When no gender fits: A quest to be seen as just a person
December 15, 2014 5:49 AM   Subscribe

Which box do you check when you don’t belong in any box? How do you navigate the world when the world is built on identifying with one group or another group, male or female, and the place that feels most right to you is neither?

For Nancy, a 55-year-old mother of three, the notion of a child who wants to be gender-neutral has been difficult to understand. She knew about individuals who were born in female bodies but felt male inside. She’d never heard of someone who wanted to be neither and had asked Kelsey more than once, “Are you sure? Are you sure that maybe you’re not just a boyish girl?”

Kelsey was sure.

For Kelsey, identifying as agender wasn’t an immediate realization but a gradual awakening, a recognition that what applied to other girls didn’t seem to apply to Kelsey. People would say Kelsey was pretty, and it made Kelsey squirm — not because Kelsey felt unattractive but because other people’s definitions of pretty, or handsome for that matter, didn’t work.
posted by moody cow (149 comments total) 52 users marked this as a favorite
 
That was great. I hope college is treating Kelsey wonderfully, and their mom seems to be working hard at figuring it all out.
posted by ChuraChura at 6:26 AM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


I don't have my thoughts collected on this yet, but thanks for posting.
posted by desjardins at 7:05 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


I liked how... normal it was. Just another story of a kid trying to fit in at college, but with an extra layer of difficulty. Not a terrible, freakish, incomprehensible way to live. It reminded me of stories you might have read about gay teenagers 20 or 25 years ago.

I don't mean to belittle the struggles of non-binary people -- sometimes I feel a little like their friend Kristen in these sorts of discussions, “I want to ask questions, but I don't want to say things that are offensive,” but I think the non-inflammatory presentation of this story was nice.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:20 AM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


This is such a great article, and always really refreshing to hear about supportive parents and friends like Kelsey has. Kelsey seems like a very poised (and stylish!) kid who is ready to handle the challenges of college. I'm happy to read that they've found ways to connect with others and express themself.

sometimes I feel a little like their friend Kristen in these sorts of discussions, “I want to ask questions, but I don't want to say things that are offensive”

Rock Steady, I think it's totally normal to feel that way. I think it's easy for discussions somewhere like MetaFilter to get derailed with questions from people who are trying to understand, but if you can find a space to ask questions with someone one-on-one where it isn't distracting from a discussion, there are certainly people who are comfortable with that. My own experiences have touched on nonbinary issues in a few ways so while I can't speak for everybody, if you or anyone else wants to MeMail me I can answer questions from within the limits of my knowledge and experience. My friend Marilyn also runs the site Genderqueer Identities which has a very detailed FAQ that also might answer some questions.
posted by capricorn at 8:03 AM on December 15, 2014 [11 favorites]


Kelsey’s friends Kristen and Mackenzie fold their arms across their bikini’d chests and assess the attire.

I read that sentence three times trying to figure out where the missing words were, and then I realized it said "assess," a verb with two s's at the end, not the plural noun I thought I had seen.

I need more coffee.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:11 AM on December 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


capricorn: "I think it's easy for discussions somewhere like MetaFilter to get derailed with questions from people who are trying to understand, but if you can find a space to ask questions with someone one-on-one where it isn't distracting from a discussion, there are certainly people who are comfortable with that. "

I totally get that, and I really appreciate the pointer to that FAQ. I don't really have anyone (as far as I know) in my life who is struggling with these sorts of issues right now, so I don't have any pressing need to ask questions, so for now I mostly just try to read and listen and observe. In this case, I quoted that to emphasize that by saying the story felt "normal" I hoped I didn't insult anyone who is struggling and found the article to be looking through rose-tinted glasses.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:12 AM on December 15, 2014


Agreed. I like the "normal" tone of the article, too. It helps do what Kelsey wants, and that's to have people see them as just a person. I'll check out that FAQ as well. I really don't have any experience with non-binary gender.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:25 AM on December 15, 2014


Loved this article. It was a really good read, and so nice to see a non-traditional gender not get treated like a freakish Other thing.

Would've been nice if the author had done just a tiny bit of reading about trans issues in general before writing this, though:

She read an article recently about a family with a young transgender child, a biological boy who wanted to be a girl.

*facepalm*

Come on, Washington Post. Do better.
posted by Dysk at 8:26 AM on December 15, 2014 [10 favorites]


I read this the other day, and overall had the same impression as others: neutral presentation, gets the concepts across and doesn't treat Kelsey like an other.

I'm really glad that the concept of non-binary gender is gaining broader exposure. I am genderqueer, and only found out that that was a "thing" (and that I wasn't just some weirdo) a few years ago, around age 27. It just FIT.

I have yet to have the gender conversation with my family (though if for some reason they know my mefi screen name, heyyyy there...), but that's a self-care thing. Pretty much everyone I consider a friend knows I'm genderqueer, I just let strangers and random folks make their own assumptions.

Count me among the mefites who would be happy to answer questions via memail (or chat, I'm often in there) about genderqueer things.

Also, Everyday Feminism recently posted "10 Myths About Non-Binary People It's Time to Unlearn". I've definitely encountered the majority of them.
posted by HermitDog at 8:46 AM on December 15, 2014 [15 favorites]


internet fraud detective squad: I feel very similarly about it. I think that a lot of it for me--if I was a teenager now, I'd feel very differently about it just because there's a chance of having this taken seriously, which makes a big difference. I'm kind of used to being defaulted female based on appearance, now, and meh, whatever. I'm not very concerned about a lot of it--like, pronouns are just words. But I try to be respectful of other people taking such things seriously and use the language they're comfortable with when referring to them.
posted by Sequence at 8:51 AM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


This is why the practice of using gender-neutral pronouns in conversation as much as possible makes so much sense. However a person identifies or is presenting, it may still hurt to be addressed based on assumptions. It's sort of like hey, Happy Holidays. Not because I assume you're x religion, but because I do try not make impolite assumptions socially.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:55 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't it be better overall if we all just treated each other as just a "person," that unique individual possessing their own unique qualities? Class terms identifying groups of people as this or that are ultimately just abstractions. Sometimes they have value, when someone tries to fit themselves into the world, but many times they are used to label and to hurt. We live in a world of individuals. We should let people be individuals.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:14 AM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


I'm also in that category where, if I had known earlier in my life that there are other people outside the binary, I might have stepped up and claimed it.

But since I was 40 when I found out, I figured continuing to pass for "he" is the easiest thing all around. It's kind of not wrong, at the same time that it's not quite right.

Mostly I just sigh at the arbitrary emphasis society puts on (binary) gender, and I think of the "good morning, right handers and left handers!" response to "good morning boys and girls."
posted by Foosnark at 9:20 AM on December 15, 2014 [13 favorites]


However a person identifies or is presenting, it may still hurt to be addressed based on assumptions.

I am obviously a male. If you refer to me as "they", I will think you are either oblivious, idiotic, or trying to offend me.

It's good to be polite to people. However, it's also good to realize that the number of people that identify as agender is so small as to not even have been statistically quantified yet. Gender is not a bad thing. I like my gender, and I fully expect that far more people view themselves the way I do than otherwise.
posted by saeculorum at 9:29 AM on December 15, 2014 [9 favorites]


I read the article with interest, as what I might have done if I'd been hitting college now. I'm in my mid-forties and have made my peace with being "not very good at being a girl" (which is how I self-identify) and I worry a lot less about it now than I did when I was younger. I kinda suck at or have zero interest in a lot of things most people think girls should be good at or interested in. I am good at and interested in a lot of non-girl things. I am livid that the world is divided into "girl things" and "boy things".

For about four years, ending about when I turned fifteen, I wore short hair and solid, dark colors and everyone, everywhere, called me 'son' or 'sir'. (I corrected them because they were wrong, but it didn't stir me to do a better job presenting as a girl.) By the time I hit fifteen, there was no way anyone, anywhere would ever call me 'sir' again (Hips don't lie, thank you genetics.) and that was OK too except that it marked the start of when folks really look for you to 'discover' boys, grow out of the whole tomboy thing, and start being a 'proper' girl. Sorry, can't be bothered, have too many other, vastly more interesting things to do. Also, am aware of boys, but am not going to dress up and work at it to get one. Don't want the kind of boy who thinks that stuff is important anyway.

So, I wish Kelsey luck at college and hope things work out well for them and I wonder, a little, how I would have gone about growing up in these our modern times.
posted by which_chick at 9:43 AM on December 15, 2014 [6 favorites]


If you refer to me as "they", I will think you are either oblivious, idiotic, or trying to offend me.


I have taken to writing all feedback about candidates I interview at work with "they" as the main pronoun to avoid biasing people reading my interview feedback.
posted by GuyZero at 9:44 AM on December 15, 2014 [26 favorites]


I should elaborate - I generally wouldn't refer to you as "they" to your face, but maybe? I mean, why would I refer to you in the third person when we're talking? Regardless my point is that I refer to people as "they"in writing for reasons other than my confusion about gender presentation, specifically trying to avoid unconscious bias.
posted by GuyZero at 9:53 AM on December 15, 2014


I'm not knowledgeable about transgender stuff to understand why "She read an article recently about a family with a young transgender child, a biological boy who wanted to be a girl" elicited a facepalm from Dysk.

