All: Why do a lot of trans people insist that being non binary or trans has nothing to to with stereotyoes, and then suddenly it really is about stereotypes?

submitted by questioningtw from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (31 children)

Your claim is femininity is bad and a construction of the patriarchy.

I don't think that's how the majority of women view it. You disagree.

I don't see who you can have "good gender non conforming males" if you condemn femininity.

I'd also add the majority of women are attracted to masculinity.

Doesn't seem much point in deny these things.

[–]adungitit 7 insightful - 7 fun7 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 7 fun -  (20 children)

Wow, you actually said something instead of pathetically trying to worm out of your own words. Still didn't actually clarify what you were supposed to, but hey, we're getting there. Actually probably not. I doubt you'll be able to go beyond repeating "buh dick says girls like Chads".

Your claim is femininity is bad and a construction of the patriarchy.

It...objectively is? Women are not born in high heels and dresses. Hell, those things weren't even associated with women until relatively recently. More and more women are wearing "masculine" clothing, more and more are taking on "masculine" responsibilities that have always been denied to them. Men are whining about this the same as always and jerking each other off about how incapable women are and how much happier they were or would be back by their masters' feet, and women are trying to coddle their egos by promising that they can still be sexy for them even if they're "empowered". This has been happening even before women could vote.

Femininity and masculinity are objectively damaging for women. You can lie through your teeth that they're not, but both women's experiences and statistics speak for themselves.

I don't think that's how the majority of women view it.

Women trying to haggle with the patriarchy and compromise with the dominant class for their acceptance has always been the case, as well as men using normalised oppression of women as evidence that women like being oppressed. Women being groomed and brainwashed to accept their oppression is nothing new. Women used to accept they don't need to vote, or have careers, or go outside, or be educated, or deserve sexual satisfaction and that they deserve to be beaten and owned by their husbands. All of these have been used by men to argue that women are happy in their oppression.

I'd also add the majority of women are attracted to masculinity.

Let me guess, because romance novels? Those are getting pushed out by things like fanfics which show a variety that would never be apparent just from the stuff published based on what women should be into. Moreover, a lot of women are into "feminine" pop stars and gay men to the point of it being a joke. Women not enjoying misogynistic sex, being objectified and men pestering them to do things for male benefit is seen as an integral part of heterosexual relationships and while men indeed love it and as always insist that women do, too (with ofc infinite orgasms that they're giving them in this arrangement because they're just so good like that), most women have a different story to tell. The embarrassingly low rates of orgasm for straight (and bi) women, as well as widespread traumatic experiences tells a different story from the submissive-housewife-happy-in-her-place fairy tale. Men proclaim these as misandrist overreactions and/or just ignore them no matter how normal it is to hear them, and apply survivorship bias to any woman who's proudly stockhold-syndrome'd herself into liking the misogynistic androcentric status quo that is given to women as the only option, and avoid the masses of unhappy, neglected, anxious and traumatised women who are sick of male bullshit. This sort of wilful ignorance and lying through their teeth that men engage in for the sake of prettying up the status quo is different from women, who, even when they say things that men want them to say, are usually still either aware of or suffer from the negative impacts of the things that they're pretending to be okay with for the sake of patriarchal approval.

I don't see who you can have "good gender non conforming males" if you condemn femininity.

Most gender nonconforming male people are fetishists. They are "nonconforming" because their dicks get hard from taking on the role of inferior subhuman women. This is why misogyny is paradoxically (but actually not when you think about it) still the norm among them just like with conforming men. There is no difference between the two except what specific fetish they're jerking to (which they picked up from other men in the first place). Men do not perceive women as human beings, they perceive them as caricatures, dolls created for their entertainment, so to men, gender nonconformity has nothing to do with freeing oneself from the gender hierarchy from which they still derive their entire worldview from, and everything to do with donning a patriarchal costume, a male idea of a woman and all the inferiority contained in it. This is in stark contrast with how women do nonconformity and relate to men.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (19 children)

It...objectively is? Women are not born in high heels and dresses.

You think all of femininity comes down to that?

Hell, those things weren't even associated with women until relatively recently. More and more women are wearing "masculine" clothing, more and more are taking on "masculine" responsibilities that have always been denied to them.

You are conflating things to suggest that femininity is going away. It isn't.

Femininity in women continues.

Women can be in a position of power and still be feminine.

Women can express masculinity, that does not make them a better person that a woman who does not.

Men are whining about this the same as always and jerking each other off about how incapable women are and how much happier they were or would be back by their masters' feet, and women are trying to coddle their egos by promising that they can still be sexy for them even if they're "empowered". This has been happening even before women could vote.

This is an extreme position few men or women adhere to or believe in.

Femininity and masculinity are objectively damaging for women. You can lie through your teeth that they're not, but both women's experiences and statistics speak for themselves.

How are minor symbolic items objectively damaging for women?

