Sexism

[TikindiDragon]

There's a specturm within the wiring, no doubt about it. And there is a bit of crossover in the middle. Rather like sexuality, if we're honest about it. I guess the main issue I have with the social theory of gender is that it thinks all differences are a *bad* thing - when in fact we ought to be recognising, and indeed celebrating, cognitive differences. Combating sexism shouldn't assume that if society were 'perfect' we'd all be the same. We wouldn't. Men and women *are* different, and we should aknowledge and respect that. Combating sexism should be about learning to respect and appreciate our differences, rather than trying to insist that we should all be the same. (Incidental note - it should also recognise the right of trans-folk to be their chosen gender, and allowing them to fulfil and express that. Trying to force them to be their birth sex is, in my view, sexist in itself.)

 

Edit to add: I'd view it more as coding than as different programmes. It's impossible to know from the end produce whether something was coded using VB, C++ or any of the many other coding languages once it's been compiled and published. The act of writing the programme, though, is different depending on the progamming language used. The 'process' if you will is different. And someone that knows one programming language would struggle to debug a code written in another. Having the end product be the same is great, but to truly understand something knowing how you got there is also important.

 

On a non-confusing metaphore note communication is greatly improved, and understanding is better, when you can look at *how* another person is reaching their conclusions. I'm sure a lot of interpersonal problems actually stem from not respecting that not everyone thinks the same way you do.

Edited June 26, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[tanglepelt3]

I find terms like "mankind" rather irritating, because even though "mankind" really means the human race, the word makes it sound like only men are considered part of the human race. I agree that men and women are different, and have different abilities, but I don't like it when women are not included in something. Even if men are better at it than women are, you still should let the women try it too.

[Shienvien]

I guess the main issue I have with the social theory of gender is that it thinks all differences are a *bad* thing - when in fact we ought to be recognising, and indeed celebrating, cognitive differences. Combating sexism shouldn't assume that if society were 'perfect' we'd all be the same. We wouldn't. Men and women *are* different, and we should aknowledge and respect that. Combating sexism should be about learning to respect and appreciate our differences, rather than trying to insist that we should all be the same.

 

The problem - as I see it - begins when people start to make assumptions based on a person's sex/gender. Making the assumption that a man/woman is [insert a quality here] just because s/he is a man/woman is harmful. There have been people who have insisted that I must be a trans person because I am not "like a woman".* (No. I am a heterosexual cis-woman. There is nothing wrong with being a trans person - besides the discomfort of being in a wrong body - but I am not that. And people on the internet have actually told me to quit lying when I tell them I am a woman. You can believe me being insisted that you should be something you are not is just as unpleasant in this turned-tables version...) There are people who treat different genders/sexes differently just because they are men/women. (I avoid clothes-shopping as long as I can, thank you, I'll rather continue talking about building electric cars...) And don't forget the parents/teachers/etc. who try to "guide" children to their stereotypical gender role or, worse, tell them that they will never be good at something because they are not boys/girls.

 

I am not saying all people should be the same. Differences are good. I am pro judging people purely by the individual at hand. So there would be no "men are like that" or "women are like that". Just "this person is like that."

 

 

(I'll note that in my experience switching programming languages once you've learned to program in one is relatively easy, though. The very basis on which programming works is ultimately the same. Once you've learned to program in one language, you can more or less take the documentation of another in front of yourself - and you'd be able to program in it, too. It would take significantly more time because you have to check back on those things you'd otherwise know by memory already, but it is doable.)

 

*Incidentally, the person who thinks exactly alike to me - or at the very least reaches the exact same conclusions at the exact same moments - is a man. Does it make him less of a man or me less of a woman? No.

[TheDarkCynder]

Well, I can attest that as of last semester, with a modern anthropology textbook, gender is taught as a social construct.

This past semester I had a 10th grade sociology course that taught gender is a social construct.

[7Deadly$ins]

This past semester I had a 10th grade sociology course that taught gender is a social construct.

Forgot to add, college level.

[pudding]

Feminism

 

I honestly hate how society labels feminism as a taboo word. At least where I live, people constantly deny being feminists, even if they are for gender equality. It's like feminism is something women and men don't want to be equated to, even if it is just supposed to stand for equality. There's this general idea that feminism is something that is terrible and horrible when it's not.

[TikindiDragon]

Just read and focus on this sentance for a bit will you:

 

All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves

 

That's not a view that thinks we're bowing to social constructs. That's a view that thinks we're violating *her* idea of what a woman is. And that sort of language is so damaging to us it's unbelieveable.