But I thought the article was beautifully written and showed good people, like Nancy and Kelsey's friends, trying hard to understand something they don't know about, simply because they love Kelsey. Good luck to them all, I say.
posted by Pericles at 9:53 AM on December 15, 2014


"[U]sing gender-neutral pronouns in conversation as much as possible" seems like one of those things that could really backfire if you're talking to a trans person who has a preferred binary gender pronoun and might reasonably see "they" as an "I don't know what u are lol" slight
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:55 AM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


Thanks for this.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:56 AM on December 15, 2014


I kinda suck at or have zero interest in a lot of things most people think girls should be good at or interested in. I am good at and interested in a lot of non-girl things. I am livid that the world is divided into "girl things" and "boy things".

Not that I want to question your identity specifically or anything, but I do just want to make the general point that being gender-non-conforming (i.e. not keeping up with societal gender roles) is totally not the same thing as being trans (whether that be binary or not). For example, I am a trans woman, but I am also completely shit at and uninterested in 'girl things'. It's not about that.

Again, I'm not questioning your gender identity or comments thereupon, but it's a common misunderstanding with trans people (and a common source of criticism from for example TERFs) that trans women are misogynists for enacting sexist gender roles, which comes from a conflation of gender roles, gender presentation, and gender identity. They are not the same thing, even if they often line up for a lot of people.
posted by Dysk at 9:58 AM on December 15, 2014 [13 favorites]


OK, let me clarify: I did not mean that if someone is binary to willfully disregard that. But the fact is, gender-neutrals are becoming rather common, and our language should reflect that.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 10:00 AM on December 15, 2014


"[U]sing gender-neutral pronouns in conversation as much as possible" seems like one of those things that could really backfire if you're talking to a trans person who has a preferred binary gender pronoun and might reasonably see "they" as an "I don't know what u are lol" slight

In my case I'm cool with it, so long as you aren't dude'ing and he'ing me I'll pretty much take whatever pronoun you can reach for in your grab-bag.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:09 AM on December 15, 2014


Being agender, Kelsey explains to Kristen, is like living on an island apart from the rest of the world. Kelsey has learned to think of people in terms of how close they are to reaching this island.

“Kahri and Erick are guarding me,” Kelsey says. Those are the friends who are nearest to understanding Kelsey. “You and my mom are in boats on your way.”

“I want to guard you!”

“You’re getting there. In your kayak.”




Thank you for sharing this moving, hopeful, respectful piece. I'm crying a little.
posted by Corinth at 10:11 AM on December 15, 2014 [12 favorites]


Previously: agender: portraits of young people who identify as neither male or female.
How do you navigate the world when the world is built on identifying with one group or another group, male or female, and the place that feels most right to you is neither?
Speaking from experience: Uncomfortably. It just makes me unsettled to know that no one is ever going to see me the way I see myself, ever, and I just kind of have to work through the ramifications of that whenever it comes up, which is more often than I'd like.

A good example is stuff like baby and bridal showers, which are IME exclusively single-sex affairs under the sole purview of Women (the gender, not the sex). I'm not and have never been acculturated to society's idea of what Women like: I dislike the topics of marriage and babies, I don't want to look at diamond rings or white dresses, I find lavish weddings morally suspect, I don't want to ogle ultrasounds or play the game where everyone tries to drink beer out of low-flow baby bottles, I hate shopping for clothes more than anything in the world.

Everyone I know knows these things about me... but they invite me to their women-only bridal and baby showers anyway. Why? Because I have boobs, I guess, which is enough to get me slotted under the column of Woman even though I personally do not identify with any of the aspects of the only concept they're using to determine attendance at the event. To that end, the myriad issues with having a nebulous concept you do not identify or agree with enforced upon your body from on high were expounded upon most excellently in this comment by Frowner.

This is my life story, and eerily similar to what I spew out whenever one of my girlfriends wants me to go shopping with her:
"I don't want to be a girl wearing boy's clothes, nor do I want to be a girl who presents as a boy," Kelsey wrote. “I just want to be a person who is recognized as a person. That's how I'm most comfortable. I'm just a person wearing people clothes, who likes to look like myself and have others see me how I see me."
I've had a woman's body since birth; being 'female' comes with its own set of quirks, complications, and what often feel like Lovecraftian horrors, but to get to the crux of the matter, I'm always getting het up about the most prominent gendered traits commonly ascribed to people in the same boat as me, for no reason than because we were born with inner bits rather than outer bits:
  • "soft" and pliable, if not explicitly compliant
  • weak/frail/delicate unless one is in the act of giving birth
  • patient and nurturing, if not explicitly motherly
  • emotional to a fault, judgment cannot be trusted (to wit: suffrage movement)
  • irrational, prone to hyperbole and hysteria
  • unable to make meaningful decisions about one's own body (to wit: Hobby Lobby, personhood amendments)
  • cleaner and organizer of all things
  • wearer of makeup, jewelry, high heels, and dresses
    • short enough that onlookers can ascertain that you are female-bodied because your body is sexy,
    • long enough that no one could possibly accuse you of dressing "inappropriately" because your body is dirty,
      • note that the boundary between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" will be determined anew by every person you pass on the street
    • loose enough that you aren't being "slutty," and

    • tight enough that viewers can easily express admiration for your curves (the presence of which makes you a Real WomanTM), or castigate you for your lack thereof (because without them, gross, you look like a man!)
And then there's everything done to convince people that concerns expressed by or shared between women are trifling, frivolous, and summarily unimportant, which is how all kinds of supposedly venerable journalistic institutions manage to shuffle articles about feminism off into the Fashion & Style ghetto.

The assignment of "masculinity" comes with its own set of problems, of course, but it's also a label that lionizes rather than infantilizes its bearer. In any case, society tells me that if I have a woman's body but do not ascribe to the majority of the qualities associated with the "feminine" gender, I am a failed woman. Not wanting to have or take care of children? Fail. Never wearing a bra or makeup? Fail. Talking about sex openly and frankly instead of blushing demurely? Fail. OK, fine, I guess I'm a failed woman. But I can't make myself be any other way, I just can't. So what can I do with that information? Shove it down, choke it back, hide it, hide it, hide it at all costs.

I experience womanhood exclusively as a political ideology, and it's one I can find a lot of strength and comfort in while I'm stuck living in this blasted patriarchy, but the vast majority of what gets assigned to women as a gender -- as iterated above -- is annoying at best and utterly destructive to my sense of self at worst.

I am obviously a male. [...] Gender is not a bad thing. I like my gender, and I fully expect that far more people view themselves the way I do than otherwise.

Sigh.
posted by divined by radio at 10:20 AM on December 15, 2014 [40 favorites]


Sigh.

Is something I said not true?
posted by saeculorum at 10:29 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


I am pleased to see more articles about people trying to navigate outside the gender binary. God willing when I am old and gray I'll be able to horrify the youngs with stories about how we did gender in a barbaric fashion when I was their age.
posted by beefetish at 10:39 AM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


Is something I said not true?

Factually, no. But what we read between the lines is that you think it's okay to misgender nonbinary people because there aren't very many of us, but we better not use gender-neutral terminology to refer to you.

Your post comes off like a white dude asking why there's no "White History Month."
posted by Foosnark at 10:43 AM on December 15, 2014 [22 favorites]


Is something I said not true?

Speaking for myself, this is not remotely true: Gender is not a bad thing.

Just because you, a person who is "obviously a male," feel comfortable stating that "gender is not a bad thing" does not mean that it is actually not a bad thing.

Gender is something that can and does harm people, especially people who are gendered as women, as well as those of us are not "obviously" anything. So yeah, in my opinion, gender is a bad thing. I'm also confused by what "obviously male" is supposed to mean because gender is expressed in many different ways by many different people, but I'm a gender abolitionist at heart, so I digress.
posted by divined by radio at 10:44 AM on December 15, 2014 [15 favorites]


divined by radio: I experience womanhood exclusively as a political ideology, and it's one I can find a lot of strength and comfort in while I'm stuck living in this blasted patriarchy, but the vast majority of what gets assigned to women as a gender -- as iterated above -- is annoying at best and utterly destructive to my sense of self at worst.

This this this this.

I'm thirty, and started slowly coming out as non-binary this year. Previously, my line on the topic of my gender was, "I identify politically as a woman..." (the rest of that sentence left hanging somewhere in midair.)
posted by daisyk at 10:53 AM on December 15, 2014 [8 favorites]


I am trying very hard not to bristle at the suggestion that gender is inherently bad. I have some fairly complicated feelings about my gender and where it fits in the broad landscape of human riffs on the topic, and it took me a while to figure out a place to wind up that I was comfortable with. That does not mean that it isn't worth it to HAVE that place. I'm thinking of this rather like I do about sexuality: the solution to some people's sexualities being unusual or strange and being made to be miserable about this isn't to abolish sexuality entirely, it's to listen to what people need out of theirs and take that into account when making decisions about what constitutes polite behavior. Yes?

