for white cishet men.
I was purely talking about the types of music I prefer (or not).
The NY Times (link) reviewing David Bowie's life in 2016 weren't so certain of his gender identity. He did say in 1972 that he was gay. And was a lifeline to so many people in his expression of identity.
@Pomona the vocabulary you are using is very recent. The terms used 50 years ago were different, so I am not sure that the people I named weren't using the exact words you expect to hear is relevant to my point here, that there were a lot of public expressions of different genders which made it possible for others to be ambiguous in their gender expression and sexuality.
I'm sorry, but I think we are arguing at cross-purposes.
What I was trying to say was that growing up in the 1970s there was a wide range of expressions of gender on display, which gave permission for others to be themselves (reflected in the NY Times article). I wasn't trying to do more than list examples that demonstrated that there was a range.
And reflecting that those young people I work with who declare themselves as non-binary or gender fluid seem to be trying to reclaim that same freedom to be themselves.
Clothes are much the same. The only children's clothes that arguably might need to be gendered are pants.
It depends what you mean by "children" - and, I suppose, by "gendered". But if this is a comment that many cis-girls have hips that are a rather different shape from their cis-boy classmates, and so need a different cut of pants to fit them, then I'll point out that the same argument applies to their top halves. People with breasts are not the same shape as people without breasts, so if you want a garment that fits, it needs to be cut differently.
(And there's ridiculous unnecessary gendering of pants going on, which means that the small boys at my local playground are running around in baggy shorts that come close to their knees, whereas the small girls are wearing what are basically booty shorts.)
Clothes are much the same. The only children's clothes that arguably might need to be gendered are pants.
It depends what you mean by "children" - and, I suppose, by "gendered". But if this is a comment that many cis-girls have hips that are a rather different shape from their cis-boy classmates, and so need a different cut of pants to fit them, then I'll point out that the same argument applies to their top halves. People with breasts are not the same shape as people without breasts, so if you want a garment that fits, it needs to be cut differently.
(And there's ridiculous unnecessary gendering of pants going on, which means that the small boys at my local playground are running around in baggy shorts that come close to their knees, whereas the small girls are wearing what are basically booty shorts.)
Sorry, I was specifically thinking pre-pubescent, and pants-as-underwear rather than pants-as-trousers. And yes, my 5 year old gets pushed towards skinny leggings that rip as soon as looked at while her male friends get sturdier trackies. Oh and even at age 5 boys clothes are sized bigger than girls for no obvious reason.
Fuck, rip David Bowie. I don't know how I would've survived being a queer trans youth without your music and inspiration xoxo
Bowie said at various times that he was gay, was bi, was a "closet heterosexual," but not trans. What he always was on stage was different. And that was a powerful and inspiring thing for a lot of people who were different in their own ways.
No one was out as gay in my small town in the 70s, and hardly anyone was out as gay at my small college in the 80s, even though it was in Los Angeles. Yes, there were trans people around publicly 50 years ago, but for most of us this was only in the news, which of course was sensationalistic about what was then called "sex change." "Non-binary" wasn't even a word applied to people. My dearest friend, who has come to realize she is asexual (another category we didn't used to have), uses she/they, and is working out what gender means for her, was a huge Bowie fan because in being so different he seemed to be himself.
Sorry, I was specifically thinking pre-pubescent, and pants-as-underwear rather than pants-as-trousers. And yes, my 5 year old gets pushed towards skinny leggings that rip as soon as looked at while her male friends get sturdier trackies. Oh and even at age 5 boys clothes are sized bigger than girls for no obvious reason.
Ah - sorry.
Underwear for penis vs underwear for no penis - got it. Although I suppose we could extend that discussion to trousers - if you need standing access to a penis, you either need an elastic waist you can just pull down, or you need a zip fly of reasonable length (button flies are tough for small fingers) whereas if you need to take your trousers down to urinate, you don't have quite the same requirement.