 

Aditionally I am very insulted by being told that my sense of who I am is purely a social construct. Which is effectively what you are saying when you say all gender is about social constructs. You wouldn't tell someone that being gay is purely a social construct, who would you tell me that the very core of who I am is? That's deeply insulting.

 

Note some of the earlier comments in this thred:

 

So my question is: With both of these ideas in mind, what actually constitutes a male or female in society, and if there truly is no difference, why is gender dysphoria an issue?

 

People who have always thought of gender being a social construct being completely unable to understand (without help) why we even exist. And this was someone that honestly wanted to understand, there are plenty out there that reject my existence outright as being either an abomination now, or something that wouldn't be possible in their ideal world. Rarely have I found acceptance from feminists that I am a person that does exist, and that has the right to exist as I am.

 

And, believe me, I've come across far, far more predjudice in radical feminists that I have acceptance. Most of them don't wait to find out anything about you - they attack you because they think you're making yourself something you're not to fit in with society.

 

Most radical feminists I have come across think trans folk are part of the problem with society. Which means, in their ideal world, we wouldn't exist if they got the solution they wanted.

 

As if getting rid of stereotypes is somehow going to stop transfolk existing.

Edited July 1, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[hydrargyrum]

I think the big difference is in how gender is defined. To me, gender is sort of your mental sex, and is NOT femininity vs masculinity (which I would define as gender roles). Gender roles are completely defined by society, but I think gender itself exists absolutely, and the two terms should not be used interchangeably; they are two different concepts.

 

I think it's really hard for a cis person to understand what it's like to be trans, because when everything just feels right it's impossible to imagine how it could feel wrong. It's easy to wrongly think that (as a cis person) our bodies feel correct because it's our body, and not for the actual reason that our body and our mind just happened to be wired the same. I think that saying that a trans* person is just someone who doesn't like their gender role (as assigned by their physical sex) is ridiculous. Although I could never fully understand what a trans* person feels like, I can to some extent imagine that having a body that's different from what my mind said it should be would feel very wrong, whether or not society had any different expectations of me based on this wrong body.

[TikindiDragon]

Yes, there are some radfems that are anti-trans, but not all of them. Mostly we just want to get rid of the idea of gender - that women should be feminine, and men should be masculine.

 

 

Going by personal experience - more than not. I'm sure there may be radical feminists out there that aren't anti-trans, I've just never met one in person. Rather like people who have very bad experiences of Christianity being leery of anyone that identifies as 'Christian' I'm extremely leery of anyone who says they are a radical feminist. Bad experiences breed caution and distrust.

 

Femininity and masculinity (in other words, GENDER) are social constructs, not a thing that is innate to members of a particular sex. Not all women are feminine. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist - money is also a social construct - but it's a construct nonetheless. Being gay is not a social construct, it's a sexual preference.

 

And my being male is not a social construct. It's at the core of who I am, regardless of the plumbing. Also worthy of note is that extremely young children will begin to behave in gender-specific manners. Babies just starting to make eye contact will prefer looking at faces of the same gender they are. What's currently defined as 'masculine' and 'feminine' may be down to culture - the way our brains define 'male' and 'female' goes an awful lot deeper than that though. And trans-folk are living proof that it's not all in the plumbing you are born with. There's something more than just 'plumbing' and 'society'. A point you don't seem to have grasped.

 

Personally, I think the reason gender dysphoria exists is because patriarchy tries to force everyone of a particular sex into a specific, constructed role. Of COURSE people aren't going to all fit into those roles, that's silly. Gender is harmful and oppressive, especially to women, which is why it needs to be abolished. Sex dysphoria is completely different.

 

a) Well done. You've just gone and implied that I only exist because society is broken. Thanks for the insult.

 

Sex dysphoria does not exist. Google it and you'll either get stuff that is NSFW, or linked to 'Gender Dysphoria'. Creating a new term because the original one doesn't fit your agenda is silly.

 

c) I couldn't disagree more. Your assertion that gender is harmful and opressive completely misses the point than many people are very happy with who they are while being very stereotypically 'masculine' or 'feminine'. I actually think trying to homogenise the population (which your aim of eradicating gender sounds like it would do) is far, far more harmful than letting people get on with being who they want to be. I'm a little disturbed by the fact that redfem thinking seems more focused on destroying something (their idea of gender) than in building working relationships. The idea of male & female is not, and never has been, the problem. The problem is one side thinking they are better than the other (something I have noticed some feminists are also prone to - I've spoken to some who came out with some incredibly misandric statements). The approach you appear to be advocating will not fix that, nor will it help breed tolerance for each other and our differences.