This seems geared towards masculinity as the better norm.

Women trying to haggle with the patriarchy and compromise with the dominant class for their acceptance has always been the case, as well as men using normalised oppression of women as evidence that women like being oppressed.

I'm sorry I don't recognise this position.

To me you are denying women agency.

Those are getting pushed out by things like fanfics which show a variety that would never be apparent just from the stuff published based on what women should be into.

The variety does mean majority. Some are popular and some are not. Of course it's a spectrum but not an even spectrum.

Moreover, a lot of women are into "feminine" pop stars and gay men to the point of it being a joke.

I thought "feminine" was wrong.

If it's wrong for anyone to express it, it's surely wrong for anyone to enjoy it?

Even if it is a small minority.

Women not enjoying misogynistic sex, being objectified and men pestering them to do things for male benefit is seen as an integral part of heterosexual relationships and while men indeed love it and as always insist that women do, too (with ofc infinite orgasms that they're giving them in this arrangement because they're just so good like that), most women have a different story to tell. The embarrassingly low rates of orgasm for straight (and bi) women, as well as widespread traumatic experiences tells a different story from the submissive-housewife-happy-in-her-place fairy tale.

Heterosexual relationships could be better. I don't see these women being happier if they give up "femininity" or indeed men give up "masculinity."

Most gender nonconforming male people are fetishists. They are "nonconforming" because their dicks get hard from taking on the role of inferior subhuman women. This is why misogyny is paradoxically (but actually not when you think about it) still the norm among them just like with conforming men. There is no difference between the two except what specific fetish they're jerking to (which they picked up from other men in the first place). Men do not perceive women as human beings, they perceive them as caricatures, dolls created for their entertainment, so to men, gender nonconformity has nothing to do with freeing oneself from the gender hierarchy from which they still derive their entire worldview from, and everything to do with donning a patriarchal costume, a male idea of a woman and all the inferiority contained in it.

I'm sorry I find this an extreme position offers no way out. It condemns women and men. It condemns common sexual behaviour. It condemns non conforming sexual behaviour.

This is in stark contrast with how women do nonconformity and relate to men.

How?

Here's how it looks by your standards.

If a nonconforming woman likes masculine men then she is conforming to gender and fetishizing masculinity in men.

If a nonconforming woman likes feminine men then she is fetishizing femininity in men.

It doesn't make sense, except to condemn everyone.

[–]adungitit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You are conflating things to suggest that femininity is going away. It isn't.

Except...it is? Conservatives are raging that men and women are losing sight of what they're supposed to be. Previous generations would've been shocked at the state that gender roles are currently in.

This is an extreme position few men or women adhere to or believe in.

Wow, a man can lie through his teeth that misogyny isn't a widespread issue! Stop the presses! This changes everything!

Misogyny cannot simultaneously be "extremely rare position" and dominate society everywhere. Women cannot consistently be screwed over by men and gender norms going centuries back, and also have it "not happen" because...well, men can lie that it doesn't happen!

How are minor symbolic items objectively damaging for women?

I thought the mystical ethereal feminine essence cannot be defined in such simplistic material ways?

I'm sorry I don't recognise this position.

Wow, a man can lie through his teeth that misogyny isn't a widespread issue! Stop the presses! This changes everything!

To me you are denying women agency.

lmao a male supremacist jerking his dick to gender essentialism is talking about denying women agency. The lack of self-awareness is hilarious. Here's a tip: if you sound like a misogynistic piece of shit to yourself, that's a sign to reconsider your views, not to wank even harder.

The variety does mean majority.

Uh...ok? So...you'll stop using outdated publishing norms revolving around sexual assault and male supremacy to claim what women TruLy WaNt, right? Of course you won't.

I thought "feminine" was wrong.

You're trying to derail again. You claimed women are only into masculine men. I noted the fact that women constantly show interest in non-masculine men to the point of this being a joke, so the whole "women just go after alpha chads cuz ladybrains" mythology isn't making sense.

Heterosexual relationships could be better. I don't see these women being happier if they give up "femininity" or indeed men give up "masculinity."

lol I love how you acknowledge the problem exists, and then in typical male fashion switch to "but things are k as they are". Wow, a man can lie that misogyny isn't a problem! That changes everything!

I'm sorry I find this an extreme position offers no way out.

Great, so you've realised you have no way of making your bullshit make sense. Now are you going to stop repeating it?

Of course you won't.

How?

Nonconforming women do so because they want to be free from constant objectification that women are put though. They don't get off to being masculine, it's not a fetish, they just want to be seen as human beings, but under androcentrism, human=male (to the point of this literally being reflected in language), while women are caricatured aberrations. Women who think they're men do so because they can't associate themselves with these caricatured aberrations. Men who think of themselves as women do so because they think of women as caricatured aberrations, and get off to roleplaying that. Hence why misogyny reigns supreme even among the people who pretend they're all about "gender-fuckery", while in male communities it's straight up male supremacy, the sort that's the norm in any male community. Liberal feminist communities are more about trying to make the patriarchy empowering and waving their fingers at it only when it gets a bit too much, but they don't literally push overt male supremacist ideas and bioessentialism the way that all male communities do.

