QT, if gender is innate to identity

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (49 children)

First, it’s largely about the body. That’s why a transvestite is a distinct thing from a trans person. It’s not just about expression of societal norms of gender.

Also Socialization isn’t something we as trans people are totally immune to. I think at least some of us having gravitation to feminine coded expression is because we want to be thought of as women so consciously or subconsciously we gravitate toward things that society would more likely take as more likely to let us be seen as women. That is to say the identity is innate ( or at least predisposed and not changeable once set, I’m not convinced there isn’t something like a predisposition triggered through formative events but that’s another discussion) and expression may flow from socialization combined with the identity.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Thanks for answering!

think at least some of us having gravitation to feminine coded expression is because we want to be thought of as women so consciously or subconsciously we gravitate toward things that society would more likely take as more likely to let us be seen as women.

Makes no sense. Even if Little boys who grow up to be transwomen make an effort to gain female socialisation, they could never receive it. You seem to be framing socialisation as something children choose which is a pretty big misunderstanding of the process.

Boys don’t learn female socialisation from watching and wanting to be like girls. By the time they’re aware of the differences between the sexes, they’re already well into being socialised as boys.

It seems like you’re saying a little boy will identify as a girl and have the ability/capacity to recognise and reject male socialisation and instead adopt female socialisation from a distance via observation.

I suspect you have pretty limited experience with children, and that’s why this narrative makes sense to you despite it not aligning with how children develop.

Follow up questions, how does such a small child have the capacity to know they are a girl in a boys body when they are cognitively still in a stage where they are capable of believing they are a wolf, a cat, or a mermaid?

Furthermore, how does this child supposedly learn the gendered socialisation they do not receive? Mimicry from observation certainly makes sense for the case of agp men who believe that women are giggly gossipy shopping addicts who think only of dresses, cocktails, flirting with boys, and dancing. I can see how the oversexualised dress and exaggeratedly “feminine” interests of agps matches up with that.

It doesn’t seem to make sense for transsexuals however. I can’t imagine you or peaking claiming to be women because of enjoying mimosas and handbags. How do transsexuals supposedly learn female socialisation? Or do you believe they learn through the same process and apply the observations differently?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (26 children)

I don’t think it’s conscious. More from a place of feeling or wanting to be like girls or women then shaping your tastes based on how you see them act or be treated. Think of it as a sort of second hand female socialization. Not the same but a sort of filtered or indirect version.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

See, the thing with that version is that it’s not anything like what females experience, and it feels very condescending to be told that a filtered and selected version of what we endure is in any way the same thing.

This shaping oneself to be what one perceives to be femininity, based on how males think women are treated, or how males see women, cannot be described as femininity or femaleness or womanly without frankly insulting those of use who make up the population being caricatured. Women become objects to observe and mimic, and are not seen as complex individuals. Womanhood becomes a mocking performance by males, not the shared experiences of women.

The motivations aren’t necessarily sinister but the end result is still something that feels as insulting as you feel being called a man is.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (24 children)

See, the thing with that version is that it’s not anything like what females experience, and it feels very condescending to be told that a filtered and selected version of what we endure is in any way the same thing.

I don’t think I’ve ever said they were. What we experience is different from male socialization but I don’t think I’ve ever said it’s exactly the same as natal women.

I think you are not characterizing it correctly. It’s not objectifying. Like I happen to enjoy soap opera style melodramas because it has as positive association with watching One life to live with my mom. That’s considered feminine but hardly objectifying. The same can be said for women more generally. It’s not aping women. It’s someone hearing from society that women wear makeup to look pretty, and then learning that social desire to look pretty and developing an interest in makeup. It’s not mimicking or aping women, but rather absorbing the messaging society has to and about them formatively. You are mischaracterizing our evolved personalities and interests as an act of mimicry when in fact it’s just us expressing our own desires, shaped as they are by social experience.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is objectifying though. Like..I’m a woman telling you that a male observing and then mimicking a woman is objectifying. She has become an object to study, a collection of mannerisms to be assimilated. At no point in this is she an active or willing participant, she’s not even aware she is being used as a case study.

You can say it’s not objectifying but idk how telling women we are wrong about things done to us makes that correct.

Assigning entertainment and objects female or male isn’t the objectifying part. That’s just plain old sexism.

Here’s the thing, you claim it’s a desire to be pretty because you are told women are pretty. Girls are afraid not to be pretty because we are told our worth is our beauty. Femininity has nothing to do with women’s desires. It is forced on women and created by male desire, and then other males adopt it because they desired what women were indoctrinated with. Then we are told that this desire makes them women.

Even you have to see how that’s a bit fucked up. It is the adoption of something forced on us and then treated as a defining feature of womanhood.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

It is objectifying though. Like..I’m a woman telling you that a male observing and then mimicking a woman is objectifying.

And I’m saying “mimicking” is mischaracterization. It’s no more mimicking than a child learning to talk from hearing their parents. It’s just learning.

Here’s the thing, you claim it’s a desire to be pretty because you are told women are pretty. Girls are afraid not to be pretty because we are told our worth is our beauty. Femininity has nothing to do with women’s desires. It is forced on women and created by male desire, and then other males adopt it because they desired what women were indoctrinated with. Then we are told that this desire makes them women.

We’re both shaped by socialization, sure and one I’ve already said isn’t the same one. And it’s as much about disassociating with male expected traits. I.e we are told men aren’t pretty women are so someone who wants to be seen as or feel more like a woman will naturally develop an urge to be seen as pretty. Because it is a trait associated with the desired outcome and therefore becomes desireable. Society shapes us all, we all react differently

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

WHat do you think mimicking means? Children do learn to talk via mimicking, just so you know. It’s male socialised perspective on what female socialisation appears to be from afar. It understands nothing about what females endure from our socialisation and only affects surface level observations.