 

Let me ask you this: do you think it's right that someone with sex dysphoria needs to act "like the other gender" before they can get the SRS that would relieve their dysphoria? What if a transman enjoys wearing heels and dresses but feels dysphoric about their body? What if a transwoman likes to keep her hair short and wear man clothes but wants SRS? Are they somehow less "trans" because they don't conform to a specific gender role? Gender is bad for trans people, it's bad for women, it's bad for everyone who isn't a gender-conforming male.

 

At the precise point in time? Yes, actually, I do. Not morally, because I hate the though of people having to force themselves to be something they are not, but for safteys sake. With the world the way it currently is it can be actively dangerous to be 'read' as trans. It's much easier to keep the fact that one is gay from people that might want to cause you harm.

 

In an ideal world, no, it would not be a requirement. For the moment, it's the only safe thing to do. And until trans rights start to gather momentum it will remain that way.

 

I'll throw something back to you - am I 'wrong' for enjoying steretypically male things? Am I somehow less of a person in your eyes because I actually *like* football, fishing, and DYI?

 

Again, I couldn't disagree with your thoughts on gender more. Largely because

a) I consider gender to be an integral part of a person's internal identity. To me, your suggestion implies that something which makes us all the individuals we are is *bad* is actually quite sick. To me it's like saying the best way to achieve equal sexual rights is to make sure no one has sex.

 

I consider 'masculine' and 'feminine' to encompass a certain set of traits in much the same way I consider 'athletic' or 'acedemic' to do the same thing. I fail to see the need to eradicate the concepts entirely, when allowing them to exist and teaching that there is nothing at all wrong with anyone displaying them seems much the more tolerant way.

 

I considered transgenderism for a while because I don't fit neatly into the femininity box even though I didn't experience sex dysphoria. Then I was introduced to radical feminism and realized I'm not trans, I just don't fit into what society says I should be, and that's okay.

 

I'm sorry it took you so long to work that out. Really I am. But your issue does not mean that the concept of femininity itself was the problem - it was the intolerance for difference in the people around you, and the lack of self-confidence that were the problems. This may shock you to hear it - but there are a lot of people on this planet that don't fit neatly into stereotyped boxes, aren't trans, aren't radical feminists... and are perfectly happy with themselves. And, yes, happy with the idea that masculine and feminine still exist. They didn't need a medical excuse, or hard-line rhetoric, to be comfortable with who they are.

 

I highly recommend the blogs of Aunty Orthodox and Snowflake Especial, transwomen who are also against the idea of gender.

 

Had a bit of a pick through, although it's getting pretty late here so I've stopped. Intresting to note something mentioned in one of the blogs - RadFem2013 is specifically excluding transwomen. That doesn't do much to suggest that the branch you are aligning yourself with is particularly trans-friendly.

[Shienvien]

Mostly we just want to get rid of the idea of gender - that women should be feminine, and men should be masculine.

Gender =/= gender role.

Gender role is a societal construct. Gender is not.

 

I think it hasn't been repeated enough times yet.

 

 

It is entirely possible for one to be the manliest woman in existence and still be a cis-woman, as well as one can be the girliest frilly-pink female-bodied individual around and still be a trans-man. It is so because your gender has nothing to do with the role you have adapted in society. Gender is all about what body-map the brain has built into it.

[Kith]

Please forgive the bluntness of this question; I'm not sure how else to ask it.

 

What is being done by trans*-friendly groups and the trans* community itself to change the official definitions, textbooks, etc. to reflect that what is currently defined as "gender" is "gender role," certain things that currently fall under "sex" are actually biological causes and/or traits of "gender," and other things previously discussed? If a lot of the current disconnect is how people are defining and using terms (as the whole sex vs. gender vs. gender role seems to be), are there things being done to change the official usage to one that is felt to be more correct by trans* individuals?

 

I'm not trying to be offensive or insulting or judgmental. I am honestly curious as to whether these endeavors are being pushed forward, and if so, in what manner and how they are progressing.

[hydrargyrum]

Going off a minor point of TikindiDragon's post, I hate what's happened to the word feminist. I guess it happens to any large group, that they're known more for the loud, hateful minority than the intelligent, rational majority, but I still hate it. I know that there are "feminists" who are actually trans-phobic misandrists, but it seems like it's becoming more and more common that people think that the majority of feminists are like this. I've heard of many people saying that their friends don't want to be called feminists or don't think they are feminists because they think that it would mean they hate men or that they would be put down by others who assume they hate men.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the words feminine and masculine. Obviously, they're not going away anytime soon. But I think that to some extent, they do imply "this is normal for girls" and "this is normal for boys". I get that some see it as simply a set of traits that need a way to be described, and that they have no relevance to gender. However, I think they do relate to gender, and if our society were truly equal, we would have other ways of describing those traits. As long as we have an idea of "this is feminine" and "this is masculine", there will be different expectations of men and women, and possibly discrimination for anyone who doesn't fit into these stereotypes (or possibly even discrimination for fitting into these stereotypes too well).