If a nonconforming woman likes masculine men then she is conforming to gender and fetishizing masculinity in men.

A woman who's brainwashed into liking masculinity is suffering from internalised misogyny. Masculinity is "fetishised" insofar as men are highly rewarded for being selfish, narcissistic and phallocentric, and women are told putting up with this is the only way heterosexuality is possible because men and their supremacist history are the ones who set up sexual norms.

If a nonconforming woman likes feminine men then she is fetishizing femininity in men.

It's almost like femininity exists in order to subjugate women, hence the misogynistic draw to it and the cycles of abuse and trauma that result from it!

But let me guess, you can simply lie through your teeth that these things aren't happening, and that will change everything.

It doesn't make sense, except to condemn everyone.

We'd never want to make men's dicks feel bad, would we?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (17 children)

Except...it is? Conservatives are raging that men and women are losing sight of what they're supposed to be. Previous generations would've been shocked at the state that gender roles are currently in.

Conservatives often hold an extreme position of rigid gender norms that see anything less than super conformity as "the end of gender."

GC also sometimes take a position that anything less than rigid gender norms is "the end of gender."

Gender norms evolve but new ones emerge. There can be more gender equality in terms of economic, political, professional roles but gender carries on in new ways. Or only a minority is interested in that non conformity.

I thought the mystical ethereal feminine essence cannot be defined in such simplistic material ways?

I can think it is aggregate.

lmao a male supremacist jerking his dick to gender essentialism is talking about denying women agency.

This is derailing.

The variety does mean majority.

I mean variety does not mean majority.

So...you'll stop using outdated publishing norms revolving around sexual assault and male supremacy to claim what women TruLy WaNt, right? Of course you won't.

I think you're going against the majority of women here. I'm not in charge of women's tastes in erotica.

You claimed women are only into masculine men.

I said the majority are.

Exceptions prove the rule.

I noted the fact that women constantly show interest in non-masculine men to the point of this being a joke, so the whole "women just go after alpha chads cuz ladybrains" mythology isn't making sense.

They do not constant show interest in "non masculine men." It is a small minority and I can't imagine you would approve of them.

Nonconforming women do so because they want to be free from constant objectification that women are put though.

I would dispute this rationality.

I think non conforming, cross conforming women wan to express that masculinity first. Their expression comes before a reaction to men.

It happens to be that a lot, a majority, will be same sex attracted and therefore not want male attention.

They don't get off to being masculine, it's not a fetish, they just want to be seen as human beings,

Where would self declared autoandrophiliacs fit into this?

but under androcentrism, human=male (to the point of this literally being reflected in language), while women are caricatured aberrations.

Again I don't recognise this.

This is one group of behaviours is "bad stereotypes."

Whilst another is "freedom."

Women who think they're men do so because they can't associate themselves with these caricatured aberrations.

Where do feminine trans men fit into your model of this?

Men who think of themselves as women do so because they think of women as caricatured aberrations, and get off to roleplaying that. Hence why misogyny reigns supreme even among the people who pretend they're all about "gender-fuckery", while in male communities it's straight up male supremacy, the sort that's the norm in any male community. Liberal feminist communities are more about trying to make the patriarchy empowering and waving their fingers at it only when it gets a bit too much, but they don't literally push overt male supremacist ideas and bioessentialism the way that all male communities do.

This makes it sound like all relationships with men are the problem.

Which sounds like feminist seperatism.

I recall you have denounced women having relationships with in the past.

Is this your current position?

A woman who's brainwashed into liking masculinity is suffering from internalised misogyny.

But you also think women who like femininity have been brain washed.

I'm confused about how this is supposed to work.

Masculinity is "fetishised" insofar as men are highly rewarded for being selfish, narcissistic and phallocentric, and women are told putting up with this is the only way heterosexuality is possible because men and their supremacist history are the ones who set up sexual norms.

And how should it be?

You repeatedly define things by what they ought not to be not what like in things.

I've said plenty of things I like.

But what do you actually like?

We'd never want to make men's dicks feel bad, would we?

I'm for men and women finding sexual fulfilment.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

GC also sometimes take a position that anything less than rigid gender norms is "the end of gender."

This is ridiculous claim. Gender ideology activists want gender norms to hold on, so there can be non-binary and so "transition" is possible. Gender Critical people are critical of the concept of gender and want to remove it completely, as it is almost always harmful to women and sometimes harmful to men. Saying that GC want gender norms to be rigid or that any shuffling between gender norms is removing them is complete opposite to the whole idea of GC.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (15 children)

This is ridiculous claim.

I've seen it made when gc wants to point to gender non conformity it approves of.