Generally, if I'm using pronouns for someone I don't know, I either go with the evidence of presentation--you're wearing clothing that is clearly coded male or female, I will use those pronouns unless you request otherwise--and if I cannot tell from context, I ask or use singular they. If I get the wrong pronoun, I apologize, fix it as best I can, and move on. In my experience, that has been completely acceptable polite behavior for the nonbinary people of assorted stripes that I know.
posted by sciatrix at 10:58 AM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


To clarify--I'm fairly gender non conforming, but to me it's actually quite important to identify as a woman in order to connect myself to an older, gendered tradition. There's more traditions of being female than the stereotypes, and I am okay taking subsets of those traditions to make a space for myself within the broader category of "femaleness" to make something that works for me.

Other people have different priorities and different ways of looking at the situation, and that too is okay. But I feel way too strongly that I need and want to align myself with women and the history and cultural weight that comes with being a woman who doesn't perform mainstream womanhood, if you follow my meaning, to be comfortable with an analysis that says "gender is inherently bad." It feels to me like erasing my connection to the history of women who behave and present like me.
posted by sciatrix at 11:03 AM on December 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


I've gotten to a place in my life where I just don't give a fuck whether I do "female" correctly. I'm recently divorced and I'm free of anyone's expectations. I feel like I've settled into my natural state. My current and prospective partners can take or leave me as I am; I don't feel the need to dress up in gender-specific clothing for them. (This may be part of why I end up with mostly bisexual guys.)

Dressing up in feminine garb feels like crossdressing. I never ever wear skirts or heels in daily life; it would make me feel too self-conscious. Occasionally I wear short skirts and garter belts and thigh high boots, but mostly to fetish events, because that's what I associate it with.

Someone called me "pretty" recently (I was wearing unisex leather pants, Docs and a sweater) and it was like nails on a chalkboard. Sometimes I'm called "sir," and that doesn't feel quite right either. But I think that most people mean well, and I rarely correct anyone. It's not their fault they don't know how to define me - I haven't even figured that out.
posted by desjardins at 11:04 AM on December 15, 2014 [6 favorites]


Pericles, I think Dysk's facepalm is a reaction to describing the child as wanting to be a girl, when it's more true to say that she is a girl, but was assigned male at birth (AMAB). There's also a lot to be said about the fact that "biologically male" and "biologically female" are way less straightforward and mutually exclusive than people generally think they are; this comment by DrMew discusses that.

(I could see this comment starting a derail about trans children, which has been covered lots on the blue already, so, er, let's not do that? :D)
posted by daisyk at 11:06 AM on December 15, 2014 [9 favorites]


I wonder if the talk of non-binary gender actually leads to an increase in those who identify as non-binary, as the mental possibility is opened. When you have a strong gender identity, you just know, just like when you have a strong sexual orientation one way or the other.

I might have identified as agender - and asked for agender pronouns etc - when I was younger, but it wasn't an option in my mental universe. There was a time when I wondered about transitioning - but I didn't want to be male all the time, just some of the time. Even now, I don't have a gender identity - or maybe I have moments of both - but I don't want to change my pronoun because that would take too much explaining. When I was younger, maybe I wouldn't have mind explaining, but now it seems like not everyone needs to know my gender identity, anymore than my marital status.
posted by jb at 11:15 AM on December 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


I experience womanhood exclusively as a political ideology

Yeah, this is a good way of putting it and it's why I couldn't ever identify as male, no matter what I imagine in my head or see in the mirror. I would never want to give up the shared experience of being (or having been) perceived as female. I have a solidarity with women that I don't think I'd ever have with men even if I were consistently perceived as one.

I guess I'd never thought about gender abolitionism, per se, but I'd like to think that some day it won't matter any more than it matters that someone is right- or left-handed. There would still be differences; it's easier for left-handed people to use special scissors, just like it's more efficient for people with penises to use urinals, but there would be no political or cultural baggage attached to differences in genitalia or presentation.
posted by desjardins at 11:15 AM on December 15, 2014 [11 favorites]


What daisyk said, and "biologically" whatever is offensive as fuck - it reeks of trans women "really" being men, vice versa, and non-binary people "really" being whatever they were assigned at birth. It's completely tone-deaf, and bizarre to see in an otherwise fairly sensitive article.

Also wow, all the conflation of gender and gender roles in this thread, and all the essentialism. I get that you have some issues with societal expectations and roles for women, divinded by radio, and believe me, I do too, but fuck me if the way you're talking about it doesn't imply that I'm not a woman for not having been born with "inner bits rather than outer bits".

Not conforming to societal expectations of women does not make someone not a woman. I do not wear makeup, I do not wear dresses, I do not like bridal showers, all of what you said basically, but I am absolutely a woman, and it's sure as fuck not because my bits make people assume I am - quite the contrary. If you're agender, great. If you have issues with societal expectations of women, great (and in fact, I am totally on board with you if so). But effectively saying that not conforming with societal expectations of women makes you not a woman? Problem, real fucking problem.

I mean: I'm not and have never been acculturated to society's idea of what Women like: I dislike the topics of marriage and babies, I don't want to look at diamond rings or white dresses, I find lavish weddings morally suspect, I don't want to ogle ultrasounds or play the game where everyone tries to drink beer out of low-flow baby bottles, I hate shopping for clothes more than anything in the world.
...AND YET I AM A WOMAN, despite society constantly assuming and telling me that I'm not.
posted by Dysk at 11:17 AM on December 15, 2014 [19 favorites]


Yes, gender identity is not the same as the way you feel about gender roles - the latter are culturally dependent, and constantly changing.

But being agender or non-binary means lacking that thing that makes cis and trans men or women know what gender they are. Dysk knows that she is a woman, because she feels it. But I don't feel that, and if I woke up tomorrow in a male body, I would be quite happy, though I don't know how I would feel if it were permanent. (Except for the shaving. I would hate to have to deal with facial hair).
posted by jb at 11:30 AM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


jb, you could grow a glorious beard. I know I would.
posted by daisyk at 11:32 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


Divined by radio: thank you for sharing. I find agender people to be caught in the crux between being misunderstood as angry feminists with an axe to grind against gender roles and presentations and someone who is somehow broken or misguided. I really feel for that, I struggled with my own "what is a woman" question for a couple of years and it came down to "what I am" and it has nothing to do with "what I do or how I act". My personal sense of belonging to the female gender and sex is very personal to me, and the road I travel on requires me be careful with who I let in and trust. So I get when people are frustrated by the gender constructions and what's expected of you "cause sex parts".
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:32 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


No, wait, that is purely wishful thinking. I have seen my brothers' attempts at growing beards. :(
posted by daisyk at 11:33 AM on December 15, 2014


but I'm a gender abolitionist at heart
omigosh, thank you, I did not have the guts to say this.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:34 AM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


jb nails it. "According to society, I am bad at being [my gender]" is so not the same thing as being agender or non-binary. You can be agender or non-binary and fulfil every single stereotype of your assigned-at-birth gender. You can fulfil none of the stereotypes of your gender, and that doesn't necessarily mean you're agender or non-binary. They are not the same thing at all, they are not really related, and saying "according to society, I am bad at being [my gender], which means I am agender/non-binary" is incredibly delegitimising of both binary trans people, and especially non-binary and agender people.
posted by Dysk at 11:35 AM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


I'm trying to figure out how to say this correctly because it can be frustrating to see apparently-cis people being twee about their gender identities in an academic sense whenever this stuff comes up, conflating all kinds of role/presentation/performance garbage with sense of self. Maybe it's something like "being a feminist does not make you agender/genderqueer."

On preview, starting with Dysk there are a few people making a similar point. So yay, now I'm not the only asshole!
posted by Corinth at 11:37 AM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


There's also a lot to be said about the fact that "biologically male" and "biologically female" are way less straightforward and mutually exclusive than people generally think they are; this comment by DrMew discusses that.

That is very true. But it is also true that, for the vast majority of people who are physically male or female, our sex is a biological factor which is just as real as our gender (whether it matches or not). My sex is part of who I am: it dictates how my body developed through puberty, my vocal cords, how fat continues to be deposited around my body, whether I can bear a child or not - and how I am sorted into the gender binary by 99% of the people I meet. It may not determine my gender identity, but it shapes the world in which my gender identity exists. If sex didn't matter, then no one would ever feel the need to transition to help their biology better match their gender identity.

jb, you could grow a glorious beard. I know I would.
posted by daisyk at 2:32 PM on December 15


Ah, but I don't like beards (on me, on anyone else), but I'm also lazy :) So I'm lucky I don't grow facial hair.
posted by jb at 11:40 AM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


agender people aren't by default gender abolitionists, and to rope them into your gender critical philosophical war is to erase them (and all trans people, for that matter). They aren't your proof that gender doesn't exist.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:43 AM on December 15, 2014 [10 favorites]


But it is also true that, for the vast majority of people who are physically male or female

Sorry - I said that wrong. I meant for people who are not intersex, or otherwise not easy defined as biologically male or female. I know that it's not a simple switch, but for most people, we do have a defined sex (genetically XX or XY, our body develops clearly male or female, etc).

