you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]bife_de_lomo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm interested in your thoughts here because I don't understand your reasoning. Masculinity and femininity don't have anything to do with whether you are or are not a man or woman, they are just the social constructs and expectations of what men and women "should" do or are "supposed" to be because they are men and women.

Very few people conform fully to society's expectations; whether you're a tomboy or a twink your behavior and expression doesn't alter the underlying reality.

[–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The problem is that man/woman are loaded terms used in multiple contexts. We could use man/woman as synonyms for male/female, however the colloquial use of those terms goes beyond this attachment to biology. For example, we can ask the question: who is more of a man?... an athletic lumberjack with 4 kids that lives in the woods, or a feminine ballet dancer that is gay and lives with his parents? We could say both are men, but we can ALSO say one is more of a man than the other. The reason is because in certain contexts man/woman is also a way to measure people's masculinity/femininity. The more manly, the more masculinity, etc.

Therefore, it's possible to consider someone stretching that spectrum to such an extent that it is easier to just treat them as the opposite sex, because that's how they're presenting themselves on multiple levels. That said... the problem right now is that it is not enough to be polite, you must also believe it is 100% real. I'm just saying we can be polite and just call masculine people men, and feminine people women... as long as the ambiguity is not important. For example this goes out the door when dating, because it's important there.

[–]bife_de_lomo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for responding. I don't think that man/woman or male/female are synonymous because they aren't the same type of word. Man and woman are nouns, and male and female are adjectives. A female human is a woman.

I, unlike some on the sub, think there is utility in distinguishing gender from sex so we can talk about the things that men and women do in society that don't relate to their biological state, but nonetheless are commonplace social constructs. This is the masculine and feminine adjective of gender.

I would quite strongly disagree that there is such a thing as being "more of a woman" or "less of a man" based on conformity with gender stereotypes. This exposes the oppression of gender and my hope is that one day people won't be blackmailed into thinking they're less of a man because they're not an athletic lumberjack.

To your last point, I see a difference between masculine presentation in a woman (like a tomboy or a butch lesbian or even completely GNC), and a person who actually wants to change sex (a woman who thinks they are a man, or a transman). Would you say the former category are also men because they present as masculine? I can't quite tell if you feel it's easier or more polite to acquiesce, or whether you feel both sex and gender play a part in man- and woman-hood.

I think we might actually agree on quite a bit, but I think offering politeness is my line in the sand that I can't cross at this point.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Would you say the former category are also men because they present as masculine?

Tomboys are still women, but if someone goes all the way and gets surgery, lifts weights, and gets a beard transplant, then it's easier (more pragmatic) to just call them a man. This doesn't mean that they are literally a man, but rather that they are in a sub-category of man, those who were born as women. More precisely they are trans-men, but the prefix can easily be dropped like many other words that are shortened when the appropriate context exists.

I would quite strongly disagree that there is such a thing as being "more of a woman" or "less of a man" based on conformity with gender stereotypes. This exposes the oppression of gender and my hope is that one day people won't be blackmailed into thinking they're less of a man because they're not an athletic lumberjack.

Yeah I don't think people should assign a moral value to being more of a man or woman. They should just be descriptors/archetypes that perhaps is rude to box people in. For the purposes of arguing whether a trans people should be call what they want to be called, I think letting men be feminine is already opening the door to this possibility. If a man can be feminine, why can't they go full feminine, including makeup, cosmetic surgeries, etc.? If we're ok with stretching those archetypes, then in theory it would be ok if some men are extremely feminine to the point that for practical purposes in society we call them a woman. The very important caveat here, is that everybody would know that they are really a trans-woman, and that you drop the prefix to be polite.

In other words, unless we actually oppress people into strict gender role boxes (shaming gay men, etc), we're allowing for trans people to be part of society regardless of whether it's a mental illness or not. But stretching the archetypes doesn't mean that we deny reality when the details are necessary.