How does that dissociate from male socialisation when the child is still seeped in it, regardless of the kids preferences? How much of socialisation do you think is conscious and knowable to a child?

Imo you give the child adult like perceptive abilities in a retrospective narrative because children are simply not developed enough to recognise that nice sweet mommy buying him shorts and not skirts is also socialising him as male.

You do not get to tell women that have been objectified by males that observing women like a herd of goats and adopting mannerisms seen is anything but objectification. You do not experience it, you do not tell women when we experience it and don’t. You have no right to tell women that we are wrong about how we are treated by men.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Like I happen to enjoy soap opera style melodramas because it has as positive association with watching One life to live with my mom. That’s considered feminine but hardly objectifying. The same can be said for women more generally. It’s not aping women. It’s someone hearing from society that women wear makeup to look pretty, and then learning that social desire to look pretty and developing an interest in makeup.

Defining women as those who watch "soap opera style melodramas" and "wear makeup to look pretty" might not be objectifying in every aspect of the dictionary definition, but it's still an insulting characterization that reduces us to superficial, sexist, wholly inaccurate stereotypes that are deeply misogynistic and dehumanizing.

Your claim that watching & enjoying soap opera style melodramas "is considered feminine" by society in general is laughable. The reality is that you personally consider it feminine. Maybe this isn't the case with you, but IME individuals who blithely assume their own personal views must be universal views held by everyone else are displaying arrogant, self-centered tendencies that often come from distinctly male socialization. And/or from a parochialism stemming from personality problems like narcissism & solipsism, which also are traits fostered by male socialization.

Also, the rest of the world isn't fixated on coding everything human do as either "feminine" or "masculine" the way genderists are. The ridiculously sexist "logic" of gender ideology often leads to odd conclusions. For example, according to your view that watching soap opera style melodramas "is considered feminine" means that the acerbic Greg House of the TV series House, an unsociable character meant to be the bad boy big man of diagnostic medicine as well as a Lothario and dickhead, was "feminine" because watching soap operas on TV was one of his favorite pastimes.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (19 children)

Defining women as those who watch "soap opera style melodramas" and "wear makeup to look pretty" might not be objectifying in every aspect of the dictionary definition, but it's still an insulting characterization that reduces us to superficial, sexist, wholly inaccurate stereotypes that are deeply misogynistic and dehumanizing.

I don’t think it’s conscious, it’s absorbing societal messaging.

Your claim that watching & enjoying soap opera style melodramas "is considered feminine" by society in general is laughable. The reality is that you personally consider it feminine. Maybe this isn't the case with you, but IME individuals who blithely assume their own personal views must be universal views held by everyone else are displaying arrogant, self-centered tendencies that often come from distinctly male socialization. And/or from a parochialism stemming from personality problems like narcissism & solipsism, which also are traits fostered by male socialization.

This is a stretch. The genre literally was made for women because it was targeted to housewives. I’m not saying all women like soaps, but they are absolutely made to target women.

Also, the rest of the world isn't fixated on coding everything human do as either "feminine" or "masculine" the way genderists are.

Have you ever been around a male child in school of any sort? You can get bullied as a girl or a faggot for months for wearing a pink shirt. You vastly underestimate how hard gendered norms are attached and enforced if you think most people don’t code things as masculine or feminine.

Also, the rest of the world isn't fixated on coding everything human do as either "feminine" or "masculine" the way genderists are. The ridiculously sexist "logic" of gender ideology often leads to odd conclusions. For example, according to your view that watching soap opera style melodramas "is considered feminine" means that the acerbic Greg House of the TV series House, an unsociable character meant to be the bad boy big man of diagnostic medicine as well as a Lothario and dickhead, was "feminine" because watching soap operas on TV was one of his favorite pastimes.

It’s a feminine coded activity. The inclusion of that trait for house was as a joke. Same as when John Spartan knitting in demolition man was. It is a joke for contrast based on the very fact they are activities society takes as feminine

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

The genre literally was made for women because it was targeted to housewives.

I agree with you that the genre - or at least the daytime TV soap genre - was indeed targeted to housewives & made for women. Moreover, the daytime soap genre was made for American women pushed out of the workplace & relegated to being housewives after WW2 by men running TV production companies & networks. These men were part of a larger campaign sponsored by the US government & establishment to get women reconciled to being pushed out of the paid workforce & stuck at home. In the case of daytime soaps specifically, the men who made them & targeted them at women were also working at the behest of male-run corporations who sponsored such shows or otherwise paid for them by buying advertising time. Many of the corporations that funded this genre of TV entertainment manufactured soap, laundry & dish detergents & household cleaning products; hence, the nickname "soap operas."

I’m not saying all women like soaps, but they are absolutely made to target women.

But in your previous you said that watching & liking soap opera style melodramas "is considered feminine" & you implied this is because of something you deem is innate in female people. Now you are saying something totally different. Also, at the end of this most recent post, you revert to you original claim that watching soap operas "is considered feminine" when you assert that

It’s a feminine coded activity. [One of many] activities society takes as feminine

So which is it?

Interestingly, in the passage of mine you chose to quote, you only address one of the two main points I made & ignore the other. My other point was about your tendency to take your own personal beliefs about what is "feminine" and project them onto all of human society in the effort to make it seem that your own idiosyncratic views are universal views held by pretty much everyone on earth. I suggested that this tendency smacks of male socialization, & of narcissism & solipsism, though I did say that "maybe this isn't the case with you." But how about you address this other point?