(My 6-year-old son spent most of last year in rainbow-striped skinny leggings, by his choice. Unless he's expecting to go tramping through the undergrowth, he tends to leave the heavy baggy tracksuit bottoms in the drawer. Daughter also likes leggings, although hers invariably have at least one hole in the knee, because she's snagged them whilst half-way up some tree or other. (She discovered earlier this year that the house WiFi reaches as far as one of the trees in the garden. So now she climbs trees with a laptop. It wouldn't surprise me if she took some classes up there.))
Before some where in the early 20th century all children wore smock dress things, had long hair and all looked the same whether female or male. After toilet training boys started wearing pants (trousers for some dialects), got their hair cut. They were socialized to their sex after that (the word gender wasn't a word used until later for this). I have a few photos of my father dressed in a dress with curly ringlet hair. Girls wore dresses. The clothing called bloomers were so women could ride bicycles. Not wearing a dress was scandalous in the 19th century. The sex observed at birth was what you were socialized to be.
"For centuries, all babies were dressed in white. And continued to wear white until they were six or seven year old.
Easy to stain, easy to bleach. Parents made no attempt to signal a child's gender with colour. There was a practical reason parents chose white. It was the easiest colour to bleach."
On intersectionality, quoting from @Pomona in
[now we've got the new thread I'm going to hidden text this and ask people not to quote it as it's from The Styx - Louise Epiphanies Host]
Being marginalised in one way does not mean you are necessarily marginalised in another. Self-appointed trans allies' views are still not the same as the actual experiences of actual trans people. Cis people's arguments dominating the thread isn't helpful.
Hosting
Intersectionality is a great topic and well worth having a thread on so thanks for that and also it's not best to directly import stuff from The Styx (which is the only place for Ship's business and hosted under different rules) with a quote which is commenting on how these threads go.
Give me a moment to boot up my desk top computer and I'll see if I can make you a new thread.
I'm sorry, but I think we are arguing at cross-purposes.
What I was trying to say was that growing up in the 1970s there was a wide range of expressions of gender on display, which gave permission for others to be themselves (reflected in the NY Times article). I wasn't trying to do more than list examples that demonstrated that there was a range.
And reflecting that those young people I work with who declare themselves as non-binary or gender fluid seem to be trying to reclaim that same freedom to be themselves.
These youngsters are not saying they are trans.
Sorry but how do you know that these 'youngsters' (who if you work with them are presumably 18 or over) aren't saying that they are trans? Nonbinary and genderfluid are trans identities.
Also, a reminder that people of all genders have varying body parts, even if they are cis. There are many cis women who are flat chested and without prominent hips. Variations exist even within one cis gender.
Eddie Izzard specifically identifies as trans now and uses she/her pronouns, so best not to categorise her with Grayson Perry. Genderfluid and other nonbinary people often DO identify as trans - they don't necessarily, but they are included if they want to be. The white stripe on the trans flag represents nonbinary trans people.
Also just FYI, nonbinary can be a specific identity but is also an umbrella term, with genderfluid and genderqueer etc being types of nonbinary identity. It is NOT the same as being gender nonconforming which can apply to trans or cis people. For eg, a trans butch lesbian is gender nonconforming, but so is a feminine cis gay man. Many trans people including nonbinary people aren't gender nonconforming. Cis people who use gender as part of performance such as Grayson Perry or pantomime dames are not actually gender nonconforming unless it is also the case in their private life, eg many drag queens are feminine queer men in real life too. Comparing genderfluid people to eg David Bowie and Adam Ant is actually not welcomed by trans and nonbinary people - genderfluid is a trans identity, not a performance.
Indeed ...! The genderfluid term has become popular as metro-sexual did in the past. But it's a trans "umbrella" identity.
Some non-binary people identify openly also as trans. Some non-binary people will have surgery, some including full GRS. It's not a contradiction if your non-binaryness is predominantly headed towards male or female, it's about feeling comfortable.
Perhaps I'm out of date but in the UK I believe it's hard to get GRS on the NHS if you are at all non-binary so I hear many stories of non-binary people essentially conforming to a stereotype of what a trans female or male is to access NHS services and not being open that they are non-binary.