[siliconrose]

Honestly, I think most (though not all) things which are separated into "masculine" and "feminine" traits are social constructs, and thus, classifying people and things into those categories is a dangerous endeavor. It produces stereotyping and judgement when someone doesn't have the traits of their assigned gender or adopts the traits of the gender to which they do not apparently belong.

[Dr. Paine]

I'd just like to chime in with how I've always understood things, and ask... well, if they make sense, or if I need a swift kick in the pants for being awful.

 

Forcing gender roles-- the expectation that all women should be stay at home moms or all men should be strong and the providers and not show much emotion-- on people: bad. It's wrong to expect that of people, and definitely wrong to shame them for not fitting into those little boxes. If that's where someone does happen to fall? Fine then, as long as it's actually them.

 

And for transgender... I've always taken it to mean that it's not a matter of how someone presents themselves. Someone can be assigned female at birth, they might love pink sparkly things and makeup and all that, but still feels that at the core, they are male, then (jf they choose to embrace/express it of course) they're male. It's not a matter of interests, of how 'feminine' or 'masculine' someone acts, it's a matter of what they truly, deeply feel they should be, their body just does not match how they see themselves, regardless of how 'masculine' or 'feminine' their interests/overall actions are.

[KageSora]

Going off a minor point of TikindiDragon's post, I hate what's happened to the word feminist. I guess it happens to any large group, that they're known more for the loud, hateful minority than the intelligent, rational majority, but I still hate it. I know that there are "feminists" who are actually trans-phobic misandrists, but it seems like it's becoming more and more common that people think that the majority of feminists are like this. I've heard of many people saying that their friends don't want to be called feminists or don't think they are feminists because they think that it would mean they hate men or that they would be put down by others who assume they hate men.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the words feminine and masculine. Obviously, they're not going away anytime soon. But I think that to some extent, they do imply "this is normal for girls" and "this is normal for boys". I get that some see it as simply a set of traits that need a way to be described, and that they have no relevance to gender. However, I think they do relate to gender, and if our society were truly equal, we would have other ways of describing those traits. As long as we have an idea of "this is feminine" and "this is masculine", there will be different expectations of men and women, and possibly discrimination for anyone who doesn't fit into these stereotypes (or possibly even discrimination for fitting into these stereotypes too well).

Whenever I see this, I try to speak out and go "Whoa, hey--man-haters aren't feminists. Feminists are not female superiority supporters, they're equality supporters. Most of us are sane and rational and don't hate men for being men--we just want equality."

 

 

Re:Gender:

 

How I see it is:

 

Sex = biological bits

 

Gender = How your brain feels in relation to the biological bits

 

Gender role = Set roles that specific sexes are supposed to fill according to society

 

 

My biological sex is female, I don't fit into traditional gender roles, and my gender identity is still a bit uncertain (complicated as hell to figure out).

 

But seriously, though, AngelKitty--I think you might want to actually listen to a person who's trans and can thus speak from experience rather than telling him "no you're wrong you wouldn't exist if society were different" because that's hella insulting. :/

[hydrargyrum]

Maybe transgender people should listen to WOMEN, since we're the ones who are being oppressed by a gender system that tells us we should be submissive to males. What's insulting is being told that the gender system that is oppressive to me and other WBW isn't actually oppressive.

 

Also notice that there are trans people who agree that gender is oppressive. Or does their experience and opinion not count because they're against gender?

Woah. As a cis-gendered female, I should be in exactly the category you're talking about. But even I realize that in most cases, "WBW" as you call them face WAY less oppression than any trans* person. The current gender roles oppress anyone who doesn't fit into the stereotypes. Saying that only "WBW" (which I really don't particularly like this term, since it sort of implies that only cis-women are real women, and are "better" than trans-women) matter in the fight for equality is ridiculous. Is a man who dreams of nothing more than being a father, but is ridiculed as being a wimp or not good enough for a real job not important? LISTEN to the other people posting. Yes, maybe there are some trans* people who agree with you, but that doesn't mean that you're automatically right. There are also women who think that women belong in the kitchen. There will always be some people in the oppressed group who still believe oppression is OK; just because they're the ones you're fighting for doesn't mean they're always right.

 

Gender is very real. I am very definitely a woman. But I don't want it to define my life choices. Feminism isn't about abolishing gender, it's about not being defined by it.