You seem to have given a great deal of thought to how your own views of what's "feminine" & "masculine" developed & why you idealize the former & abhor the latter. But you don't seem to have given much thought to the possibility that your own views & feelings are just that - your own. Rather, you seem insistent on believing your own views & experience apply to everyone else too, as if there is one "human experience" overall & your own experience represents it. Seriously, what is that all about?

Have you ever been around a male child in school of any sort? You can get bullied as a girl or a faggot for months for wearing a pink shirt. You vastly underestimate how hard gendered norms are attached and enforced if you think most people don’t code things as masculine or feminine.

You are attributing the bullying you got to "gendered norms," not to the homophobia, misogyny, male supremacy & authoritarian impulse toward social convention that underlie "gendered norms" & gave rise to them in the first place. I am sorry you were bullied & called homophobic slurs. My hunch is that most of the people who did this bullying were males, so this was mainly male-on-male homophobic bullying. But you weren't bullied "as a girl" like you say. You were bullied as a boy by other boys who were as misogynistic as they were homophobic. If they called you a girl, it was because in their eyes, that was the ultimate put-down, the worst insult they could come up with. They did not actually see you "as a girl."

As for your query, "Have you ever been around a male child of any sort?" & then your description of the bullying you got in school: In this remark & many others on these threads over many months, you give the impression that you think you & other males like you are the only ones who ever got bullied in school. Which illustrates my earlier point that IMO you appear to have a self-centered POV that is clear evidence of male socialization, solipsism & narcissism.

For the record, girls get constantly bullied by boys in school. And girls get routinely sexually molested by boys in school too. This happens whether we are "gender conforming" or non-conforming. Boys & men do this to us because we are female, not because we are - or are not - "feminine."

I was a girl child who was frequently sexually harassed & groped by boys in throughout my schooling. This started in first grade when boys nicknamed me "skinhead" after a hairdresser went overboard in giving me the pixie cut lots of little girls my age customarily wore, & when two boys shoved me into a coat closet, pushed me onto the floor & punched me as they pulled up the skirt of my school uniform & pulled down my underpants.

In lower & middle school, I & other girls I went to school with were verbally abused & physically abused by boys pretty much every day. Boys would routinely insult us for running & throwing "like a girl," for being "stupid/dumb like a girl," for being "gross like girls" & "spastic/slow/klutzy like girls." Boys would push us, pull our hair, trip us, aim spitballs at us, grab our books & lunches & toss them to one another, & as we got older they would routinely gang up to corner & grope us to see if we were developing breasts yet or wearing bras. Starting in 6th grade (US school), girls who had long hair & had the bad luck to sit in front of certain especially malevolent boys in the school I attended often had the ends of their hair singed or burnt off by the boys' Bic lighters too. Once we got to age 10-11 and started sprouting breasts & menstruating, boys' sexual harassment & body shaming of us girls ramped up even worse.

Later in my schooling, I was one of a small number of women in the first class of female students admitted as undergraduates to a prestigious US university that had been all-male for hundreds of years until then. Whilst the majority of male students, professors & administrators were decent to us, a significant number were not. As a result, I & the other women in my class were bullied on a regular basis by male students & some professors & administrators just for being there. We were called all sorts of awful names too disgusting to repeat. A number of male students threatened us with rape & other forms of physical assault as well. I got death threats, & once during first year some male students doused my dorm room door with lighter fluid & set it on fire.

I've taught classes for young children in school & in summer programs. I am the mother of grown sons. As a mum, I have hosted many birthday parties, groups sleepovers, camping trips & house parties for large groups of young males. I know full well how sexist, misogynistic & homophobic males can be, particularly school-age ones. Based on this, I disagree with you that the root cause of male bullying of girls & women, & of boys perceived to be homosexual, or to have homosexual leanings, is "gendered norms." I think the root cause is sex.

BTW, when I was at uni in the 70s, the only students who watched daytime soap operas were men who belonged to fraternities. Maybe this was because frat houses were the only places on campus that had TVs. Or maybe frat guys enjoyed soaps especially in the company of other guys.

When prime time TV soap operas came on the scene in the late 1970s with shows like Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing & Falcon Crest, they were avidly watched by both sexes. In the US alone, 83 million people tuned in to the "who shot JR?" episode of Dallas the night it first aired. Do you really think that all or the majority of the audience was women? And that all the males who watched were of the opinion that they were engaging in "a feminine coded activity" & thus should be dubbed "feminine" as a result?

As for your claim that Greg House's soap-opera watching "was a joke" like John Spartan knitting, maybe so. But the joke was on genderists like you who believe every human being lives our lives, and insist we must live our lives, by hewing to the strict, rigid and regressive sexist stereotypes you are so fixated on. When in point of fact, there have always been lots of men who do things genderists today personally think are "feminine coded" such as yarn arts, textile crafts & all the rest of the activities that you say "society takes as feminine" & which genderists nowadays erroneously claim have always been regarded as such in all time periods and across all cultures.

In Western culture specifically, membership in knitting guilds from circa 1200-1700 were for males only. Yes, during this time, the Virgin Mary was frequently depicted as knitting in paintings & drawings. But that didn't change the fact that only males could be trained as master knitters, & only males were allowed to learn/know the secrets of knitting as a high art. Over time, simple knitting of items like socks & caps was done outside the guild system by males & females alike. Only much later, after industrialization, did hobby knitting become a parlor craft partaken of largely by women like Britain's Queen Victoria.