I draw no conclusions on whether drag queens and cross-dressers are trans or not. Some are, some are not, some may find they are trans in time. Many people exploring gender are on a journey that they may not fully be aware of, and these things may be stages on the journey, or they may not be (i.e. pure "performance"). Depends on the individual, I just know that putting trans and non-binary and gender-nonconforming people in boxes isn't helpful.
Sorry but how do you know that these 'youngsters' (who if you work with them are presumably 18 or over) aren't saying that they are trans? Nonbinary and genderfluid are trans identities.
1. I work with under 18s;
2. From listening to these youngsters I suspect that they are saying out loud that they do not see themselves as heterosexual individuals whose gender expression fits the genders they are assigned - and in this area the (youth) culture has very defined expectations of gender expression. They may be saying they are gay, bi- or asexual. They may be saying that they do not want to fit the cultural norms for the gender they are assigned, at that moment. It is not my role to probe them on any of this, although I may refer them on to counselling, if distressed, or social care, if they are putting themselves in danger;
3. I have encountered young people (and yes, I do mean under 18s) saying they are trans, these are not they.
My understanding was that nonbinary and genderfluid do not only relate to trans identities, but other identities too:
non-binary - Non-binary people feel their gender identity cannot be defined within the margins of gender binary. Instead, they understand their gender in a way that goes beyond simply identifying as either a man or woman. from the LGBT foundation
gender-fluid Someone who is fluid -- also called gender fluid -- is a person whose gender identity (the gender they identify with most) is not fixed. It can change over time or from day-to-day.
I'm sorry, but I think we are arguing at cross-purposes.
What I was trying to say was that growing up in the 1970s there was a wide range of expressions of gender on display, which gave permission for others to be themselves (reflected in the NY Times article). I wasn't trying to do more than list examples that demonstrated that there was a range.
And reflecting that those young people I work with who declare themselves as non-binary or gender fluid seem to be trying to reclaim that same freedom to be themselves.
These youngsters are not saying they are trans.
Sorry but how do you know that these 'youngsters' (who if you work with them are presumably 18 or over) aren't saying that they are trans? Nonbinary and genderfluid are trans identities.
Also, the gender identity terms are evolving fast. Younger people are actually creating new terms, and existing terms are being used in slightly different ways by younger people. It's quite fascinating to see language moving so fast. Younger people examine their gender identity now as teenagers, as well as sexual identity and ... good on them tbh!
There is no definitive delineation between trans(gender) and non-binary that I'm aware of because there is definitely a significant overlap, whatever words we *choose* as individuals to mark/label our gender identity ...
- Trans
- Non-binary
- Trans AND non-binary
... all make sense to the individuals using them, if not always to wider society.
The key point for me is that it's OUR language, and it's moving fast with new generations.
@AuspiciusofTrier this rapidly evolving gender diverse language is also a feature of trans usage in Africa: I've just finished rereading Akwaeke Emezi's novel Freshwater. Emezi, a Nigerian Igbo and Tamil writer and video artist, identifies as non-binary and trans and in Freshwater as an autofiction uses the term ogbanje to indicate a multiple non-human trickster spirit as part of their trans self-understanding, resisting Eurocentric definitions of trans in favour of older precolonial modalities.
I'm sorry, but I think we are arguing at cross-purposes.
What I was trying to say was that growing up in the 1970s there was a wide range of expressions of gender on display, which gave permission for others to be themselves (reflected in the NY Times article). I wasn't trying to do more than list examples that demonstrated that there was a range.
And reflecting that those young people I work with who declare themselves as non-binary or gender fluid seem to be trying to reclaim that same freedom to be themselves.
These youngsters are not saying they are trans.
Sorry but how do you know that these 'youngsters' (who if you work with them are presumably 18 or over) aren't saying that they are trans? Nonbinary and genderfluid are trans identities.
Also, the gender identity terms are evolving fast. Younger people are actually creating new terms, and existing terms are being used in slightly different ways by younger people. It's quite fascinating to see language moving so fast. Younger people examine their gender identity now as teenagers, as well as sexual identity and ... good on them tbh!