Gender ideology activists want gender norms to hold on, so there can be non-binary and so "transition" is possible.

I don't think the qt side frequently makes contradictory positions that don't make sense.

To summarise, they often claim to be entirely constructionist but also support trans claims when they are essentialist.

It does not make sense.

Gender Critical people are critical of the concept of gender and want to remove it completely,

Which I don't think many people find realistic.

as it is almost always harmful to women and sometimes harmful to men. Saying that GC want gender norms to be rigid or that any shuffling between gender norms is removing them is complete opposite to the whole idea of GC.

I do think gc generally wants rigid gender norms.

But I do think it makes false claims about change from things that aren't considered commonly non conforming.

In general I'd compare it to sexual orientation. If orientation was like gender expression.

QT might say people ought to be free to have any orientation. At the same time they might accept someone linking their sexuality to their sex as a norm. It's contradictory if you think there are no natural links.

GC might say people ought to be free to have any orientation and that people ought to break the heterosexual normality. But it's unclear what that would mean. Would everyone be bisexual? Would there be equal gay and straight people?

I'm not saying this is what qt and gc are debating I'm making a comparison to a related to topic to show how I see the argument.

I'd say orientation is natural and strongly correlated to sex.

I'd also say orientation is strongly correlated to gender expression.

GC might say why would a straight crossdresser say that? Well because straight crossdressers are rarer. In surveys most crossdressers are at least bisexual. The majority are same sex attracted, or bi.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I do think gc generally wants rigid gender norms.

No, we don't. As you can tell majority of us love mocking TRAs gender stereotype posts and we have a few rabid radicals who are trying to erase a concept that came about from basic pattern recognition from people just observing their local culture. Gendercriticals, just hate the reasoning behind the trans movement and majority of us know the difference between "correlation" of human physiology to sex and not "causation". In other words, we know there's no "female" or "male" brain or special sex-based biological network in a person's body which makes the brain and the body argue whatever sex they are and therefore determine that you would want to wear a dress and high heels.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

That was a typo. It meant to read "don't." I actually thought I'd fixed that.

Though the relationship is complicated in that I see some gc wanting masculinity only.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What do you mean by "wanting masculinity only"?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I've seen it made when gc wants to point to gender non conformity it approves of.

I don't understand what you mean here. Explain, please.

Which I don't think many people find realistic.

Does not make it not worth to name the problems of it and aim to fix them.

In general I'd compare it to sexual orientation. If orientation was like gender expression.

It absolutely different concepts. One is innate function and part of organism, which is seen among majority of mammals. And other is socially constructed system, which we can chose not to follow.

QT might say people ought to be free to have any orientation. At the same time they might accept someone linking their sexuality to their sex as a norm. It's contradictory if you think there are no natural links.

GC might say people ought to be free to have any orientation and that people ought to break the heterosexual normality. But it's unclear what that would mean. Would everyone be bisexual? Would there be equal gay and straight people?

That is mostly what homophobes were saying and often position of mainstream QT movement (thought I know many QT who disagree). "Everyone is pansexual" is promoted.

I'd also say orientation is strongly correlated to gender expression.

My older friends who lived in USSR said when they were out as lesbians, everyone was saying to them that they like "femininity", so they may like feminine presenting men. While in reality it is not the case. Heterosexual women can like masculine, feminine or androgynous men (and young boysbands are often composed from androgynous men, because they are not looking dangerous, so it is easier to lure teen girls to listen to them). Same goes to lesbians. Same goes to gay men.

When I was living in Russia I was told a lot that I love femininity and not females (I am bisexual, but I am FEBFem, so I was saying that I am lesbian, so men were not hitting for me that often) as well. QT's idea that people are "same-gender attracted" is very homophobic and is not new idea.

GC might say why would a straight crossdresser say that? Well because straight crossdressers are rarer. In surveys most crossdressers are at least bisexual. The majority are same sex attracted, or bi.

Your logic is going backwards here. I will try to be very clear in every step now:

  1. We are attracted to one sex.

  2. On that one sex society is imposing some stereotypes.

  3. We are unconciously entangling those stereotypes with that sex, because we are used to see it everywhere.

  4. When we see or hear that stereotype - we are thinking about that sex first, because we are used to think that way.

  5. If those stereotypes are big part of "what is attractive to opposite sex" enforced by society, then people of one sex will try follow stereotypes to be rewarded with being called attractive and having more success among opposite sex.

  6. So when bisexual or gay man want to attract more men - they may start cross-dressing, because dresses and skirts are what is magnetting attention of most men, as they are used to think that it is attractive. So even heterosexual men would give some attention to gay or bisexual men who are wearing such cloths. Having stereotypes and sex mixed in wrong order will make brains of people confused. Brains are working through samples, because brains are lazy, so when something uncommon occurs - brain is confused as it can't sort things instantly, and person have mixed feelings.