Just do an image search of "men knitting" & "men knitting military" & you'll find many paintings & photos showing men from past eras knitting. In the 20th century, US soldiers recovering from war injuries commonly knit, as did soldiers during downtime. My father, a US Navy bomber & recon pilot in the Pacific during WW2, & the rest of his squadron & many other flight crews on the same air base used to knit to pass the time & help quell the anxiety between missions. My ex-father-in-law did much the same during his service, only his outfit got more into needlepoint than knitting (& after the war my ex FIL took up hooking rugs).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knitting#/media/File:Shepherd_Sitting_Up.jpg

https://www.dharmatrading.com/home/did-you-know-about-men-and-knitting.html

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

As for your claim that Greg House's soap-opera watching "was a joke" like John Spartan knitting, maybe so. But the joke was on genderists like you who believe every human being lives our lives, and insist we must live our lives, by hewing to the strict, rigid and regressive sexist stereotypes you are so fixated on.

I’ve literally never said that. In fact I’ve openly championed gender nonconformity and said being trans is primarilly about the body. You have absolutely no conception of my beliefs and are constantly making wildly erroneous assumptions about them.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I’ve openly championed gender nonconformity and said being trans is primarilly about the body. You have absolutely no conception of my beliefs and are constantly making wildly erroneous assumptions about them.

Sorry, then. But if you are not a genderist, why do you make such sweeping statements as soap operas are "considered & coded feminine" and "women wear makeup to look pretty" & insist that all of society holds the same view? What are these views other than sexist, regressive sex stereotypes about the sex which is opposite to yours?

Why such sexist, muddled tosh as your claim that

we are told men aren’t pretty women are so someone who wants to be seen as or feel more like a woman will naturally develop an urge to be seen as pretty.

????

Also, please explain here or on another thread of what you mean

being trans is primarilly about the body.

Coz I genuinely am interested & you are correct in saying I "have absolutely no conception" what you mean.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

But in your previous you said that watching & liking soap opera style melodramas "is considered feminine"

Because it is

you implied this is because of something you deem is innate in female people.

I absolutely did not. I expressly said bot all women like soaps and never came close to implying it was innate. The whole conversation is about how interests are shaped by social influence. Nothing innate about it.

Interestingly, in the passage of mine you chose to quote, you only address one of the two main points I made & ignore the other. My other point was about your tendency to take your own personal beliefs about what is "feminine" and project them onto all of human society in the effort to make it seem that your own idiosyncratic views are universal views held by pretty much everyone on earth. I suggested that this tendency smacks of male socialization, & of narcissism & solipsism, though I did say that "maybe this isn't the case with you." But how about you address this other point?

There’s not a point there. Society genders stuff. Me pointing that out isn’t narcissism or “male entitlement” no Matter how much you imply it then wink at the camera.

You are attributing the bullying you got to "gendered norms," not with to the homophobia, misogyny, male supremacy & authoritarian impulse toward social convention that underlie "gendered norms" & gave rise to them in the first place.

They aren’t exclusive

I am sorry you were bullied & called homophobic slurs. My hunch is that most of the people who did this bullying were males, so this was mainly male-on-male homophobic bullying.

But you weren't bullied "as a girl" like you say. You were bullied as a boy by other boys who were as misogynistic as they were homophobic. If they called you a girl, it was because in their eyes, that was the ultimate put-down, the worst insult they could come up with. They did not actually see you "as a girl."

I mean they literally called me a girl. They feminized my name and called me that for years. But yes that was mysogynistic use of the feminine as an insult.

As for your query, "Have you ever been around a male child of any sort?" & then your description of the bullying you got in school: In this remark & many others on these threads over many months, you give the impression that you think you & other males like you are the only ones who ever got bullied in school.

I don’t imply that at all. We were bullied for specific traits which reinforce gender roles. That’s my point. Poor kids and poc kids, and smart kids all got bullied too but that’s not relevant because it wasn’t reinforcing the relevant behaviors to this discussion.

IMO you appear to have a self-centered POV that is clear evidence of male socialization, solipsism & narcissism.

Use male socialization as a card all you want but please stop accusing me of fictional mental illnesses to attempt to tear me down. It’s deeply ableist. I have several mental illnesses narcissism and solipsism aren’t among them. Stop.

For the record, girls get constantly bullied by boys in school. And girls get routinely sexually molested by boys in school too. This happens whether we are "gender conforming" or non-conforming. Boys & men do this to us because we are female, not because we are - or are not - "feminine."

I agree that happens though bullying girls to be more feminine is certainly a thing that happens. Why deny that?

I was a girl child who was frequently sexually harassed & groped by boys in throughout my schooling. This started in first grade when boys nicknamed me "skinhead" after a hairdresser went overboard in giving me the pixie cut lots of little girls my age customarily wore, & when two boys shoved me into a coat closet, pushed me onto the floor & punched me as they pulled up the skirt of my school uniform & pulled down my underpants. In lower & middle school, I & other girls I went to school with were verbally abused & physically abused by boys pretty much every day. Boys would routinely insult us for running & throwing "like a girl," for being "stupid/dumb like a girl," for being "gross like girls" & "spastic/slow/klutzy like girls." Boys would push us, pull our hair, trip us, aim spitballs at us, grab our books & lunches & toss them to one another, & as we got older they would routinely gang up to corner & grope us to see if we were developing breasts yet or wearing bras. Starting in 6th grade (US school), girls who had long hair & had the bad luck to sit in front of certain especially malevolent boys in the school I attended often had the ends of their hair singed or burnt off by the boys' Bic lighters too. Once we got to age 10-11 and started sprouting breasts & menstruating, boys' sexual harassment & body shaming of us girls ramped up even worse. Later in my schooling, I was one of a small number of women in the first class of female students admitted as undergraduates to a prestigious US university that had been all-male for hundreds of years until then. Whilst the majority of male students, professors & administrators were decent to us, a significant number were not. As a result, I & the other women in my class were bullied on a regular basis by male students & some professors & administrators just for being there. We were called all sorts of awful names too disgusting to repeat. A number of male students threatened us with rape & other forms of physical assault as well. I got death threats, & once during first year some male students doused my dorm room door with lighter fluid & set it on fire.