There is no definitive delineation between trans(gender) and non-binary that I'm aware of because there is definitely a significant overlap, whatever words we *choose* as individuals to mark/label our gender identity ...
- Trans
- Non-binary
- Trans AND non-binary
... all make sense to the individuals using them, if not always to wider society.
The key point for me is that it's OUR language, and it's moving fast with new generations.
The Tubblet - 18 last week! - confirms this. Some of her friends describe themselves as non-binary or genderfluid but may not see those as trans identities. This may change as they get older, but it may not.
Like @AuspiciusofTrier I'm delighted they feel able to do this and fascinated by the way language is evolving so quickly. (And slightly terrified I'll misremember their pronouns).
Comments
Fascinating and very interesting though it is, can people take the Whitman tangent to another board and its own thread if they want to continue it?
Thanks!
L
Hosting off
I think so.
However I don't think societal gender expectations can be or should be touted as the be all and end all - I fail to meet any number of masculine expectations (to the extent that I got homophobic and misogynistic abuse as a child despite being straight and male) but I have never for a second felt anything other than entirely cis with regards to my gender. That actually strengthens my belief that those who *do* feel a disjunction between their plumbing and their sense gender are reacting to something more than mere expectations.
Having said that, trans and non-binary experience is apparently more common in autistic people (two of the three trans people I know are autistic as well, and that's just to my knowledge) and that's another connection to conflict with societal expectation.
Brilliant stuff, MaryLouise. I painfully amassed knowledge of gender, sex and sexuality identities through working as a psychotherapist, and listening to people's stories. Complex, multiple, contradictory, these accounts taught me that "theory is grey", compared with such richness.
I also realized that TERFs and their allies often want to describe other people reductively, so a kind of mechanical othering. However, identity is not in the third person.
Yes. Some people reject the notion of gender, as an out working of sexual duality. I suppose this is the TERF position, genitals determine who I am. Once you start shifting from that, where do you stop? Well, where feels right for you. I guess there is some kind of huge movement going on, away from the rigidity of traditional sex/gender/orientation, towards fluidity, and resisted by some. In my optimistic moments, I see it as unstoppable. Even if you make LGBT illegal, it will carry on. Of course, this is also ethnocentric, what about these identities in other parts of the world?
I can't see "I suppose" as an attempt to splain anything. It is a confession of self-uncertainty which is not a usual aspect of splainers.
Please stop legitimating it as feminism.
I think in general, the answer appears to be that this is different - that a male person who doesn't wish to behave in ways that his society calls "male behaviour" is not the same as a person who does not wish to be male.
@Gwai talked about their own personal journey along these lines earlier: that they were content for some years to be a woman who wasn't confined by "traditional" gender roles and expectations, but that they now find a self-description of non-binary a better fit.
Bigots can be intersectional, too! Your socially conservative patriarchs are happily TE, but I don't think they're even slightly RF, are they? Whereas TERFs do seem to be reasonably outspoken about the rights of cis-women.
And alas, some cis gay men have joined the TERF side - imo, largely to solidify a very narrow definition of masculinity within the gay men's community that already exists to exclude many men, eg bisexual men, men of colour, plus size men etc etc.
I would however say that much like when Christians say that Christians who do xyz heinous thing are not really Christians otherwise they wouldn't do such a thing, I don't think that saying that TERFs aren't really feminists is actually helpful. There are many ways in which mainstream feminism has marginalised and excluded women who have various additional marginalised identities, and it's all part of a wider sense of transmisogyny within feminism being rooted in colonialism and policing who gets to claim womanhood by demanding certain women civilise themselves before they can do so.
There is also the issue that the famous TERFs nowadays are overwhelmingly not radical feminists, but liberal feminists* - along with being overwhelmingly cishet, white, and middle-class/wealthy. There are clearly exceptions, but it does frustrate me that TERF has become a synonym for transphobe when it's a very specific transphobic ideology, and nowadays liberal feminists are more likely to be transphobic than radical ones in my experience.