[7Deadly$ins]

Even if you abolished all gender roles in society I would still identify as a woman. That's all gender is. You can claim the World Health Organization claims that gender = gender roles and is therefore the end all be all response, but definitions are written by humans and definitions change.

[lightbird]

Whenever someone talks about how gender is learned/social construct, I remember David Reimer.

[Shienvien]

Someone can be assigned female at birth, they might love pink sparkly things and makeup and all that, but still feels that at the core, they are male, then they're male. It's not a matter of interests, of how 'feminine' or 'masculine' someone acts, it's a matter of what they truly, deeply feel they should be, their body just does not match how they see themselves, regardless of how 'masculine' or 'feminine' their interests/overall actions are.

This. Very much this.

 

Sorry, but the World Health Organization disagrees.

WHO has sprouted a lot of nonsense over time. Some of it has been recalled. Perhaps they would update their definitions of gender and gender role one day, too? I'd like it to happen.

 

[St. Jimmy]

Just curious, Angelkitty... how do people who don't identify as 100% male or female fit into the whole "gender is oppressive" thing? Genderqueer/fluid/agender/etc are also gender identities.

[7Deadly$ins]

There are nations with more than two gender roles who still self define as male or female or something else. I don't understand why separating gender from gender role is such a challenging concept.

[Shienvien]

I don't understand why we need such an oppressive, dysphoria-causing construct at all, whether a society has two genders or twenty.

Gender =/= gender role.

 

Gender does not cause anything you claim it does, AngelKitty. Only gender roles do those things. Perhaps you do not have such a strong, hmm, sense of gender in the lack of better term (in the other words, you're agendered and only consider yourself female because your body is so), but many people do. It is an entirely separate concept from your preferences and skills. It has no relation to what you like or do. It is simply what you are, and that's it.

 

Saying gender doesn't exist is not unlike saying sexuality is choice.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Shienvien

[hydrargyrum]

The way I see it, our brain knows what our body is supposed to look like. It knows that we have 2 arms, 2 legs, a head, etc. When people lose a limb in an accident, they often still feel sensations in the missing appendage, because even though they KNOW it's gone, the brain still thinks that it should be there, because the internal map hasn't changed. Gender is nothing more than the brain's map of what the "plumbing" should be. I also like to think of it as the sex you would be in the matrix . Gender says nothing about masculine or feminine; that's gender roles. And I don't think that saying gender exists means that it's limited, just like saying gay and straight exists doesn't limit orientation to those 2 exclusive options.

 

And I agree with Shienvien-I think you might be agender (you said yourself you don't consider yourself cis or trans). As someone who does consider myself female, I definitely believe gender exists. I'm not feminine, so you can't really argue that it's just my gender role, and it's more than just the fact that I have the parts; it's deeper than that. I can't explain why it feels right, it just does.

Edited July 2, 2013 by hydrargyrum

[TikindiDragon]

Because gendered societies try to force people into a box instead of just letting them be themselves? I don't understand why we need such an oppressive, dysphoria-causing construct at all, whether a society has two genders or twenty.

Okay. I was holding off replying because the whole thing has been making me toweringly angry (not a good thing, really, so I'm trying to avoid it). Still.... how many times do you have to be told that my dysphoria is *not* created by society? I don't understand what you're not getting here. To me my gender is an essential and integral part of who I am, and you don't seem to be able to accept that every time you deny that you are being hugely insulting.

 

That said you support the WBW idea, so I'm not sure why I should expect you to even *want* to understand a transgender point of view.

[7Deadly$ins]

I'm not "agendered." I don't define myself by gender.

 

And the concept of gender includes gender roles. Gender defines what people should wear, what jobs they should do, what behaviors they should perform, what peronalities they should have. Just because some people are okay with their assigned gender, doesn't make it an unoppressive system.

 

The point still stands that if gender didn't exist, then people wouldn't experience gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is social. People could be happy without having to be "trans" or "genderqueer."

 

Perhaps people are unwilling to see the damage that gender causes because it's women who are oppressed by it and who typically call it out as such? It seems that whenever a feminist says something hurts women as a whole - gender, the sex industry, advertisements, BDSM, etc. - people get mad, tell us we're overreacting, we're wrong, we're seeing oppression where there is none, we're denying people rights, etc. instead of looking at these things critically and understanding why they're harmful.

 

And no, it's not. Sexuality isn't an artifical construct, gender is.

So how do you explain men who behave in all the stereotyped "male" ways, but still self identify as women?

 

All in all I've found this to be an enlightening discussion. I consider myself a feminist and most people don't like to be associated with radical feminists. Being that I've never had a conversation with one before, I find this quite enlightening....