I’m sorry all that happened but I never said or implied it didn’t. Bully to reinforce gendered norms is just one facet. People get bullied for many reasons and it’s shameful it wasn’t more properly dealt with.

I've taught classes for young children in school & in summer programs. I am the mother of grown sons. As a mum, I have hosted many birthday parties, groups sleepovers, camping trips & house parties for large groups of young males. I know full well how sexist, misogynistic & homophobic males can be, particularly school-age ones. Based on this, I disagree with you that the root cause of male bullying of girls & women, & of boys perceived to be homosexual, or to have homosexual leanings, is "gendered norms." I think the root cause is sex.

It’s a cause of one kind of bullying not the root cause of all bullying. That being said it’s pretty wild to assert that bullying by boys of girls and other boys is somehow the result of sex.

I’m out of time to respond to the rest, I will try to pick up later.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I absolutely did not. I expressly said bot all women like soaps and never came close to implying it was innate. The whole conversation is about how interests are shaped by social influence. Nothing innate about it.

I apologize for misreading. The mistake is all mine. Sorry.

I mean they literally called me a girl. They feminized my name and called me that for years. But yes that was mysogynistic use of the feminine as an insult.

Again, I am sorry this happened to you. I was not contesting that it happened to you or that it was awful for you. I was contesting the idea that because they called you a girl they actually saw you "as a girl" & you were being bullied "as a girl."

Please try to consider for a moment how different it was for you to be called a girl when being bullied by boys than it is for girls to be bullied by boys for actually being girls. You could take solace in the fact that you were not, in fact, a girl. But such solace was & is not available to any girls. Even though you were picked on by other boys, you as a much-maligned male still ranked, & today rank, higher in the social hierarchy & in the eyes of the males who bullied you than any girl.

Use male socialization as a card all you want but please stop accusing me of fictional mental illnesses to attempt to tear me down. It’s deeply ableist. I have several mental illnesses narcissism and solipsism aren’t among them. Stop.

I am not "accusing (you) of fictional mental illnesses to attempt to tear (you) down." Narcissism is a personality trait, not necessarily a mental illness. Solipsism is a POV which says that the self is the only frame of reference. Sorry, maybe I've missed some of your posts, but on this thread & others, I've never seen you cite any sources for your views other than your own narrow personal experience.

For example, on another thread not long ago, I responded to your repeated assertion that all trans-identified males have "shitty lives" & are doomed to never being loved & to being constantly mistreated & marginalized by society by naming a bunch of happy, successful, highly acclaimed trans-identified males whose own apparently fulfilled & privileged lives stand in sharp contrast to what you insist must be true for all trans-identified males because that's how you say it is for you. You wrote off all the examples I cited by tersely retorting "You have no concept of life for the average trans women", then continued in the thread simply repeating your self-pitying claims & accusing other posters of insulting you. Further down the thread you said, again citing no evidence, that anyone trans who appears to be happy & loved is just pretending because "no one can be happy or normal being an out trans person. It’s a shit life."

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/837q/both_in_light_of_recent_events_in_what_context_is/u2va

As to your claim that it's "deeply ableist" of me to point out how exceedingly self-referential your posts make you appear: I have a hunch that nearly everyone on this sub has direct experience with mental illness of one kind or another, as I certainly do. And some of us have physical disabilities as well. So trying to shut me or other posters up by throwing out accusations of "deeply ableist" won't work.

The fact that you seem to think you alone have the right to call others "ableist" only underscores my point that you come across as unable to see beyond your own self. I have known a lot of people with a variety of mental illnesses, & most of them/us even when most ill are still capable of grasping the fact that other people have constructed their self-images in different ways & that their/our individual experience does not necessarily represent all human experience. Narcissism & solipsism might accompany some mental illnesses, but they are not synonyms for nor necessarily hallmarks of mental illness. I apologize if I gave a different impression.

In your previous post instead of directly engaging with & attempting to refute my points, you insinuated that I can't possibly have any idea what I am speaking of because I must not have any experience of ever being around a male child in school of any sort. Specifically, you condescendingly said

Have you ever been around a male child in school of any sort?

Which was clearly an attempt to make it appear that my points can't be "valid" coz I have no "lived experience" of male children in school contexts. I find it telling that you consider it perfectly OK for you to say such a condescending & "invalidating" thing to me - & to say all the other insulting things you've said here about women generally that are meant to reduce us to sexist stereotypes & "deny our existence" as separate to you & the cartoonish ideas you have about all the billions of us in your head - but when I say something to you that you find galling, you take it as your right to go straight to the bigoteering & to command me: "Stop."

It’s a cause of one kind of bullying not the root cause of all bullying. That being said it’s pretty wild to assert that bullying by boys of girls and other boys is somehow the result of sex.

I never said that sex is "the root cause of all bullying." We haven't been talking about all kinds of bullying here. The only kinds of school bullying we've been discussing in this convo about "gender norms" vs. sex as a motive for bullying are a) male bullying of males whom the bullies suspect might be homosexual or bi, and b) male bullying of females. Let's not bring other kinds of school bullying into it.