Here some random example:

Let's say women are all forced to wear hats, and no man is wearing hat - it was against the law for decades to be other way.

Gay man want more attention of other men - he puts hat on his head. Now heterosexual men are confused, because they see hat and under hat is not a woman, at the same time gay men seeing this man and thinking "if he want attention from men, this means he may be gay or bi". So it serves few purposes.

heterosexual cross-dresser

If it is not fetish or AGP - I am not sure why this can occur. What is the reasoning behind it? To run from gender norms and feel more free? Men aren't pressured that much, for this to happen often. I am interested.

I can understand why there are female cross-dressers - it is very common experience for women to want to escape gender roles imposed on us.

When I was a teen girl, I was trying to act manly, wear less revealing cloths and not take care of my face and hair, often to have dirty cloths - like boys do. I was doing this to escape attention of men, to escape the role I did not liked. When I was wearing a skirt - I was seeing all the hungry gazes, I was hearing all those jokes about me, I was seeing advertisements on TV - and I did not wanted to be associated with an object, I wanted to be a human being, like boys or men. Being "feminine" was making me feel like a lesser being. And it is why there always so many teen girls are trying to escape womanhood, and more misogynistic times - more of them appear.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

I don't understand what you mean here. Explain, please.

For instance a social conservative might say a man cooking the meals and woman working is a break down of gender norms.

GC might say "great this is a breakdown of gender norms."

But most people might say this isn't an end of gender, gender carries on and both these people are gender conforming.

It absolutely different concepts. One is innate function and part of organism, which is seen among majority of mammals. And other is socially constructed system, which we can chose not to follow.

You are saying men and women can happily choose to be gender conforming.

If you define both masculinity and femininity as absolute social constructions and femininity as oppression and masculinity as freedom then the logic is everyone should be masculine and gender would be abolished when everyone is masculine.

"Everyone is pansexual" is promoted.

I don't think "Everyone is pansexual" makes sense. I don't think "Everyone is gender non conforming" makes sense.

My older friends who lived in USSR said when they were out as lesbians, everyone was saying to them that they like "femininity", so they may like feminine presenting men. While in reality it is not the case

Of course I don't think that makes sense, I don't think that's how lesbians are.

Heterosexual women can like masculine, feminine or androgynous men (and young boysbands are often composed from androgynous men, because they are not looking dangerous, so it is easier to lure teen girls to listen to them).

But heterosexual women are likely to like masculine men. Heterosexual men are likely to like feminine women. That's a universal pattern. The minority of pattern breakers don't end that.

Same goes to lesbians. Same goes to gay men.

Where does the higher level of gender non conformity fit into the gay community there?

Let's say women are all forced to wear hats, and no man is wearing hat - it was against the law for decades to be other way.

Gay man want more attention of other men - he puts hat on his head.

OK I don't think this is how it works. I think feminine gay men want to express femininity irrespective of the interest from men.

Just as I think masculine gay women want to express some form masculinity irrespective of interest from women.

There IS a relationship between sexuality and expression but the expression comes first.

Are you saying expression is different for men and women?

Now heterosexual men are confused, because they see hat and under hat is not a woman, at the same time gay men seeing this man and thinking "if he want attention from men, this means he may be gay or bi". So it serves few purposes.

You are saying that heterosexual women are confused by masculine women and gay women think masculine women must want attention from women?

If it is not fetish or AGP - I am not sure why this can occur.

Right so you don't think femininity in straight men is a impossibility because femininity only exists to attract men?

You mean feminine gay women can't be attractive to gay women?

Another problem to with gc being for Blanchardian ideas is that they are very gender essentialist.

What is the reasoning behind it? To run from gender norms and feel more free? Men aren't pressured that much, for this to happen often.

Men are pressured to be masculine.

I am interested.

You mean why would a straight man crossdress?

I can understand why there are female cross-dressers - it is very common experience for women to want to escape gender roles imposed on us.

But you don't think anyone can be naturally attracted to expressing femininity in others. Man or woman?

When I was a teen girl, I was trying to act manly, wear less revealing cloths and not take care of my face and hair, often to have dirty cloths - like boys do. I was doing this to escape attention of men, to escape the role I did not liked. When I was wearing a skirt - I was seeing all the hungry gazes, I was hearing all those jokes about me, I was seeing advertisements on TV - and I did not wanted to be associated with an object, I wanted to be a human being, like boys or men. Being "feminine" was making me feel like a lesser being. And it is why there always so many teen girls are trying to escape womanhood, and more misogynistic times - more of them appear.

I mean I can see a woman wanting to escape that aggressive male attention.

At the same time same sex attraction is associated with gender non conformity. I don't think that is all about escaping male eyes.

As a bisexual you surely also want male attention at times and there are males attracted to masculine women.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

For instance a social conservative might say a man cooking the meals and woman working is a break down of gender norms.