We need to recognise that sex isn't always so clearly defined, but that doesn't mean throwing out the concept of biological sex altogether.
posted by jb at 11:44 AM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


We need to recognise that sex isn't always so clearly defined, but that doesn't mean throwing out the concept of biological sex altogether.

perfecting our understanding of sex assignment is not throwing anything away. It's refining our awareness to include things we were ignorant of before.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:54 AM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


Not that I want to question your identity specifically or anything, but I do just want to make the general point that being gender-non-conforming (i.e. not keeping up with societal gender roles) is totally not the same thing as being trans (whether that be binary or not). For example, I am a trans woman, but I am also completely shit at and uninterested in 'girl things'. It's not about that.

Again, I'm not questioning your gender identity or comments thereupon, but it's a common misunderstanding with trans people (and a common source of criticism from for example TERFs) that trans women are misogynists for enacting sexist gender roles, which comes from a conflation of gender roles, gender presentation, and gender identity. They are not the same thing, even if they often line up for a lot of people.


I'm sorry. I was not trying to speak as an authority regarding how trans people navigate gender roles, gender presentation, and gender identity. I didn't intend to speak for trans people and I'm sorry that it sounded like I was doing that. That was not my intent and I apologize.
posted by which_chick at 12:05 PM on December 15, 2014


It may not determine my gender identity, but it shapes the world in which my gender identity exists.

Me too.

Check this out, the world you so easily live in has been really, really, fucking harmful to me. I need your assistance and willingness to think that perhaps, JUST perhaps, the world doesn't HAVE to revolve around the binary you are oh-so-comfortable living in just because it doesn't occur to you that maybe there's other, more inclusive ways to think about it. What a luxury to have, indeed...
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:31 PM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


If it's any comfort, Rock Steady, some non-binary people have the same problem. /waves Being part of a community doesn't always mean you speak the language of that community, or that the understanding of the word you're using is the same across the divide of consciousness.

#####

I'm really jealous of trees. I really am. Nobody, outside of botanists, will gender a tree. Few people think of an Oak as being "male" or "female". They just think of it as being an Oak tree. Gender doesn't come into it, even when thinking about acorns. I think, sometimes, about how it would be nice to have people see me that way - just a tree in a field, rather than being an X or a Y or a Z.
posted by A Puppet made from a Sock at 12:47 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


Also this is as good a time as any to point out that the "gender binary" is not reflective of any particular biological truth, that hormone levels, secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes, genitals, and any combination thereof do not actually neatly correspond to two categories.

Taxonomy influences a really astonishing amount of how we think about things.
posted by beefetish at 12:51 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


JUST perhaps, the world doesn't HAVE to revolve around the binary you are oh-so-comfortable living in just because it doesn't occur to you that maybe there's other, more inclusive ways to think about it. What a luxury to have, indeed...

Annika, please don't assume that the person you are talking to is comfortable with the binary.

What I wanted to stress is not that it is comfortable, but that biological sex, while complicated, is real. My sex has led to the fact I have breasts. I could bind them, but I cannot - without surgery and a permanent move I am not ready (probably never) to make, make them go away. Sometimes I think my breasts are great. Sometimes I wish I could take them off and put them in a drawer so that I can go out as the flat-chested person that I feel like that day. Maybe I sometimes wish I had a penis, but even with hormones, that is not possible. That is the tyranny of sex - no matter what we do socially about gender, sex will always be with us (unless medicine progresses much, much farther than it has so far).

I respect individual trans and non-binary people wishes to talk about "assigned ____ at birth" rather than "biologically ____". Particularly for intersex and/or people who have transitioned, biology gets complicated. But it makes sense to talk about sex - that trans men, for example, may have to worry about cervical cancer.
posted by jb at 12:57 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


That trans men may have to worry about cervical cancer is a reason to talk about cervixes, not sex. Phalloplasty means you totally can have a penis. You could but can't bind your breasts? What on earth does that mean?
posted by Dysk at 1:02 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


I respect individual trans and non-binary people wishes to talk about "assigned ____ at birth" rather than "biologically ____".

Using "biologically male/female/sex" all the time is not how you respect those wishes.
posted by Dysk at 1:04 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


You could but can't bind your breasts? What on earth does that mean?

jb seems to just be saying that breasts can be bound but they cannot be just disappeared, without permanent surgical intervention.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:06 PM on December 15, 2014


jb, if I try to continue this discussion with you it is going to end up with you arguing from the dominant position of authority with me appealing to you, and I am quite tired of living my life on these terms.

Have fun erry'body!
posted by Annika Cicada at 1:09 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


I don't want to be a woman with bound breasts. I want to have a man's chest - including bare. But that's today - and I don't want to turn my life upside down, and go through imperfect surgery when I might not want that tomorrow or next month.

Maybe because I don't have an innate (or perhaps I have a fluctuating) sense of gender, my biological sex means more to me than it does to definitely cis or definitely trans people. They know that they have a gender identity that exists independent of their body. I don't - no matter how I may feel on the inside (and I have experienced gender dysphoria), I know that my body is female.

Using "biologically male/female/sex" all the time is not how you respect those wishes.

I did so in referring to myself, as I reserve the right to.
posted by jb at 1:10 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


In which case: People born with testicles who end up with gynecomastia also can't disappear their breasts without surgery.
posted by Dysk at 1:11 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


This is really serious to me. This is not me arguing some theoretical position, to try to be "right" in logical terms. This is my life and my lived experience. Sex does matter to me, because it has been a constraint on my existence. I wish it didn't matter, but I can't make it stop mattering.
posted by jb at 1:12 PM on December 15, 2014 [5 favorites]


Out in real life with real humans, sex is just a fancy way of gendering the body. thats a male who has to worry about cervical cancer right there, from the perspective of (possibly) the law and (definitely) that man himself and (definitely) anyone else who's into not into misgendering people. regardless of his medical transition status, whether he's had the most high tech medical physical transition ever or or he wants it and can't afford it or he doesnt want it or he lives 500 years ago and the tech doesn't exist. BTW: this is not hypothetical. these men exist.

Everything works so much better when you think of traits like "has a cervix" or "has breasts" as associated with femaleness rather than intrinisically female. In this case hes not a "female man" hes just a man with female-y traits.
posted by thug unicorn at 1:13 PM on December 15, 2014 [8 favorites]


I would certainly not argue that, not for even one second. Just noting that jb didn't say something self-contradictory like "i could but can't bind my breasts."
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:13 PM on December 15, 2014


I don't - no matter how I may feel on the inside (and I have experienced gender dysphoria), I know that my body is female.

See the problem here is that you're saying that a body with breats, a cervix, etc. is a female body. It's not. It's just a body. It's becomes female or male (or both, neither, or something entirely different again) based on the mind to which it belongs. Otherwise you're effectively saying that my body is male, and that trans men's bodies are female, and that is a problem.

Your body's physiology and how people code and respond to that is a problem to you. That does not make bodies inherently male or female.

On preview: what thug unicorn said.
posted by Dysk at 1:15 PM on December 15, 2014


a biological boy who wanted to be a girl

This grates on me for a couple of reasons. First, that "biological" has the same kind of faux-objective sound that "female" so often does, as in "female doctor" as opposed to "doctor" and, of course, the ever popular "female" as a noun, which usually signals trouble. Secondly, because it sounds like it ought to be followed by "and she was a mechanical pony who wanted to be a rhino. Together, they fight crime." Then, of course, there are all the irritating gender assumptions, which don't so much grate as inflame.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:25 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


...my apparent biological sex is what bedevils me the most...jb, what do you think about going to see a gender therapist? Assuming you haven't already? I agree, that is some real stuff you are working out. I hope you are able to make satisfactory progress on it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 1:28 PM on December 15, 2014


I respect individual trans and non-binary people wishes to talk about "assigned ____ at birth" rather than "biologically ____". Particularly for intersex and/or people who have transitioned, biology gets complicated. But it makes sense to talk about sex - that trans men, for example, may have to worry about cervical cancer.

I sometimes think that a huge part of what makes this whole thing a lot messier than it needs to be is that (at least in English), when talking about gender binary, the majority of the world is using two words to denote four concepts; when we discuss someone's sex, we're using words that can also be applied to someone's gender, and it's impossible for them not to be a little loaded. Phrases like "biologically male" might describe a medically useful concept but its inclusion of the word "male" kind of muddies the discourse in an inelegant way by using a word that means both "The concept described by the social construct we call maleness" and "The state of having XY chromosomes."

I realize it's a non-starter but I think it'd be a lot more useful if society had at some point decided to use four terms for the four concepts and not to make any special effort to tie them together or to divide them along gendered lines. If we used two neutral terms for where someone lands on the XY sex-determination system* (say, you're Dave if you've got XX chromosomes and Chuck if you've got XY) and another two terms for where someone falls on the socially-constructed gender binary (say, Ralph for what we're currently calling men and Hugh for what we're currently calling women), maybe it'd be easier for the more people to grasp that what we're calling sex and what we're calling gender are not the same things.

I mean, obviously the majority would still be bigots and assholes, but I keep seeing this issue - the issue of two terms for four concepts - complicating discussions of trans issues even among well-meaning people.