I did indeed say that boys' bullying of girls is the result of sex. Not "somehow the result of sex," but the result of sex directly. If you can show that this is not the case, please provide some evidence.

But I did not say that boys' bullying of other boys is "the result of sex." I said specifically that boys' bullying "of boys perceived to be homosexual, or to have homosexual leanings," is the result of sex.

My view is that the animus that some people have towards those they perceive as or suspect to be homosexual is based on their revulsion towards the idea of persons of the same sex engaging in explicit sex acts with one another, & squeamishness about certain sex acts in particular especially when done male-on-male. One reason I believe this is because many boys & men who are bi or gay, & many girls & women who are lesbian or bi, still have been subjected to extreme homophobia even when the males are in no way "effeminate" & the females are in no way "masculine." After all, the majority of gay men & MSM are not "effeminate" - they're ordinary men in presentation like Glenn Greenwald or Anderson Cooper, or they're ultra masculine. Yet such guys still often get shamed, derided, treated like pariahs & are discriminated against once homophobes find out they are gay or MSM.

Also, the fact is that growing up, pretty much all boys get slurred as "gay," "fxggot" & the like no matter what their "gender expression" or sexual orientation is or will turn out to be. Males who bully employ homophobic slurs against everyone they bully, & will do so for any reason under the sun. I know many guys who were bog standard guys in "presentation," mannerisms & behaviors growing up, yet in school they were frequently called "gay" & "fxggot" & worse by mean boys of their age & older for such arbitrary reasons as liking a particular kind of pop drink, wearing socks that exposed their ankles, playing musical instruments other than the drums, being into chess, wearing sweatpants or other drawstring trousers, rollerblading rather than skateboarding, & because their families drove energy efficient small cars, hybrids or electric vehicles rather than gas-guzzling behemoths like Ford Expeditions, Hummers or trucks.

Unfortunately, for some school boys & certain grown men who bully others, "fxggot" is an all-purpose slur that they use indiscriminately against everyone for no apparent reason other than their own internal animus & lack of originality. Some bullies even use the "fxggot" slur against girls.

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

Have you ever been around a male child in school of any sort? You can get bullied as a girl or a faggot for months for wearing a pink shirt.

Again, I am sorry this happened to you. But I am also curious about where & when it happened. (Sorry, maybe you have revealed it elsewhere, but I have no idea how old you are, though I understand you are from the USA.) When I was growing up in USA in the 1960s, my father & his friends used to wear bright pink corduroy golf pants, pink button-down shirts, pink polo shirts, pale pink & bright pink blazers, bright pink linen shorts, pink neckties & bowties in solids, checks, plaids & flowered patterns. My brother & ex-husband have always worn a lot of pink shirts, ties, shorts & so on. No one AFAIK has ever ridiculed them for it.

Going back to the 1950s & 60s, celebrities considered very masculine like Elvis Presley, Pat Boone, Bing Crosby, Andy Williams & Mick Jagger wore pink. No one thought anything of it. When I was a girl, I don't recall my sisters, me or any other girls being decked out in pink like little girls often are today. My most memorable dresses from childhood were a blue flowered one, various plaids or white ones worn for events like first communion, confirmation & various religious processionals. We wore blue & gray or green & gray plaid uniforms to school with navy blue or green wool blazers, & brown or green scouts uniforms. All the girls' PE uniforms were blue. All my & my sisters' & friends coats growing up were navy blue, light blue, brown or various watch plaids.

In my experience, hardly anyone took the stereotypes about pink being only for girls, & girls having an affinity for pink, seriously until the present century. When my own kids were born in the early 90s, the pink-blue toy stuff was just starting to be pushed by places like Toys'R'Us, but basically most of the parents I know ignored it. The toy strollers my sons had for their dolls & stuffed animals were pink; no one minded. They sometimes wore pink T shirts; no one cared.

BTW, the 1986 movie with Molly Ringwald, Pretty In Pink got its title from the 1981 song of the same name by the Psychedelic Furs from 1981. At the time, the pink in the Furs song was widely believed to a reference not to the color of clothing but to the color of naked (white people's) flesh, & particularly a woman's clitoris, inner labia and vaginal opening. Back then, mainstream "girly magazines" like Penthouse & Hustler were just starting to run color photo spreads of naked women that would "show pink," to use the expression used at the time. This was a big deal because historically mainstream porn magazines didn't show women's genital area at all; such mags were all about "T & A." When they started to show the pubic region it was a big deal, but the genitals were hidden coz women back then customarily kept their pubic hair. The only periodicals that showed female genitals previously were "hard core" porn rags, or Al Goldstein's "Screw," a publication on newsprint that only showed photos in black & white, hence "no pink."

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I started school in the late 80’s and lived in a small rural town in a very red state.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the info. It helps to know how old a person is & what milieu he or she grew up in to get a sense of "where they are coming from" so to speak. And I think that when each of us takes the time to locate ourselves in history & geographically, it helps to stop us from making sweeping generalizations about all of "society" & "everyone" coz it reminds us that each one of us is a product of a particular era in history & a particular cultural milieu.

[–]Mercurygirl5 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I can’t speak for men but for women I think the main driving force is less of a desire to be a man and more so wanting to escape being a woman. There’s a huge difference. I’d probably love to have a flat chest and that would cure most dysphoria I felt (I’m not trans and feel dysphoria shocker lol) and I’d continue presenting as a tomboyish woman. I think cuz of all the ideology pushing people feel like there’s no inbetween.. like they have to make the complete jump into “being” the opposite sex.