*the basic difference is that liberal feminism states that the patriarchy can be reformed to bring about women's liberation which liberal feminism usually frames as an individual benefit centred around choice, and radical feminism states that the patriarchy must be dismantled in order to bring about women's liberation - which is usually framed as something fundamentally necessary for all women everywhere. There are various subgenres eg Marxist feminism, but that's the main difference. Radical feminism tends to be less amenable to capitalism, which ime means it actually tends to be closer to trans feminisms.
When it comes to anything that doesn't involve principally attacking a subset of other women (or their other targets who are also stigmatised by patriarchal values), they're either missing in action or actively doing harmful stuff like online attacks on rape crisis centres, or progressive female politicians, supporting abusive men to get back into positions of power in politics while attacking the women who whistle blew on them, working with the religious right and far right against contraception and abortion etc etc. If you think this is being outspoken for my rights I can only say I beg to differ and regard them as an extreme danger to me as a woman because of this and I stand in solidarity with the other people they endanger. This is a pro-patriarchal endeavour that calls itself feminism but isn't.
But people use the term to describe all transphobes. I've heard people describe Mike Pence as a TERF. Also, transphobia and biphobia *enforce* the patriarchy, not to mention her stance on sex workers (and it is a stance on sex workers and not just sex work) - there is a reason that TERF and SWERF (sex worker exclusionary radical feminism) are so often mentioned in the same breath by trans people and their allies. They're often the same people.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
We seem to be describing people who aren't any kind of feminist at all, but are claiming the label "TERF" as a cover, because it sounds nicer than "transphobic bigot". Or perhaps people who just think "TERF" is a word that means "transphobic bigot" - I can't believe that Mike Pence would ever describe himself as any kind of feminist, and I can't believe that anyone with a brain would ever describe Mike Pence as any kind of feminist.
(Re Ms Bindel's stance on sex work / sex workers, I don't think you can "hate the sin, love the sinner" in regards to sex work any more that you can in regard to homosexuality.)
It wasn't a request for academic types of information. Thanks.
Intersectionality is literally an academic term, invented to talk about the specific experiences of Black women within the context of misogynoir.
Do you have any other discussion-stifling comments?
That’s not an academic source, it’s a brief summary from an international women’s activism group.
@quetzalcoatl and @Dafyd Chill a bit there.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
On the other hand I found it really helpful - thanks Doublethink. I was fairly sure from the context in which the term was used that I understood it and your link clarified it further for me, especially the Venn diagram. Sometimes a picture really is worth a torrent of words.
When I grew up in the 1970s and early 80s the imagery was not so rigidly masculine or feminine. There was the androgyny or ambiguity of, say, David Bowie, Adam Ant, Spandau Ballet, Marc Bolan, Freddy Mercury, Slade, Twiggy, Pauline Black (Selecta), Yazoo, Boy George, Annie Lennox, Patti Smith, Annie Hall, Grace Jones - platform boots, flares, long hair and jackets on everyone, followed by punk, my parents' perpetual complaint that they couldn't work out whether anyone was a man or woman from behind. Toys and clothes were not gendered in the way they are now. I really didn't grow up thinking I had to look and behave in a certain way to be a woman, because the role models weren't fixed.
The people identifying as gender non-conforming like Eddie Izzard and Grayson Perry would have fitted into that culture without anyone really noticing.
I suspect that it is no coincidence that the 1970s were the start of the women's liberation and gay rights movement. And it was only the start as there was so much still unresolved. Was there really such a backlash through the 80s and 90s that 50 years later, are we looking back and wondering how and why we've lost that freedom?
Obviously this is all very "broad brush", as most sociological speculation tends to be. But it would provide an explanation for why the trajectory of societal views of gender hasn't been consistently in the same direction. Perhaps progress in such areas is more of a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of thing, but over a timescale measured in decades?
.
*= as an aside, I've often wondered if I should bring my kids up listening to dance, rap and disco music, so that when they rebel they'll start liking rock, metal, and all the other good stuff
Disney Princess dates back to 2000.