* I'm using all male names in this case because I'm not great at inventing categories and did not want to split them along gender lines; these are placeholders and no meaning should be read into them.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:32 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


i never felt like i was any gender, i wasn't a tomboy i just didn't have enough of anything to be either gender, and to be honest, until about a year ago i read the definition of 'queer' in wikipedia i didn't belong to any collective noun (i really thought it meant 'gay' but apparently it means 'can't fit gender norms'). i identify as frigid myself and leave it at that (i'm pretty old, they didn't do trans etc in my day. For some reason a lot/very disproportionate number of my friends have been gay, trans etc and i'm as straight and conservative as can be in my dress, manners etc - to belong to the outsiders, which in my days was goths only, requires better social skills than average - as mine were rubbish and they were required by doctrine to accept me or go to hell poor things, i only knew christians). i did know a japanese woman who felt the same way, but she used lipstick, was married etc, whereas i've never taken part in that side of life
posted by maiamaia at 1:34 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


I wish it didn't matter, but I can't make it stop mattering.

I'm with you. One solution is to accept the not just patriarchal but white and cis gender ways of doing gender as natural and a fixed constraint on existence. The other is to just be a male with or without breasts one day and a female with or without breasts another and hang out with people who are cool with this. (on preview: its not just "the minds perception of gender". Its your social context. If i'm female to everyone i interact with AND i'm female in my head, in what meaningful sense of "male" am i "male"? If it changes every day, does it matter?)

No one is making you gender yourself as female/woman if/when you feel like a male/man. You actually can just stop doing that anytime and honestly its pretty fun. at least if you're living in a comfortable bubble like i am.
posted by thug unicorn at 1:35 PM on December 15, 2014


would that we all had comparatively comfortable bubbles
posted by thug unicorn at 1:36 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


This is not strictly on topic, but we really need more non-gendered language. The "singular their" for non-specific people (as in "each student may put their test on the desk when they are finished and then have a beer") is great, but, dealing with college students as I do, I really wish we had a non-gendered term of address. I can call the male (or male-presenting) students "sir," or even "guy" casually, but there is no real term of address for female (and female presenting) students. If the Revolution happened, we could just all be "Comrade," and that would be fine with me. Much less awkward.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


apologies if I am overstepping my bounds, jb. my last comment probably reads as condescending. I am trying to be nice, It's not what came across. hugs everyone.
posted by Annika Cicada at 1:38 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


FAMOUS MONSTER you're not the only one who's had that idea but it actually doesn't work in practice because really what ends up happening is a lot of people looking for an excuse to call trans women male jump on that train. that's why the reasonable position really is "stop nonconsentually gendering bodies period" not "maybe we can find a a way to defang this whole biological sex thing since bodies do tend to fall in a bimodal distribution".
posted by thug unicorn at 1:41 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


responding to the idea that biological sex only exists as a function of the mind. I disagree with that.

Biology obviously exists outside of a function of the mind. Penises, vulvas, cervixes, breasts, etc, all actually exist outside of the mind. Calling those things, or certain combinations thereof 'male' and 'female', that is totally a product of the human mind. Some people have bodies with flat chests and testicles and penises and no cervix or vagina. Others have a penis and breasts. Others have bodies with breasts, wombs, vaginas, cervixes, and so on. "Biological sex" is an artificial human construct of a concept that is far less fine-grained than any of that, and totally unnecessary.
posted by Dysk at 1:50 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


GenjiandProust you've inspired me. I'm going to go see if i can change my default salutation to my entry in my university's database to "Mx".

And also bow out of this thread before it gets into the REALLY wooly trans ontology stuff after quipping, as a parting shot, "biological sex only exists as a function of the MINDS". as in its socially constructed. by a society that values convenience of taxonomy over lived experience.
posted by thug unicorn at 1:57 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


"Biological sex" is an artificial human construct of a concept that is far less fine-grained than any of that, and totally unnecessary.

Unnecessary to what? Unnecessary altogether? Your phenotype, including sex, is incredibly important for many reasons.

How important it is to gender identity is a huge and complicated topic, of course, but I really don't understand how one could dismiss biological sex as artificial. As animals we are clearly born one sex or the other, or in rare cases with some characteristics of both. What we then do with that fact as a species, as individuals, and as cultures, is something else completely, is it not?

I do not in any way mean to minimize or demean the hardships or complexity of living with non-binary gender. I just don't understand the objection to mammalian biology.

also, thug unicorn, perhaps it would be simpler to move to a simple "M."? That's well-known and at least to me connotes only an adult being referred to semi-formally.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:59 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


thug unicorn: I do understand what you mean. Buck Angel, for example, is a man (a very attractive man) with a clitoris (as he describes it). What makes him a man is what's in his head, not between his legs.

We have to mentally separate sex and gender. A trans woman is a woman, and always has been (well, except when she was a girl). But sex is not identity; it is a biological category - an imperfect, complicated, and by no means universal category. If bodies don't have sex (again, note that I said SEX, not gender), why do people transition, if not to bring their body into better alignment with their gender identity?

If we take away talking about sex, we take away the ability to talk about the specific needs of trans people. How can we talk about the need for trans children to receive puberty blockers, if we can't talk about the fact that they are soon to develop secondary sex characteristics at odds with their gender? Within my local drag king community, the kings define a drag king not as a woman performing as a man, but as "a female-bodied person who performs as a man" - because they have performers who are trans men, but are (in their own words) "female-bodied". They are men, but they aren't cis men, and they want to make that clear.

But to get back to the issue of being genderqueer/shifting-gender: I know better than anyone else what my body is, what my mind is. Biological sex is real to me, precisely because it is a source of stress. I can't ignore what my body is like. Maybe if I had one set gender identity, it would be different: I would either be content within my body (as much as anyone is), or I would transition to change my body to better fit my reality. But I would be just as uncomfortable should I transition to male.

I know that some within the trans community want to include genderqueer within the trans umbrella. But if our experiences and perceptions are ignored, then we don't fit under that umbrella.
posted by jb at 2:01 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


@dysk, @daisyk - thanks for the explanation. I see what you mean, now.
posted by Pericles at 2:01 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


Unnecessary to what? Unnecessary altogether? Your phenotype, including sex, is incredibly important for many reasons.

It's imprecise. We can talk about the components of the constellation of things that make up what we traditionally call "male" and "female" sex rather than talking about the specific groups of features that make up those two categories. To insist on using the category labels excludes intersex individuals, and positions yourself as privileging taxonomic convenience over respect for people. Whatever you want to call 'male' and 'female' you can more accurately (and less offensively) describe in terms of the combination of characteristics and physiology that define the category, which also leaves you the flexibility of talking in a less clumsy and othering way about different combinations of features and physiology.

I.e. you can totally talk about bodies and reproductive organs without needing to gender them.
posted by Dysk at 2:07 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


Calling those things, or certain combinations thereof 'male' and 'female', that is totally a product of the human mind.

furthermore, when you try and define the two, you keep running into edge cases -- not necessarily a huge number, usually between .5-2% of the population, so not insignificant -- who don't fit comfortably in either category (or fit into both). And, depending on your exact definition, these "edge cases" are different. If you look at sex and gender very closely for even a short period of time, it quickly becomes clear that this idea, which we are told is obvious, innate, binary, and immutable is really none of these things. It would be an idle academic exercise if people's legal statuses didn't hang so much on this flimsy construct.

Which does not mean that there aren't plenty of people who are "obviously male" or "obviously female" and ok with that "obvious status." But you can't build a workable system on what's easy for the majority and just leave anyone who can't or won't conform to stew.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:08 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


Your phenotype, including sex, is incredibly important for many reasons.

It's irrelevant to my daily life a huge, overwhelming portion of the time. I need to know more the gender of my co-workers - or at least, what pronouns they prefer - way more than I need to know how to accurately classify them taxonomically.

There's a coffee place near me where one of the baristas was a butch dyke, or maybe a trans man, or maybe neither (or both!) and what he (I later came to find out) had between his legs or in his genes was much less important than knowing which pronoun I should use.

Unless you are planning to have a biological child with a particular person, or you are their medical provider, then I can't see why knowing is "incredibly" important for the vast majority of us in the vast majority of our daily interactions with each other.
posted by rtha at 2:14 PM on December 15, 2014 [11 favorites]


what ends up happening is a lot of people looking for an excuse to call trans women male jump on that train. that's why the reasonable position really is "stop nonconsentually gendering bodies period" not "maybe we can find a a way to defang this whole biological sex thing since bodies do tend to fall in a bimodal distribution".

I totally understand this position; we must absolutely deny gender-denial. Trans women are clearly women; as far as I'm concerned, they are more women than I will ever be, and have made more effort to be perceived as women than any cis woman has need to. If anything, I see trans women as the real women, and cis women as just going along with the default. (This isn't really fair - some cis women have told me that they feel like women, maybe it's just that I'm projecting).