Do you feel any bit the same way? I know you identify as trans from previous comments I’ve read by you. Like is there a body part you’d replace or an aspect of being male you’d replace that would lessen your dysphoria and allow you to feel comfortable (enough... I don’t think u could feel 100% comfortable obvi) to present as a man?

I would probably argue against a predisposition tbh.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Like is there a body part you’d replace or an aspect of being male you’d replace that would lessen your dysphoria and allow you to feel comfortable (enough... I don’t think u could feel 100% comfortable obvi) to present as a man?

No. Like there are changes that would remove all body dysphoria but I would never under any circumstances present myself as a man again.

[–]Mercurygirl5 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Alright then. Fair enough.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (17 children)

To elaborate with a hypothetical. Supposing I had an innate sense of wanting to have a woman’s body, I might learn to gravitate to things that are associated with women as I was socialized.

If on the other hand I had a structural predisposition to dysphoria which was triggered or worsened by early life experiences, as in my life could have happened from the combination of an abusive father and an apparently loving mother creating or strengthening a negative association with men and masculinity, I would learn to like the things associated with the mother that I had positive associations with.

The net result of either is learning to like things which come in line who who you feel you are as you are socialized, even as society attempts to socialize you into your “proper” role the other direction.

In essence who you are (innately or as shaped formatively) helps shape what you like through what society says that person should like at least partly.

I hope I’m being clear but I worry this may be muddled.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

That was actually really helpful, thanks!

What I’m seeing is someone could be traumatised by a male and fear becoming like that due to being male, and that fear being offset by a mother figure who is loving and associating those positives with women. This however does seem like a view that has never processed or progressed past that trauma and that still does not see individuals as individuals, rather sees only groups of archetypes.

So transgendered people maybe don’t wear, listen to, watch, or engage in activities they naturally like but instead force themselves into what’s prescribed to their desired gender? No wonder they are so depressed. Doesn’t this thinking, ‘I must wear this because my culture says women wear this’ just reinforce the idea that those gendered things are inherently sexed?

Does that mean that transgender people cannot abide the abolishment of gender norms?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (15 children)

I don’t think it is forced. I think what they like is shaped rather than them pretending to like it. It’s not a force to act like that, but rather they enjoy those things perhaps in part because they are psychologically associated. It’s not work, just tastes being shaped. You see the distinction?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

They like them because they are coded as male or female? Like a transwoman likes pink naturally because pink is coded as feminine?

Seems like a distinct lack of personality outside of gender and gender performance. People’s tastes are usually shaped by far more than whether it’s coded to the sex they want to be.

Either way, it seems like you’re saying gender identity is inherent and the expression varies according to what’s the cultural norm at the time.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (13 children)

Not necessarily just because they are coded male or female. But because they have associations that are reinforced otherwise. To use the parental example. The abusive father is a sports fanatic constantly pressuring the child into competitive sports. This builds an association that makes the child dislike competitive sports. Maybe the mother likes say romantic comedies and shares experiences watching them with the child that the child enjoys as spending time with the parent that loves them. That creates a positive association. It’s not that they are coded male or female but rather that they are associated with that parent.

And to the more social example, one might wish to be seen as less masculine or more feminine generally. You don’t like your male body or don’t like man. You want to be associated with feminine traits. So you explore interests and the fact that they are seen as feminine makes you like them more as people react to your participation in those interests. The reverse for masculine. Like you try a hobby, say working on engines, but people perceive it and therefore you as masculine which reduces any enjoyment you make have experienced from this expiremental involvement. So even unconsciously you come to dislike things society tells you are masculine because it feels bad to be seen as masculine so you enjoy the thing less. So you naturally develop interests that align with the cultural perception.

Either way, it seems like you’re saying gender identity is inherent and the expression varies according to what’s the cultural norm at the time.

I believe that’s an accurate discription of my feelings on it.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Those things being coded to the parent don’t make sense in relation to a kid thinking they should be the opposite sex.

Again, it sounds like unprocessed trauma. Assigning the traits of one person to anyone resembling them, and assigning the traits of another to a pedestal that is at once unobtainable and the only way to get value. That’s a situation that requires extensive therapy and a patient willing to accept that they have built their entire life and identity around an unprocessed trauma, and the childish coping mechanism that split the world into black and white perceptions.

No wonder depression is sky high when wondering if observers will associate the activity being performed as not of the desired sex. It’s very abnormal to be so emotionally invested in observers, let alone with imagined thoughts an observer might or might not have. Subconscious or not, it must be exhausting to be constantly running such an unhealthy system of thought and value.

Glad I do understand what you mean about title question. I think that’s the most productive we’ve been together, haha.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (11 children)

Those things being coded to the parent don’t make sense in relation to a kid thinking they should be the opposite sex.

I’m working from personal experience so it may be atypical but once I was about 3 we lived in pretty remote rural setting. 99 percent of the time my mom was the only woman I saw outside of school and my dad was the only man I saw period until like middle school at least. Doesn’t it make sense that would be generalized?

Trauma is formative sure, but why seek to undo a perfectly valid personality simply because it was shaped in part by trauma?

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I’m working from personal experience so it may be atypical but once I was about 3 we lived in pretty remote rural setting. 99 percent of the time my mom was the only woman I saw outside of school and my dad was the only man I saw period until like middle school at least. Doesn’t it make sense that would be generalized?

Yes, it makes sense that you & some other individuals might that take what you personally perceived to be true of your own mother & your own father & attributed their qualities to all women & men generally. But not doing this also makes just as much sense. In fact, to many of us, not doing as you have done makes much more sense.