Also just FYI, nonbinary can be a specific identity but is also an umbrella term, with genderfluid and genderqueer etc being types of nonbinary identity. It is NOT the same as being gender nonconforming which can apply to trans or cis people. For eg, a trans butch lesbian is gender nonconforming, but so is a feminine cis gay man. Many trans people including nonbinary people aren't gender nonconforming. Cis people who use gender as part of performance such as Grayson Perry or pantomime dames are not actually gender nonconforming unless it is also the case in their private life, eg many drag queens are feminine queer men in real life too. Comparing genderfluid people to eg David Bowie and Adam Ant is actually not welcomed by trans and nonbinary people - genderfluid is a trans identity, not a performance.
I was purely talking about the types of music I prefer (or not).
@Pomona the vocabulary you are using is very recent. The terms used 50 years ago were different, so I am not sure that the people I named weren't using the exact words you expect to hear is relevant to my point here, that there were a lot of public expressions of different genders which made it possible for others to be ambiguous in their gender expression and sexuality.
Trans people were around 50 years ago, publicly so.
What I was trying to say was that growing up in the 1970s there was a wide range of expressions of gender on display, which gave permission for others to be themselves (reflected in the NY Times article). I wasn't trying to do more than list examples that demonstrated that there was a range.
And reflecting that those young people I work with who declare themselves as non-binary or gender fluid seem to be trying to reclaim that same freedom to be themselves.
These youngsters are not saying they are trans.
It depends what you mean by "children" - and, I suppose, by "gendered". But if this is a comment that many cis-girls have hips that are a rather different shape from their cis-boy classmates, and so need a different cut of pants to fit them, then I'll point out that the same argument applies to their top halves. People with breasts are not the same shape as people without breasts, so if you want a garment that fits, it needs to be cut differently.
(And there's ridiculous unnecessary gendering of pants going on, which means that the small boys at my local playground are running around in baggy shorts that come close to their knees, whereas the small girls are wearing what are basically booty shorts.)
Sorry, I was specifically thinking pre-pubescent, and pants-as-underwear rather than pants-as-trousers. And yes, my 5 year old gets pushed towards skinny leggings that rip as soon as looked at while her male friends get sturdier trackies. Oh and even at age 5 boys clothes are sized bigger than girls for no obvious reason.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/patricksmith/lgbt-people-reveal-why-bowie-is-so-important
An example:
Bowie said at various times that he was gay, was bi, was a "closet heterosexual," but not trans. What he always was on stage was different. And that was a powerful and inspiring thing for a lot of people who were different in their own ways.
No one was out as gay in my small town in the 70s, and hardly anyone was out as gay at my small college in the 80s, even though it was in Los Angeles. Yes, there were trans people around publicly 50 years ago, but for most of us this was only in the news, which of course was sensationalistic about what was then called "sex change." "Non-binary" wasn't even a word applied to people. My dearest friend, who has come to realize she is asexual (another category we didn't used to have), uses she/they, and is working out what gender means for her, was a huge Bowie fan because in being so different he seemed to be himself.
Ah - sorry.
Underwear for penis vs underwear for no penis - got it. Although I suppose we could extend that discussion to trousers - if you need standing access to a penis, you either need an elastic waist you can just pull down, or you need a zip fly of reasonable length (button flies are tough for small fingers) whereas if you need to take your trousers down to urinate, you don't have quite the same requirement.
(My 6-year-old son spent most of last year in rainbow-striped skinny leggings, by his choice. Unless he's expecting to go tramping through the undergrowth, he tends to leave the heavy baggy tracksuit bottoms in the drawer. Daughter also likes leggings, although hers invariably have at least one hole in the knee, because she's snagged them whilst half-way up some tree or other. (She discovered earlier this year that the house WiFi reaches as far as one of the trees in the garden. So now she climbs trees with a laptop. It wouldn't surprise me if she took some classes up there.))