GC might say "great this is a breakdown of gender norms."

It can be the break of gender norms in some cultures, but only the beginning of it.

But most people might say this isn't an end of gender, gender carries on and both these people are gender conforming.

GC would not say it is the end of gender either, just first steps to.

You are saying men and women can happily choose to be gender conforming.

Gender conformity is rewarded, while gender non conformity is punished. So obviously some men and women will happily chose conformity.

If you define both masculinity and femininity as absolute social constructions and femininity as oppression and masculinity as freedom then the logic is everyone should be masculine and gender would be abolished when everyone is masculine.

Masculinity isn't freedom, but it is associated with more freedom.

"Everyone is pansexual" is promoted.

I don't think "Everyone is pansexual" makes sense. I don't think "Everyone is gender non conforming" makes sense.

But they are completely different concepts. Just because they both may make no sense - does not make them equal.

But heterosexual women are likely to like masculine men. Heterosexual men are likely to like feminine women. That's a universal pattern. The minority of pattern breakers don't end that.

You are failing on causality again. Heterosexual women are liking masculine men not because they are liking masculinity, but because masculinity is associated with men, masculinity is promoted as something that is attractive. Previously masculinity was wearing make-up and tight leggings - today it will be called feminine. Same with different cultures, masculine american may be recognized as feminine somewhere in India or Oceania, and masculine indian man in dress can be considered as feminine in USA. However, heterosexual women are still loving them, even thought they are looking the opposite.

Where does the higher level of gender non conformity fit into the gay community there?

I said in another answer to you this - gay men do not need to attract women, so they do not forced to follow more masculine presentation, as it becomes useless to them in this case. And they may want to attract male gazes, so they will more likely to have feminine presentation.

OK I don't think this is how it works. I think feminine gay men want to express femininity irrespective of the interest from men.

What you are saying that social masculinity and femininity is some genetical part of human behaviour. This makes no sense - as why then different cultures have different view on visual presentation of femininity and masculinity if it is innate?

There IS a relationship between sexuality and expression but the expression comes first.

No. Otherwise all cultures would had universal beauty standarts and universal femininity/masculinity descriptions.

Are you saying expression is different for men and women?

Reasons for it? Yes.

You are saying that heterosexual women are confused by masculine women and gay women think masculine women must want attention from women?

must

MAY want, not must want.

Right so you don't think femininity in straight men is a impossibility because femininity only exists to attract men?

That is what you saying, I never said or implied it. I am asking why you may have such urge to dres and look like a woman (which is not the same as to perform femininity). I am interested what can be a reason to conform to gender stereotypes of opposite sex when not being transgender, not being fetishist (as femininity is entangled with "being sexually attractive") and other similar reasons. I am not denying that there are other reasons for this, but I don't know them. And if you are one of those cases - I am interested to hear your position.

You mean feminine gay women can't be attractive to gay women?

???

Another problem to with gc being for Blanchardian ideas is that they are very gender essentialist.

Elaborate this point.

Men are pressured to be masculine.

So you want to escape this, but escape by going into opposite oppressive group?

You mean why would a straight man crossdress?

Yes, the one without sexual fetishes, and without being gender non conforming most of the time (as cross-dressing implies it is part-time activity, not permanent).

But you don't think anyone can be naturally attracted to expressing femininity in others. Man or woman?

I don't understand the question in that context.

I mean I can see a woman wanting to escape that aggressive male attention.

At the same time same sex attraction is associated with gender non conformity. I don't think that is all about escaping male eyes.

As a bisexual you surely also want male attention at times and there are males attracted to masculine women.

Not really, I went fully FEBFem way. I can find men attractive, but I would not want to date any, or any to give me attention.

[–]Juniperius 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If you define both masculinity and femininity as absolute social constructions and femininity as oppression and masculinity as freedom then the logic is everyone should be masculine and gender would be abolished when everyone is masculine.

"If we define slavery and slave-ownership as social constructions and we abolish slavery then everyone will be slave-owners"

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Gender nonconformity does not mean "following femininity stereotypes". It means not following masculinity stereotypes.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

But there are only two gender norms. How are they supposed to avoid both gender norms? What does that look like?

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I have asked you this before, and (unsurprisingly) you had no answer: what "gender" is preferring Coca Cola vs Pepsi? Which one is masculine and which is feminine?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If you are not conforming to gender norms, this means you are not conforming to gender norms - regardless if there two, three, five, million of them. It does not mean "I am not conforming to one norm, so I will follow second norm instead". What you are saying is called gender conformity - you are just conforming to other stereotype, not one that is expected from you.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

But I don't know how someone can be non conforming without conforming to the opposite gender norms.

Are they supposed to be a high percentage of mixed behaviours? Is that it?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There are behaviours, looks and activities which are either gender neutral, or not explored at all.

Man can wear male-specific dress, for example. Not dress that was made for female, but dress that was made specifically for a male body type. It will be gender nonconforming and not following gender stereotypes about women.