Many people who have grown up with a narrow frame of reference would arrive, & have arrived, at very different conclusions to yours, especially as they matured out of phases of childhood & adolescence in which everyone is naturally self-referential, self-centered & mistakenly believes everyone else is looking at us & judging us. Other people who've grown up in your sort of situation might just as easily reason that because it's a very big world out there & they have seen only a teeny-tiny slice of it, then chances are good that other people will turn out to be as different to their mum & dad as they are to be exactly like them.

The position you are taking is similar to saying that because a lot of kids have pet goldfish in childhood, and they don't have close contact with any other kind of pet fish, & the only fish they customarily eat or see being eaten is tuna or the mystery fish in "fish fingers," then it's reasonable for children to grow up generalizing that all the fish in the world's seas & freshwater bodies must be just like goldfish, tuna or mushed-up nondescript white flaky fish in fish fingers. Which is ridiculous because most kids read books, see movies, TV shows & media. Even kids who are raised in strict religious settings will have heard of Jonah & the whale.

Your claim that "99 of the time my mom only woman I saw outside of school" means in school you saw other women & you have chosen to filter them out. Why is that? Were the other women you saw in school different to your mother in any respect?

Moreover, your references to watching soap operas with your mom means you had a television & you watched it as a kid. Were all the women you saw on TV really exactly like your mom? Did they have all the sex stereotypical "feminine" traits you now associate with women? As a child, did you never see movies with scary, evil women in them like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Snow White" or "Hansel & Gretel"? Didn't you hear or read any fairytales & books?

When you say "my dad was the only man I saw period until like middle school at least" can it really be true you went your whole early childhood without ever seeing or hearing of a male doctor, dentist, letter carrier, mechanic, police officer, home repairman, taxi or truck driver, neighbor, shop keeper, priest or other clergy, politician, soldier, train conductor, road crew member, construction worker, farmer, tractor driver, cowboy, Indian "brave," world explorer, pirate, gunslinger, sheriff, captain of industry, businessman, president, prime minister, pope, astronaut, inventor, firefighter? Didn't you read any story books? You never heard of the knights of the roundtable, Robin Hood, Columbus, Captain Hook, Old MacDonald, Bob the builder, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or God the father, etc? No shows like Mr Rogers, Gunsmoke, Thomas the Tank Engine, The Simpsons, Family Guy or Malcolm in The Middle on your TV? You never saw cartoons or movies with characters like Elmer Fudd, the cast from Toy Story or Sponge Bob Square Pants?

When you watched soap operas what happened to all the male characters you saw - did you just tune them out?

Trauma is formative sure, but why seek to undo a perfectly valid personality simply because it was shaped in part by trauma?

No one is seeking "to undo" your personality or anyone else's "perfectly valid personality." We are pointing out that your particular POV is not universal as you seem to think it is. The way you see the two sexes, that you see your own self, that you see your own self in relation to others, & the way you are preoccupied with how others perceive you, or you imagine they are perceiving you, are not the way everyone else sees these things.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not asserting that generalizing is universal or the cause of all gender variance. Just a cause for some tastes in some people.

Your claim that "99 of the time my mom only woman I saw outside of school" means in school you saw other women & you have chosen to filter them out. Why is that? Were the other women you saw in school different to your mother in any respect?

By an large not really. It’s selective because they were teachers of children and administrators in schools. That attracts a certain personality not that different from my mom. There was variance but in the broad strokes really not that difference. Other that our very butch PE teacher but even she was quite warm and caring.

Moreover, your references to watching soap operas with your mom means you had a television & you watched it as a kid. Were all the women you saw on TV really exactly like your mom? Did they have all the sex stereotypical "feminine" traits you now associate with women? As a child, did you never see movies with scary, evil women in them like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Snow White"? Didn't you hear or read any fairytales & books?

Sure there were some female villains but also they tended to be quite feminine. It was the 80’s. Even he-man and she-ra’s villains were extremely feminine coded.

When you say "my dad was the only man I saw period until like middle school at least" can it really be true you went your whole early childhood without ever seeing or hearing of a male doctor, dentist, letter carrier, mechanic, police officer, home repairman, taxi or truck driver, neighbor, shop keeper, priest or other clergy, politician, soldier, train conductor, road crew member, construction worker, farmer, tractor driver, cowboy, Indian "brave," world explorer, pirate, gunslinger, sheriff, captain of industry, businessman, president, prime minister, pope, astronaut, inventor, firefighter? Didn't you read any story books? You never heard of the knights of the roundtable, Robin Hood, Columbus, Captain Hook, Old MacDonald, Bob the builder, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or God the father, etc?

And exaggeration. Man I saw regularly then. And the ones I did see were often my fathers friends who were just like him. Thanks did have a woman as my pediatrician I remember. Beyond that I don’t have a robust childhood memory set but I’m told that’s common with trauma in childhood. And god is pretty counter to your ideal. I was raised southern baptist. That god really embodied the violent, wrathful and temperamental image that my father built in me for men.

As to other media, there’s a difference between fictional exposure and actual exposure. Particularly when you are talking about development.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I’m not your therapist and cannot explain to you why a personality formed around a childhood trauma is not a valid or healthy personality, but damn that’s not healthy.

For general purposes, Unprocessed trauma being a formative factor is not healthy and ignore the fact that personality disorders and other mental health issues take root in that unprocessed trauma.

A personality is barely a personality when it is unable to exist without the trauma ever being addressed or processed. A healthy adult personality cannot come from a childs emotionally and cognitively immature reaction to a trauma.

What you describe sounds closer to bpd than anything regarding having a traumatic event shape your entire personality.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

That doesn’t discribe bpd at all. Again eith the ableism to attempt to discredit.