But I think we will be more successful in promoting the idea of separating gender and sex, because it's much less counter-intuitive. We have to interact in a world where most people fit the sex binary and are cis gendered, and in which sex has significant health, physical realities. A lot of people outside of the trans community (and larger LGBTQI community) don't understand "assigned __ at birth"; they do understand, "biologically ___ but really ___ inside". Maybe we can transition people over; in a dream world, we wouldn't make assumptions about our children's gender until they let us know who they are.

I do have a question though: is there anyone who is trans who didn't know as a child? Maybe came to realise it later in life, the way that some people come out later? Are there people who flip-flop, rather than always knowing?
posted by jb at 2:24 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


It's irrelevant to my daily life a huge, overwhelming portion of the time. I need to know more the gender of my co-workers - or at least, what pronouns they prefer - way more than I need to know how to accurately classify them taxonomically.

Of course. When I talk about the importance of sex, I'm talking about my relationship with my body, not the bodies of other people.
posted by jb at 2:28 PM on December 15, 2014


Oh, yes - me too, jb. I was more jumping off BlackLeotardFront's comment.
posted by rtha at 2:30 PM on December 15, 2014


Which does not mean that there aren't plenty of people who are "obviously male" or "obviously female" and ok with that "obvious status." But you can't build a workable system on what's easy for the majority and just leave anyone who can't or won't conform to stew.

I think that the solution there is to work at breaking down our cultural gender binaries, which also has the benefit of making things better for cis-gendered but gender-non-conforming people, as well as trans and intersex people. If we don't talk about what men/women should be like/act/look like/etc, but embrace diversity, we can make the world a more comfortable place for everyone. That doesn't mean denying gender (or sex), but respecting, even reveling in the huge variety that humanity has in terms of gender and sex.

That said, on a purely practical note: when introducing a friend who uses a pronoun which may not be immediately obvious, you can just slip it in there. "Hey Jill, have you met Alex? Ze's a great a friend of mine." It helps so much. Otherwise, everyone (who cares about such things) is on tenderhooks to not accidentally misgender them.
posted by jb at 2:38 PM on December 15, 2014


I do have a question though: is there anyone who is trans who didn't know as a child? Maybe came to realise it later in life, the way that some people come out later? Are there people who flip-flop, rather than always knowing?

Yes and yes. There are bigender people whose gender identity changes on any timeframe you care to mention - years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes. Everyone is different.

A lot of people outside of the trans community (and larger LGBTQI community) don't understand "assigned __ at birth"; they do understand, "biologically ___ but really ___ inside".

'A lot of people don't understand' is a pretty poor reason to keep doing something offensive. It's a pretty good reason to explain to those lots of people when they aren't getting it though.
posted by Dysk at 2:39 PM on December 15, 2014 [7 favorites]


I swear I'm not trying to be snarky or insensitive, but what is not "obvious, innate, binary, and immutable" about the genetically-determined binary sex into which the vast majority of the population of any binary-sexed animal is born? It's a trait like any other, albeit with massively greater ramifications should the nucleotides fall one way or the other.

That it has very little or nothing to do with what gender one is or identifies as (or, indeed, whether one identifies at all) is unquestionable, certainly. And I don't mean that it has to matter in daily interactions, rtha, or that one must or ought to be comfortable with the sex their genes delivered. And the built-in stuff with language is a whole other issue.

I'm only questioning the idea that it is an artificial and unnecessary construct. Regularly oversimplified and misunderstood and misapplied, sure. But sexual dimorphism is a feature we share with lions and raccoons and fish, and it is in light of this and many other things that we must form our own ideas as to what that division means for everyday life, as you rightly say and hopefully as we will all act in the future. We can, should, and are working on rising above it, but I don't think that means "it" is not real. That we should not judge people on or even consider the color of their skin goes without saying, but dark and light skin are heritable and mechanically different, and have linked traits and so on. A better general understanding of what sex is and isn't, and when it is and isn't relevant, is what is called for, I think. And I stress that this is entirely complementary to cultural and personal considerations of gender and whether/how it should be understood and addressed on a daily basis.

Again, I mean no disrespect and I am certainly looking from the outside in here, being a white male straight cis guy. I try to be an ally and a feminist, and I wouldn't be arguing this point if I didn't think it was constructive or that I didn't stand to learn something from the discussion! (which I already have in reading everyone's comments and responses, by the way)

(edit: and I apologize in advance if my language is incorrect. Though I read these discussions often, I seldom participate because I would rather say nothing than unknowingly stick my foot in my mouth, but I was too curious this time)
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:52 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


BLF I will take a stab at this. Sexual dimorphism is a taxonomic category that has been developed by human beings for our convenience. There is no intrinsic characteristic or set of characteristics that are immutably defined as "sexually dimorphic" and, in the case of birds and fish, our desire to see sexual dimorphism obfuscates other taxonomies related to chromosomal, reproductive, or social roles by which we could class animals. Or ourselves.

In this case we have developed a map that is abstracted in some ways and when we're out in the territory we're cutting bits off we see that "don't fit the map". Race is another of these cases.
posted by beefetish at 3:12 PM on December 15, 2014 [6 favorites]


BlackLeotardFront, did you read this comment?

You cannot meaningfully define male and female sex is a consistent, complete, coherent and rigorous way. It turns out that nature is not actually that simple. Sure, it works for 98% of cases, but that does not make it complete, or necessary. It's a simplification, an abstraction, an approximation. Most of the time, chromosomes, genitals, reproductive capabilities, secondary sex characteristics form one of our two recognised constellations - male or female - but not always. Thing is, we don't need to talk about constellations - we can just talk about the individual factors. It's relevant so little of the time in day-to-day life that we don't need the problematic and exclusionary shorthand for the two most common constellations.

So a man is a man, and he has a male body (male being the adjective form of man, more or less). It can just be a male body with XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes, or it can be a male body with a penis and testicles, or with a vagina and womb, or both, or neither, or any combination of those factors. That is a more correct and precise description than saying he is a man with a female body (what do you mean? that he has XX chromosomes? Or that he has ovaries and a womb? Or both? What do you call a body with breasts, a vagina, womb, ovaries, and XY chromosomes? What do you call a body with a penis and a vagina and XXY chromosomes?) The categories are so incomplete, and any possible definition has so many edge-cases where our intuitive understanding of it ("that's obviously a female body! But wait, it has both XX and XY chromosomes! So it's an intersex body? Except that it's clearly a female body.") doesn't match how our definition would categorise it, that really, why bother with the categories?

Maybe if you work in reproductive healthcare, there could be an argument for needing a shorthand. Otherwise? Why do you need it. And why can't that shorthand simply be "they produce sperm" or "they produce eggs" or "they produce neither" or "they have a womb but do not produce eggs" and so on. That way, you've a more fine-grained system that doesn't as readily lead to false assumptions ("sex: female" that must mean this body has ovaries! Except this one doesn't! or whatever) or try to force people into uninituitive categories, or throw a whole load of people into a really messy 'other' category which may or may not be useful for your purposes anyway ("damn it, I don't care if they're male, female, or intersex, I do cervical screenings, I just need to know if this body has a cervix!").
posted by Dysk at 3:16 PM on December 15, 2014 [6 favorites]


It is possible to recognize that the gender binary system currently in use is an axis of oppression and also believe that axis of oppression is not an intrinsic characteristic backed up by science which is I think what Dysk is getting at here
posted by beefetish at 3:20 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


I think this quote, from the 10 Myths About Non-Binary People, mentioned above, is highly relevant:
[A]s Julia Serano puts it, there are two main roots of sexism: One is the privileging of masculinity and maleness over femininity and femaleness, and another is binarism — or forced conformity to binary gender expectations.

While non-binary people are most directly oppressed by binary prejudice, revamping our conceptions around binary gender frees everyone.

Non-binary people are so marginalized that our genders do not occur to most people, except as a bad joke. We have no high-profile role models or political representation. Most people in the feminist community — and even many in the trans community — omit us in discussions of gender justice.

Yet our gender identities (or lack of gender) are at the heart of sexist thinking. Understanding non-binary oppression is a key piece of the puzzle for understanding gender-based oppression overall. Unlearning misconceptions and stereotypes about non-binary people is a great place to start.
posted by overglow at 3:25 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


Yes, we could, but sex is a major axis of oppression.

Gender is a major axis of oppression. The two are often conflated, however.
posted by Dysk at 3:26 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


BlackLeotardFront, you might find the links in this comment I made (to blog posts from mefi's own DrMew) helpful, and that whole ask has a bunch of interesting links in it.
posted by rtha at 3:26 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


...and binary sex itself IS oppression for a lot of people.
posted by Dysk at 3:27 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


I mean, 'sexism' is something of a misnomer anyway. It's not like I get a free pass from sexism because I have a penis. It's not like trans men don't benefit from the patriarchy a lot of the time.