Man can put white powder like samurai's on his face instead of using sexualized lipstick and pink powders.

Same with behaviour. Just not acting as is expected from a man is enough, - just ignoring silently already can be gender nonconforming.

There are many ways of not conforming to stereotypes.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

There are behaviours, looks and activities which are either gender neutral, or not explored at all.

You mean androgyny?

Man can wear male-specific dress, for example. Not dress that was made for female, but dress that was made specifically for a male body type. It will be gender nonconforming and not following gender stereotypes about women.

But a male specific item is masculine.

Man can put white powder like samurai's on his face instead of using sexualized lipstick and pink powders.

Is this gender non conformity or cultural non conformity?

Samurais are masculine figures associated with power and violence.

So yes if the majority of men decided that Samurai make up was the thing then it would become a masculine norm and still associated with swords and fighting.

Changes in norms are not the end of norms.

Same with behaviour. Just not acting as is expected from a man is enough,

Not expected of a man implies expected of a woman.

What else would it mean?

just ignoring silently already can be gender nonconforming.

What does this mean?

There are many ways of not conforming to stereotypes.

How?

What are the many ways for a person to be gender non conforming

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You mean androgyny?

Androgyny is when secondary sex characteristics are not prominent, so it is not clear male it is of female. It is not used to describe gender neutral cloths, behaviour and even looks sometimes. It can work to describe some aspects, but again - you can not conform to gender norms and still look like typical male or female. In Iran woman going without burqua in dress is gender nonconforming, for example.

But a male specific item is masculine.

We were talking about gender norms and gender stereotypes. Men-only shoes of 37th EU size would not be called "masculine", because that is very small leg. Yet it is male specific item.

Is this gender non conformity or cultural non conformity?

Gender norms are dictated by culture.

What we see here as transwomen in other countries or cultures can be seen as masculine or typical men. What in America considered as butch lesbian or transmen, can be norm in communistic countries like Korea, Cuba or USSR, as there are a lot of buffed women with short hair hard-working and lifting weight on factories.

Samurais are masculine figures associated with power and violence.

Indeed, but white powder on face like they had is not associated with it, without the context. You need either "black metal" or japanese estetics around for it to be considered masculine. Without context it is neutral and "not masculine". At same time pink powder and red lipstick will be "feminine" instead.

Changes in norms are not the end of norms.

Indeed, but we are talking about not following the norms. If many will start doing something, then it may became a new norm. Gender nonconformity in general works as a way to widen norms, to make "anything is fine" as a norm.

Not expected of a man implies expected of a woman.

Why? No. There are a lot of other actions.

If it is expected that man will try to compete and for woman to be led. However, if man instead of competing will cooperate, it will be not masculine and not feminine behaviour, but something else.

There are two gender norms, two sets of stereotypes. However, world is much wider than that.

What does this mean?

For example - it is expected that man will go angry and woman will start crying in one situation. And if you just do nothing - it would be already considered as weird behaviour from you, unexpected or "wrong".

What are the many ways for a person to be gender non conforming

Simple example - it is expected for women to wear pink, for men to wear blue. So to be gender nonconforming you don't need as a man to wear pink - you can wear green. That will be already gender nonconforming and at same time it will not be conforming to opposite gender stereotypes. There millions of ways to be and to live. Gender norms are trying to put everyone into two strict boxes to control. This was used really strongly against women through out the history and it was used against men as well to uphold authoritharism regimes or systems. That's why feminists were fighting against ideas of gender norms, identities and so on for centuries. In last 30-50 years those norms were challenged strongly (especially during times of David Bowie, Twisted Sister, punks later) and they were slowly being widened to include anything, but in last 10 years gender ideology became strong and it started reinforcing back strict boundaries of what is and what is not feminine or masculine.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Gender nonconformity in general works as a way to widen norms, to make "anything is fine" as a norm.

And this has already happened: No-one bats an eye anymore at women wearing pants and unisex t-shirts. People's brains did not explode because the same shirt and pants can now be worn by both sexes. A century ago this would've been hailed as impossible because men and women are built different, their brains are different, it opposes the natural order, the matriarchy is being installed, yadda yadda...Same for literally every other bit of progress feminism has made. Like literally every single one gets the identical whiny background noise that goes centuries back.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Androgyny is when secondary sex characteristics are not prominent, so it is not clear male it is of female. It is not used to describe gender neutral cloths, behaviour and even looks sometimes.

Do you mean it IS also used to describe androgynous looks and affected appearances?

I'd say it can refer to either. That's how it's used.

It can work to describe some aspects, but again - you can not conform to gender norms and still look like typical male or female.

I'm not clear what you mean here.

In Iran woman going without burqua in dress is gender nonconforming, for example.

Firstly Iran only imposes the hijab not he burqa. They do have the burqa but I guess is for more devoted or rural areas. You might be thinking of somewhere else like Aghanistan.

