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 →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (6 children)

Do most people who perform gender after being indoctrinated in the system since birth really desire performing it? I don’t think so.

You're saying most people actively want to be gender non conforming?

I don’t agree with the idea that people generally desire to perform gender, let alone desire to do whatever gender roles indicate they are supposed to do or like.

What do you think they want?

How does this gel with the narrative many trans people have that follows along the track of ‘I liked pink when told to like blue, therefore I’m a woman inside’ or vice versa?

I think masculinity and femininity are sexuality.

EDIT I think masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality.

Attraction to men is a natural desire that commonly appears in women. Attraction to women is a desire that commonly appears in men. Masculinity and femininity follow the same pattern.

So expressing either of these desires commonly feels like confirmation to those trans people. Even though they are both only indirectly related.

Do you think the average ‘gender conforming’ (ridiculous notion since nobody is properly conforming to all norms assigned) person truly wants to do it, or simply feels they must due to societal expectations?

I think saying gender conformity is a ridiculous notion is evasive. Most people are gender conforming and don't feel anxiety over it. They are often oblivious because it feels so natural. I would think because it is natural.

They may not like some aspects of "it" but they only want that aspect changed. They are not gender non conforming.

A background issue here is masculine non conformity and feminine non conformity do not express themselves the same way. The "genders" are not perfect mirrors.

Why do we need a flexible gender system? Why do we need gender at all?

It's emergent from human nature so you can't abolish it.

Gender non conforming people have not escaped gender.

We can have higher tolerance of minorities who are non conforming but a general population will never be indifferent to it.

[–]strictly 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

I think masculinity and femininity are sexuality.

I am also curious about what you mean with this. Are you saying it sexually arouses a masculine/feminine person to display masculinity/femininity? Or are you saying masculine and feminine people use their masculinity/femininity to attract sexual partners? Or do you mean we are sexually attracted to people displaying masculinity/femininity? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

Masculinity and femininity follow the same pattern.

I don’t think gender roles are necessary for the development of androphilai/gynephilia. I think androphilia/gynpehilia can end up developing in different ways depending on what it hooked into during development. In a society without gender roles there would only be biological sex for androphilia/gynephilia to hook into as that would be the only thing associated with the each sex. We don’t live in a world without gender roles though so for some people androphilia/gynephila might have hooked into everything associated with each sex, including cultural things. Or in some cases it might have only hooked into the cultural things but not the biological sex itself, making the person attracted to masculinity/femininity regardless of the sex of the person.

Is your theory that most people would end up asexual in a hypothetical genderless society?

It's emergent from human nature so you can't abolish it.

I think there might be a biological mechanism making people on average more likely to imitate members of their own sex as there has been a few of studies pointing in that direction. But that wouldn't make gender roles inevitable per se.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

I meant to say "I think masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality"

Only a mistake.

I am also curious about what you mean with this. Are you saying it sexually arouses a masculine/feminine person to display masculinity/femininity? Or are you saying masculine and feminine people use their masculinity/femininity to attract sexual partners? Or do you mean we are sexually attracted to people displaying masculinity/femininity? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

A bit of all three. Mostly the last.

A person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

I don’t think gender roles are necessary for the development of androphilai/gynephilia. I think androphilia/gynpehilia can end up developing in different ways depending on what it hooked into during development.

Well I do think there is an environmental contribution.

But I don't think masculinity or femininity would ever become completely disconnected from the erotic.

In a society without gender roles there would only be biological sex for androphilia/gynephilia to hook into as that would be the only thing associated with the each sex.

By gender roles we can say gender norms. I don't think it's technically possible to create a society without gender norms.

Theoretically if you really forced it they would always emerge and the process of elimination would render too much social trauma and sublimation.

We don’t live in a world without gender roles though so for some people androphilia/gynephila might have hooked into everything associated with each sex, including cultural things. Or in some cases it might have only hooked into the cultural things but not the biological sex itself, making the person attracted to masculinity/femininity regardless of the sex of the person.

Well I do think there can be a disconnect between the cultural aspects and the physical aspects. But then I think humans sexuality is very cultural and gendered.

Is your theory that most people would end up asexual in a hypothetical genderless society?

Generally I think gendered sexuality would assert itself in other ways. It would always appear perhaps in unexpected ways. Constant suppression of all gendered sexuality might cause sexual dysfunction though or an excessive physical obsession.

A minority might be perfectly happy within that though.

I think there might be a biological mechanism making people on average more likely to imitate members of their own sex as there has been a few of studies pointing in that direction. But that wouldn't make gender roles inevitable per se.

Gender roles can cover a lot here, that might not cover all gender norms.

Humans both consciously sexualise and unconsciously sexualise.

[–]strictly 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

A bit of all three. Mostly the last. A person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

You say you mean mostly the last one but the last sentence refers to the first one, no? And you said believed in all three a bit. Anyway I think you are wrong about the first one if you see that as a general rule for people.