Before some where in the early 20th century all children wore smock dress things, had long hair and all looked the same whether female or male. After toilet training boys started wearing pants (trousers for some dialects), got their hair cut. They were socialized to their sex after that (the word gender wasn't a word used until later for this). I have a few photos of my father dressed in a dress with curly ringlet hair. Girls wore dresses. The clothing called bloomers were so women could ride bicycles. Not wearing a dress was scandalous in the 19th century. The sex observed at birth was what you were socialized to be.
A CBC podcast may be interesting for some of you re gender marketting: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/summer-series-guys-and-dolls-gender-marketing-1.4068879
"For centuries, all babies were dressed in white. And continued to wear white until they were six or seven year old.
Easy to stain, easy to bleach. Parents made no attempt to signal a child's gender with colour. There was a practical reason parents chose white. It was the easiest colour to bleach."
[now we've got the new thread I'm going to hidden text this and ask people not to quote it as it's from The Styx - Louise Epiphanies Host]
This seems to deny the intersectionality. Not so?
Intersectionality is a great topic and well worth having a thread on so thanks for that and also it's not best to directly import stuff from The Styx (which is the only place for Ship's business and hosted under different rules) with a quote which is commenting on how these threads go.
Give me a moment to boot up my desk top computer and I'll see if I can make you a new thread.
[edited to add - that's the new thread up for you all! https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/3688/intersectionality#latest ]
Cheers
L
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
Sorry but how do you know that these 'youngsters' (who if you work with them are presumably 18 or over) aren't saying that they are trans? Nonbinary and genderfluid are trans identities.
Indeed ...! The genderfluid term has become popular as metro-sexual did in the past. But it's a trans "umbrella" identity.
Some non-binary people identify openly also as trans. Some non-binary people will have surgery, some including full GRS. It's not a contradiction if your non-binaryness is predominantly headed towards male or female, it's about feeling comfortable.
Perhaps I'm out of date but in the UK I believe it's hard to get GRS on the NHS if you are at all non-binary so I hear many stories of non-binary people essentially conforming to a stereotype of what a trans female or male is to access NHS services and not being open that they are non-binary.
I draw no conclusions on whether drag queens and cross-dressers are trans or not. Some are, some are not, some may find they are trans in time. Many people exploring gender are on a journey that they may not fully be aware of, and these things may be stages on the journey, or they may not be (i.e. pure "performance"). Depends on the individual, I just know that putting trans and non-binary and gender-nonconforming people in boxes isn't helpful.
1. I work with under 18s;
2. From listening to these youngsters I suspect that they are saying out loud that they do not see themselves as heterosexual individuals whose gender expression fits the genders they are assigned - and in this area the (youth) culture has very defined expectations of gender expression. They may be saying they are gay, bi- or asexual. They may be saying that they do not want to fit the cultural norms for the gender they are assigned, at that moment. It is not my role to probe them on any of this, although I may refer them on to counselling, if distressed, or social care, if they are putting themselves in danger;
3. I have encountered young people (and yes, I do mean under 18s) saying they are trans, these are not they.
My understanding was that nonbinary and genderfluid do not only relate to trans identities, but other identities too:
Also, the gender identity terms are evolving fast. Younger people are actually creating new terms, and existing terms are being used in slightly different ways by younger people. It's quite fascinating to see language moving so fast. Younger people examine their gender identity now as teenagers, as well as sexual identity and ... good on them tbh!
There is no definitive delineation between trans(gender) and non-binary that I'm aware of because there is definitely a significant overlap, whatever words we *choose* as individuals to mark/label our gender identity ...
- Trans
- Non-binary
- Trans AND non-binary
... all make sense to the individuals using them, if not always to wider society.
The key point for me is that it's OUR language, and it's moving fast with new generations.
The Tubblet - 18 last week! - confirms this. Some of her friends describe themselves as non-binary or genderfluid but may not see those as trans identities. This may change as they get older, but it may not.
Like @AuspiciusofTrier I'm delighted they feel able to do this and fascinated by the way language is evolving so quickly. (And slightly terrified I'll misremember their pronouns).