Secondly I'm not sure it works like that. Culture is not the exact same thing as gender.

What are they wearing instead of a burqa? Naked? That's not gender non conforming. They're likely wearing western style clothes in Iran if it's an urban area.

A person wearing clothes of different culture is being culturally different not gender non conforming.

What do you think they wear under coverings in Iran? Iran was more Western than a lot of surrounding nations before the revolution. In many ways it still is. The revolution was in part neoreactionary move against modernism.

We were talking about gender norms and gender stereotypes. Men-only shoes of 37th EU size would not be called "masculine", because that is very small leg. Yet it is male specific item.

Right, you mean because we, cultures, do gender items. And the fit, specific style or use isn't part of that.

Isn't that my point? Humans act on gender, I mean that social gender thing, it's emergent.

Gender norms are dictated by culture.

I mean I kind of agree but it emergent. Humans like to "gender." It's natural. Cultures are always going to have gender.

You can't have communities without culture or cultures without "gender."

What we see here as transwomen in other countries or cultures can be seen as masculine or typical men. What in America considered as butch lesbian or transmen, can be norm in communistic countries like Korea, Cuba or USSR, as there are a lot of buffed women with short hair hard-working and lifting weight on factories.

Butch women were never the majority social norm in any of these nations.

I'm not sure where you got this idea. This is just factually incorrect. It sounds more like a caricature based on socialist realism paintings, propaganda for either side and the 1970s East German athlete doping scandals.

A lot of the nations have gender norms far more intense than the West. Cuba imprisoned and deported thousands of gay men in the 60s and 70s.

Maybe you are thinking of some of the super harsh regimes like the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia?

Indeed, but white powder on face like they had is not associated with it, without the context. You need either "black metal" or japanese estetics around for it to be considered masculine. Without context it is neutral and "not masculine". At same time pink powder and red lipstick will be "feminine" instead.

Indeed, but white powder on face like they had is not associated with it, without the context. You need either "black metal" or japanese estetics around for it to be considered masculine. Without context it is neutral and "not masculine". At same time pink powder and red lipstick will be "feminine" instead.

The question of how innate masculinity and femininity go is interesting.

But it might as well be two empty categories that can contain anything but most contain something. If they must contain something they are likely to have some connection back to innate traits, one way or another.

Indeed, but we are talking about not following the norms. If many will start doing something, then it may became a new norm. Gender nonconformity in general works as a way to widen norms, to make "anything is fine" as a norm.

Gender non conformity basically means cross conformity.

Anything is fine still doesn't mean gender has gone away. Most people are conforming. A small minority are not. Acceptance of a small minority does not end gender. Just like acceptance of homosexuality does not end sexual norms.

If everyone became bisexual, that would end sexual norms. There would be no homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Why? No. There are a lot of other actions.

But not ones focused on gender. Gender is the context here.

If a man hangs in a tree and makes howling noises and a person says "act like a man." We know they are not referring to gender non conformity, it's about acting like a human.

If it is expected that man will try to compete and for woman to be led. However, if man instead of competing will cooperate, it will be not masculine and not feminine behaviour, but something else.

You mean in a relationship?

There are two gender norms, two sets of stereotypes. However, world is much wider than that.

But not that wide that gender disappears. Ever.

For example - it is expected that man will go angry and woman will start crying in one situation. And if you just do nothing - it would be already considered as weird behaviour from you, unexpected or "wrong".

To be honest that can sound like a lot of things like being emotionally remote or guarded.

Simple example - it is expected for women to wear pink, for men to wear blue. So to be gender nonconforming you don't need as a man to wear pink - you can wear green.

Green isn't viewed as gender non conforming.

It doesn't matter if pink and blue become unisex. Society, cultures will find ways to express and embody gender.

And a minority will be drawn to cross conforming.

That will be already gender nonconforming and at same time it will not be conforming to opposite gender stereotypes. There millions of ways to be and to live. Gender norms are trying to put everyone into two strict boxes to control. This was used really strongly against women through out the history and it was used against men as well to uphold authoritharism regimes or systems.

I don't think it's a choice between abstract rigid norms or ultra gender freedom.

There are rigid social norms that can be relaxed. But gender isn't "feudualism," it isn't a specific social construction that can be abolished like that.

That's why feminists were fighting against ideas of gender norms, identities and so on for centuries. In last 30-50 years those norms were challenged strongly (especially during times of David Bowie, Twisted Sister, punks later) and they were slowly being widened to include anything, but in last 10 years gender ideology became strong and it started reinforcing back strict boundaries of what is and what is not feminine or masculine.

Art rock, club culture aren't the end of gender. They are marginal sub cultures.

I don't think "gender ideology" is popularly associated with rigid gender norms. It's often commonly associated with anyone saying they can be anything they like. The very opposite of strict boundaries.