I hope you don’t mind that I call you autogynephilic (not a moral judgment) as this seems to be a common error people with AGP/AAP tend to make, assuming everyone else also have AGP/AAP. As a lesbian I made a similar error growing up. I grew up in homophobic/religious family and was taught homosexuals were straight people with a same-sex fetish so I thought I had this fetish but was otherwise straight. Due to this I thought straight girls only pretended to like boys as I had never experienced it, and that girls with boyfriends were dumb for not saying no to having boyfriends (I found boys repulsive so I figured that had to be standard sentiment for straight girls). It took time for me to understand they weren’t behaving illogically and that it was me being dumb for not realizing they actually liked boys.

I think what causes a woman to conform to femininity is generally different from what causes a male cross dresser with AGP to conform to femininity. The woman would have been socialized into it since early age but a male cross dresser with AGP is aroused by performing femininity so he would be motivated by that.

You say you think a person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is. I think people who are aroused by expressing masculinity or femininity are generally aware of it, and I would guess you too are aware of finding it exciting. Some might not like the awareness though, so they call it something else, like gender euphoria, or they mistakenly think it’s like that for everyone, but they do tend to be aware of their sexual excitement in some way. I am a masculine woman and I think there are factors that might have influenced that. I have never found being masculine exciting though, and when someone talks about how their masculinity as being sexually arousing or euphoric to them it’s like hearing androphilic people talking about men, it’s very unrelatable and the way they talk about it often seems androphilic in nature to me.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

You say you mean mostly the last one but the last sentence refers to the first one, no? And you said believed in all three a bit. Anyway I think you are wrong about the first one if you see that as a general rule for people.

I think the first occurs just less often but I think it's there.

I hope you don’t mind that I call you autogynephilic (not a moral judgment)

I'm not a blanchardian, autogynephilia is used incredibly as a moral judgement, but as long as you are polite I don't mind. I like the honesty.

I am in part an "erotic dresser" and I have to rationalise that. But I also just think it's some kind of identity. I want to express that.

Blanchardianism seems to have many holes. It keeps making exceptions and the supporters keep making their own rules.

I'm not sure how gc reconciles the essentialism of Blanchardianism with its hard equality.

I used to think of my erotic dressing as like a short between two things. But it didn't quite seem right.

I think the common forms of sexuality are related rather than completely disconnected.

I ended up with a take what I call a dynamic component version of gender.

For example I don't think men and women go about androphilia the same way. But I think it's from the same biological trigger.

The same might be true of gender expression. That's how I rationalise it.

Mixing components does not make perfect averages.

Blanchardianism seems too "just so story."

I don't think many women are like crossdressers but some are. Just like most women don't go about androphilia the same way but some do.

as this seems to be a common error people with AGP/AAP tend to make, assuming everyone else also have AGP/AAP.

As a lesbian I made a similar error growing up. I grew up in homophobic/religious family and was taught homosexuals were straight people with a same-sex fetish so I thought I had this fetish but was otherwise straight. Due to this I thought straight girls only pretended to like boys as I had never experienced it, and that girls with boyfriends were dumb for not saying no to having boyfriends (I found boys repulsive so I figured that had to be standard sentiment for straight girls). It took time for me to understand they weren’t behaving illogically and that it was me being dumb for not realizing they actually liked boys.

I think what causes a woman to conform to femininity is generally different from what causes a male cross dresser with AGP to conform to femininity. The woman would have been socialized into it since early age but a male cross dresser with AGP is aroused by performing femininity so he would be motivated by that.

...but you do think your masculinity is natural even though you weren't socialized into it.

You are essentializing sexuality to gender expression right?

I wouldn't say I was comfortable by masculinity and I often don't fit into it. I wouldn't say I was completely feminine. But something is going on with gender. The agp model seems a bit all over the place.

You say you think a person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

Yes.

I think people who are aroused by expressing masculinity or femininity are generally aware of it, and I would guess you too are aware of finding it exciting. Some might not like the awareness though, so they call it something else, like gender euphoria, or they mistakenly think it’s like that for everyone, but they do tend to be aware of their sexual excitement in some way. I am a masculine woman and I think there are factors that might have influenced that.

When you say factors, you mean natural factors.

I have never found being masculine exciting though, and when someone talks about how their masculinity as being sexually arousing or euphoric to them it’s like hearing androphilic people talking about men, it’s very unrelatable and the way they talk about it often seems androphilic in nature to me.

Sure I see what you mean.

But what do you think of masculinity and femininity in others?

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure how gc reconciles the essentialism of Blanchardianism with its hard equality.

I not purely into anything, I believe what makes sense to me. I don't call myself a radfem as I don't believe in the blank slate. I don't believe everything in Blanchardianism either.

Blanchardianism seems to have many holes. It keeps making exceptions and the supporters keep making their own rules.

I don't see that as bad thing per se, if something is erroneous then it should be corrected. And if the theory starts not making sense at all, then it should be replaced with a better theory. And we if think Blanchardianism does a fairly good job at getting things right but has holes, and we have no better theory, and the other theories are worse, then I don't really see a problem with Blanchardian model being tweaked into a better model. Theories don't get born perfect.