Sex-based infanticide is entirely explicable by transphobia and the conflation of sex and gender. The parents aren't taking the time to check the chromosonal makeup of the infant in those cases. It's that they want a child who will grow up to be a man to carry on the family lineage and provide a dowry (rather than incur the liability of one).
posted by Dysk at 3:41 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


(And hell, really infanticide of that nature is discrimination based on genitals, not any of the other aspects of sex. So in that particular case, it's more on the money to talk about discrimination based on genitals and the attendant expectations.)
posted by Dysk at 3:50 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


ah ha ha ha also this thread kind of sucks a lil bc it reminds me exactly how hard it is for lots of people to make up Society to even come aware that someone might be not a man or a woman but /something else/
posted by beefetish at 3:56 PM on December 15, 2014


“I don’t want to be a girl wearing boy’s clothes, nor do I want to be a girl who presents as a boy,” Kelsey wrote. “I just want to be a person who is recognized as a person. That’s how I’m most comfortable. I’m just a person wearing people clothes, who likes to look like myself and have others see me how I see me.”

Yes. This exactly. (I identify as genderfluid and I can relate.)
posted by quiet earth at 4:34 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


I found the article really awkward to read because of how they played the pronoun game; the writer talks about the "they" pronoun but generally uses names instead, and it makes the whole thing read really weirdly.

I am obviously a male. If you refer to me as "they", I will think you are either oblivious, idiotic, or trying to offend me.

if you get offended by someone trying to be less harmful to the already marginalized in making assumptions, you'd likely be doing them a service, since they'd know you're likely to act like a standard privileged jackass who thinks being treated neutrally is some kind of oppression because he's used to people pretending they give a shit about what he has to say because of his gender; they'd know they can safely ignore you and not miss anything
posted by NoraReed at 5:19 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


Gender is a major axis of oppression. The two are often conflated, however.

I appreciate your ongoing clarity of expression here, Dysk, and I've learned a lot.

But from where I sit, in my body that includes a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a vagina, this "constellation of things" is entirely relevant as a single construct; it is what enables my state government of Texas to take ownership of a number of my health care decisions.

So while I *absolutely* consider transwomen my fellow women and think any feminist exclusionary practices are bullsh&t, I think you're being a bit disingenuous about the role of possessing certain body parts in determining one's lived experience.

It's not just a theoretical stance (which, again, I appreciate you arguing) when approximately half the population are denied health care and at risk of injury because of that "constellation of things."
posted by pantarei70 at 6:11 PM on December 15, 2014 [4 favorites]


Maybe someone here can tell me how I could have better handled the following situation, because I'm pretty sure I botched it even though I'm quite aware of trans issues.

This is in the context of a kink meetup. It's not specifically trans-oriented, but there are many differently gendered people in attendance and it's held at a gay bar. A person approaches me and tells me I'm attractive and they like my androgynous look. Based on their clothing, hairstyle, voice, body type, and mannerisms, I can't get a firm sense of how they identify or what they are trying to present as (if anything). Since I was complimented on my androgyny, I thought it was okay to discuss gender and I asked how they identified. I got an awkward response of "I'm a trans man but I only started T a year ago and sometimes I pass and..." followed by several other excuses/apologies why he wasn't passing as well as he thought.

I felt horrible, but there had been no attraction from my direction even before all that, so we went our separate ways. Should I not have asked how he identified? If I hadn't asked, I probably would have misgendered him and that seems like it would have been even worse.
posted by desjardins at 6:23 PM on December 15, 2014


But from where I sit, in my body that includes a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a vagina, this "constellation of things" is entirely relevant as a single construct; it is what enables my state government of Texas to take ownership of a number of my health care decisions.

That's exactly it, though; trans women absolutely have our governments take ownership of our health care decisions. I mean, Christ, we're subject to absurd, years-long nonsense processes before we're even considered competent to make critical medical decisions for ourselves. There were, as of 2012, seventeen countries within Europe alone that required trans women to be surgically sterilised before they could receive documentation essential to employment, benefits, voting etc.

Men and masculine-supremacist social systems exert power over women's bodies and health based on membership in the (perceived) subordinate class, is my point. Obviously the precise nature of that power and the specific effects vary according to the particular bodies of the women targeted by it (and vary within cis women, too; see the ridiculous bar on elective sterilisation versus lesbian couples fighting to receive IVF - almost diametrically opposite goals, both restricted by patriarchy); and obviously the forms of control affecting women with uteruses, ovaries etc are by far the most common. But the fact that a woman with a penis and testes has her medical agency restricted in horrific ways - ways that men with similar anatomies do not - tells me it's about sex-as-social-class first and foremost.
posted by emmtee at 6:48 PM on December 15, 2014 [12 favorites]


Tells me it's about sex-as-social-class first and foremost.

Absolutely. I'm not disagreeing that it is the same patriarchal social system controlling both cis women's and trans women's bodies.

What I was taking issue with was the suggestion that it was somehow *just* a social construct; the fact that it's a social construct doesn't make the oppression any less real, and doesn't make the material consequences any less grave.

Dysk seemed to be making the point that gender was the axis of oppression and not sex. My point is that BOTH are. 289,000 women died last year because of poor access to reproductive health care. We have no idea about the true genders (binary or other) of those women, but we do know that it was because of the body parts they had that they died.
posted by pantarei70 at 7:10 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


Should I not have asked how he identified? If I hadn't asked, I probably would have misgendered him and that seems like it would have been even worse.

This isn't really a question with a single answer. There are people who believe it is transphobic to not ask the preferred pronoun of every single person you meet. There are people who believe it is transphobic if you ask the preferred pronoun of anyone you meet.

So if you ask how people identify, some people will be delighted and some people will be offended; the same is true if you don't. Honestly I think you handled it fine and shouldn't beat yourself up over it.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 8:22 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


Should I not have asked how he identified? If I hadn't asked, I probably would have misgendered him and that seems like it would have been even worse.

Yeah, I mean, I think I'd inevitably be kind of put out by a new acquaintance asking how I identified. But that's absolutely not on you, the asker; it'd just bring up a whole lot of old fears and anxieties and mess with my sense of how accurately I can gauge how I'm being perceived, etc. On the other hand being outright misgendered (even without malice) would be worse, without a doubt. Sadly I don't think there's a way to resolve that situation and have everyone walk away feeling great once you're in it, but the decision you made was the best one of a crappy bunch.
posted by emmtee at 8:53 PM on December 15, 2014 [2 favorites]


Sometimes it might be possible to prompt someone you're meeting to state their pronouns without asking by saying yours ("Thanks for the compliment! I like your tie! I'm Reed, I use 'she' pronouns."). Some spaces also have nametags with places for pronouns; if you don't have these, you can sometimes start a trend by writing, say, "REED / she/her/hers" on yours. (Keep a sharpie in your pocket in case people see yours and want to add on theirs)
posted by NoraReed at 9:25 PM on December 15, 2014 [3 favorites]


There are a lot of terms of identity flying around here. For me there seems to be a taxonomy used to identify other people. And it seems people try to use the same taxonomy to identify themselves. When used to identify other people we will make mistakes because we will generally only rely on external clues. When these terms are used in a process of self identity there are problems trying to find the term that feels right. In fact maybe that term doesn't exist for some people because society hasn't had a need for that category of person.

The only safe thing to do is ask "who are you?" And let each person we meet tell us their story. This way we can all learn about the myriads of ways to be human. Binary? Ha! Innumerable.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:50 PM on December 15, 2014


pantarei70: But from where I sit, in my body that includes a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a vagina, this "constellation of things" is entirely relevant as a single construct; it is what enables my state government of Texas to take ownership of a number of my health care decisions.

You're talking about what, Texas law with regard to pregnancy? Because I see that you're not looking at the entire constellation to begin with - 'female sex' is not just the reproductive system. You could be intersex (e.g. have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a penis, or have a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, a vagina, and XXY chromosomes) and still be subject to atrocious Texas abortion law. You could also be 'female sex' and not be capable of conceiving or getting pregnant, in which case Texas abortion law doesn't really apply to you. It's horrific legislation relating to pregnancy, which often but not necessarily lines up with what we think of as 'female sex'.

I mean, unless there's some Texas law that explicitly denies healthcare to women (and then goes on to rigidly define 'women' by physical parts and chromosomes) that I'm unaware of...

289,000 women died last year because of poor access to reproductive health care. We have no idea about the true genders (binary or other) of those women, but we do know that it was because of the body parts they had that they died.

No, we don't know their sex. All we know is that they were capable of getting pregnant. We don't know that none of them were intersex, for example, or otherwise not uncomplicatedly 'female sex' - we just know they were capable of getting pregnant.

desjardins: I felt horrible, but there had been no attraction from my direction even before all that, so we went our separate ways. Should I not have asked how he identified? If I hadn't asked, I probably would have misgendered him and that seems like it would have been even worse.

You totally did the right thing, there. From the sounds of it, this was a person comparatively early in transition, so there is a good chance they're at a stage where they're super-sensitive about everything and anything - it would, as you point out, have been hard to take a course of action not likely to cause much more offense.

Personally, I pass fucking badly, so it's awesome when someone asks pronouns - it's much preferable to having to correct them. If someone is used to having passing privilege (or desires it very strongly and considers not-passing to be an inherent problem) they may feel differently.
posted by Dysk at 11:14 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


289,000 women died last year because of poor access to reproductive health care. We have no idea about the true genders (binary or other) of those women, but we do know that it was because of the body parts they had that they died.