I am in part an "erotic dresser" and I have to rationalise that. But I also just think it's some kind of identity. I want to express that.

It's not uncommon for people to be romantically attracted to those they are sexually attracted to. I would imagine many paraphilias, including AGP, also have romantic components. I think such a component would be easy to create an identity around. Many trans people (who I suspect are AGP/AAP) talk about their gender identity in with what I perceive as some type of romantic longing. But I am an outsider though, so I can't say for sure if it's like that. Maybe you could describe.

You are essentializing sexuality to gender expression right?

I am saying what i said before, I think there might be a biological mechanism to self-socialization and that early hormones could perhaps influence who we are more likely to imitate as children. You are free to interpret that as essentializing if that is essentializing to you.

...but you do think your masculinity is natural even though you weren't socialized into it.

It feels like my personality, I assume feminine women often feel their femininity is just their personality too (if we don't count things people only do reluctantly because they feel they have to). I am assume I was socialized, I didn't invent a new gender expression, I was probably imitating other people unconsciously. And I was seen as a girl, so I was treated like a girl. I was quite intensely bullied by girl gangs for many years for being a tomboy (they wanted to teach me being more feminine and were angry at me for not complying), and that was social experience I probably wouldn't have had had I not been a girl, and it probably affected me somewhat.

When you say factors, you mean natural factors.

I am not sure what you mean with natural here. With factors I mean I remember being offended at age 4 or 5 when I realized girls were supposed to be decorative to the opposite sex (I don't think I had understood what gendered clothing were before that). From that day I refused to wear anything I considered feminine. My mother still managed to trick me into wearing pink clothes for a couple of months after I had refused skirts/dresses until I realized that pink was also considered feminine, and I was angry with my mother for tricking me. This was socialized, I was reading symbolism into things that i wouldn't have done without a society.

But what do you think of masculinity and femininity in others?

I will probably have to get back to this another day, as I'm a bit short on time right now.

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

I not purely into anything, I believe what makes sense to me. I don't call myself a radfem as I don't believe in the blank slate. I don't believe everything in Blanchardianism either.

Fair enough I sympathise with not being able to accept one side completely. Part of the story here is the science is not complete which leaves us open to debate. We have to speculate as we best know.

I don't see that as bad thing per se, if something is erroneous then it should be corrected. And if the theory starts not making sense at all, then it should be replaced with a better theory. And we if think Blanchardianism does a fairly good job at getting things right but has holes, and we have no better theory, and the other theories are worse, then I don't really see a problem with Blanchardian model being tweaked into a better model. Theories don't get born perfect.

It's not that it's completely inaccurate in some of the things it records but I don't think it ultimately holds together.

I do think the science will move on.

It's not uncommon for people to be romantically attracted to those they are sexually attracted to. I would imagine many paraphilias, including AGP, also have romantic components. I think such a component would be easy to create an identity around. Many trans people (who I suspect are AGP/AAP) talk about their gender identity in with what I perceive as some type of romantic longing. But I am an outsider though, so I can't say for sure if it's like that. Maybe you could describe.

I really don't relate to the romantic idea of it. It's more like it puts me in the mood. So I would think it unusual behaviour but not unrelated to the rest of sexuality going on. I can read and see women putting themselves in the mood for sexual play through gender expression. It's not absolutely common but it looks more related than not.

A couple points I'd add. I wasn't fixated on one aspect. I didn't masturbate endlessly. I didn't masturbate at all. I just knew it was vaguely sexual, as well as the interest in some form of dominant women. It didn't make sense until a few years into adulthood. That's not from seclusion but from it making no sense in a regular heterosexual world. I knew of gay men in dresses or transwomen but I never saw myself as those.

I am saying what i said before, I think there might be a biological mechanism to self-socialization and that early hormones could perhaps influence who we are more likely to imitate as children. You are free to interpret that as essentializing if that is essentializing to you.

I'm probably in agreement on that.

I often compare gender to language and we do have a natural ability as children to learn language.

It feels like my personality, I assume feminine women often feel their femininity is just their personality too (if we don't count things people only do reluctantly because they feel they have to). I am assume I was socialized, I didn't invent a new gender expression, I was probably imitating other people unconsciously. And I was seen as a girl, so I was treated like a girl. I was quite intensely bullied by girl gangs for many years for being a tomboy (they wanted to teach me being more feminine and were angry at me for not complying), and that was social experience I probably wouldn't have had had I not been a girl, and it probably affected me somewhat.

That makes sense to me.

Though there is a question in gender that goes like this. It does look cultural, or maybe like we most have a natural talent for learning gender. Sometimes that can vary. But how much is innate? How much of the canvas is blank?

Like masculine women such as yourself. Are you learning the language of masculinity or are you expressing innate elements of masculinity as well as cultural aspects? I hope we learn the science on this.

I will probably have to get back to this another day, as I'm a bit short on time right now.

About the masculinity and femininity. I think people can find masculinity and femininity in men or women sexually appealing. Would you agree?