You're asserting a meaningful distinction between "bio sex" and "gender". But according to that taxonomy, these are females, not necessarily women. Or are you defining the class "women" now according to organs and genitals? Which is it?
posted by thug unicorn at 11:48 PM on December 15, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm all confused now about the difference between "women" and "females". Everything seems fraught with confusion and the potential to offend and feel offended.

I've a friend who's a lesbian female(?)/ woman(?). I'm a heterosexual man (and have always have been so). A few years into our friendship, she contacted me privately to tell me that she was "coming out" (her words) as transgender - she'd been assigned male at birth (is that the right phrase?) and transitioned to female/ woman.

I didn't really know how to feel - I felt I should be all confused, but didn't feel at all confused. I thanked her for confiding in me - it's lovely to be trusted - but it didn't make any difference to our friendship. The shape of her wiggly bits, the history of those wiggly bits, and the shape of her sexual partners' wiggly bits aren't what a friendship is based on. This probably makes me a massive fascist. Sorry.
posted by Pericles at 12:27 AM on December 16, 2014


Pericles: She'd be a lesbian woman. I'd posit that 'female' is the adjective form of woman, so yes, she'd be a female lesbian woman, who was assigned male at birth and transitioned - i.e. a female lesbian trans woman. That you don't care about your friend's bits makes you the exact opposite of a massive fascist.

Others would argue that she is a male lesbian trans woman because SEX AM IMPORTANT or something, and a bunch of us are saying that THAT is transphobic.

She's a woman. She's female. She may have a penis and XY chromosomes (she may not! she may never have had those things! we don't know and it's none of our business!), but that doesn't make her male in any way.

pantarei70: 289,000 women died last year because of poor access to reproductive health care. We have no idea about the true genders (binary or other) of those women, but we do know that it was because of the body parts they had that they died.

I think thug unicorn's comments here rather show up why this attitude is problematic.

Texas legislation does not care if you're a woman. Texas legislation does not care if you're 'female sex'. Texas legislation cares if you're pregnant. They're not quite the same thing.

(As an aside: Does that make abortion and reproductive healthcare/rights not a feminist issue? No of course not. They are issues that disproportionately affect women, even as they don't affect all women or only women. It's similar to how domestic violence is a feminist issue, despite that not affecting only women or all women.)
posted by Dysk at 12:42 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


@dysk "She's a woman. She's female. She may have a penis and XY chromosomes (she may not! she may never have had those things! we don't know and it's none of our business!), but that doesn't make her male in any way."

- yup, that's about the size of it from where I sit. But I'm aware I sit in the throne marked "white cisgendered heterosexual man", too. I make no apology for being what I am, and think nobody else should ever have to do so either.
posted by Pericles at 1:05 AM on December 16, 2014


As animals we are clearly born one sex or the other, or in rare cases with some characteristics of both.

I don't know. I wonder if some species might have a few extra genders (animal lives by humon), despite the physical dimorphism.


And now I'm thinking about gender and sex and slugs that are hermaphrodites. Maybe it's time for me to drop the animal=human parallels.
posted by ana scoot at 1:27 AM on December 16, 2014


I've been trying to understand gender identity for a while (gender identity, as opposed to feminism/social roles/politics, sex and bodies, attraction). I'm good with male-with-boobs and male-without-penis and female-with-hairy-legs/face, but abstracting things above that makes my brain break.

I appreciate the explanation of physical sex attributes ("biological sex") shaping not equivalent to a sense of gender. Kind of how culture shapes if a spoon should be considered male or female or neuter, or which numbers are considered good or bad luck, and it's hard to see how it's not innate if you've always lived with people who agree with you.
posted by ana scoot at 2:07 AM on December 16, 2014


I'm good with male-with-boobs and male-without-penis and female-with-hairy-legs/face

You do know that cis men can develop boobs (gynecomastia) and cis women have hairy legs if they don't shave them (and the stereotype of trans women as being stubbly and having hairy legs is a pretty offensive one), right?
posted by Dysk at 2:11 AM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]


Sex-based infanticide is entirely explicable by transphobia and the conflation of sex and gender.

Bit of a stretch, don't you think?
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 3:16 AM on December 16, 2014


...no? It's not that the parents want a kid with particular chromosomes and genitals, it's that they want a kid who will have a certain social status and role in society. That's firmly gender and gender roles, not sex.
posted by Dysk at 4:01 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


Sexism totally exists but is something of a misnomer as it relates to gender more than sex.
posted by Dysk at 4:58 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


Dysk: Texas legislation does not care if you're a woman. Texas legislation does not care if you're 'female sex'. Texas legislation cares if you're pregnant. They're not quite the same thing.

Perhaps as written, but not in fact. I'll assume you are just not that familiar with what's going on in Texas (not trying to be pedantic), but the latest "abortion restriction" legislation (NYT link) has forced around 80% of clinics that offer abortions to close entirely rather than have to submit to these unwieldy and very expensive procedures now required to offer abortion services. That means all those services go away - access to pap smears, hormonal birth control, STD screening, everything. This is a substantial burden for people of limited means in some of the more remote areas of this this state. This effects "humans with uteri" regardless of their gender.

Having to maintain a "female-typical" reproductive system, regardless of being a cis woman, trans man, intersex, agendered, or some other expression is a unique vulnerability that is inborn in some humans. That is why I think the sex distinction (vs. gender alone) matters.

thug unicorn:You're asserting a meaningful distinction between "bio sex" and "gender". But according to that taxonomy, these are females, not necessarily women. Or are you defining the class "women" now according to organs and genitals? Which is it?

I am asserting some meaningful distinctions as I said above. But that sentence was careless wording on my part. I had originally typed "humans with uteri" there but it seemed too unwieldy. Maybe "female" or "female-typical" is better? The class "women" (to me) includes cis women and trans women regardless of genital presentation. But I think the concerns of cis women, trans men, and queer gendered people who have "female-typical" reproductive systems (humans with uteri?) are an inborn and particular vulnerability and should be considered apart from gender expression, at least to some extent.

Does that make more sense? I apologize for being unclear.
posted by pantarei70 at 6:06 AM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]


How has no one linked to the genderbread person yet?
posted by domo at 7:57 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


pantarei70, I was not particularly familiar with what was going on at the moment in Texas, no. "Humans with uteri" is a great phrase, and far more accurate for what you're describing, since that seems to be who is affected by what's going on, regardless of gender OR sex.

domo: How has no one linked to the genderbread person yet?

Ugh. That's such a gross oversimplification being pushed by a cis man who rudely refuses to listen to any critique from the trans or intersex communities. That may have something to do with it. "Sex is what's between your legs" is such bullshit, and buys into hugely problematic 'sex change' discourses wholesale.
posted by Dysk at 8:03 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


There isn't a perfect way to approach this. I think the genderbread infographic has a use in showing people who conflate sex, gender and expression that these terms mean different things. Upon further googling, I realize the link is to a plagiarized version of the original graphic (with criticism/commentary). That doesn't make the ideas that it expresses valueless, especially when interacting with binary-thinking people. We need a simple way to communicate tough ideas.
posted by domo at 8:48 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the genderbread guy lost me right here:
Let’s take “Gender Identity” for our example. I identify as a man, but I identify with a lot of what it means to be a woman. I’m sensitive, kind, familial, and I really like dark chocolate (kidding — stuff’s disgusting).
That just buys into a lot of patriarchal bullshit about women being natural homemakers and shit like that. It also does a real disservice to sensitive and kind men, of which there are plenty. Also, what kind of inhuman monster doesn't like dark chocolate?
posted by desjardins at 8:48 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]


I saw the graphic and liked its simple approach, but I had not read the author's blog, nor had I realized that he stole the idea. Can we remove the first link? I do not want to drive traffic to his site.
posted by domo at 8:51 AM on December 16, 2014


"sex is what's between your legs" isn't just a simplification - it's WRONG. 'Sex' insofar as it's a meaningful term encompasses a lot more than merely your genitals. It's also your internal reproductive organs, your chromosomes, your secondary sexual characteristics, etc, etc. Wombs are not between people's legs, and chromosomes sure as hell aren't.
posted by Dysk at 9:29 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


Who's saying they must be separated? The simple fact is that "humans with uteri" and "humans with external genitalia typically associated with XX chromosomes" (or you know, the less demonstrative "humans with vulvas") are not the same group. That venn diagram would not merely be a circle. Both are sexism, but sexism does not give a shit what your "biological sex" is. I can tell someone I have XY chromosomes and a penis, and that will not free me from sexist treatment from them. Why? Because I am still a woman. A man without a penis can still often get the benefits of being a man. Misogyny hates women, regardless of their genitalia, chromosomes, or any of the rest of it.
posted by Dysk at 9:53 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


Misogyny hates women, regardless of their genitalia, chromosomes, or any of the rest of it.

But that's not exactly the case.

The biological fact of pregnancy has been instrumental in the history of women's* oppression worldwide. "Barefoot and pregnant" wasn't just an expression; it was how you kept control of those gals. It still is, in many parts of the world.

There is also oodles of feminist scholarship exploring the tangled relationship between misogyny and a particular revulsion for vulvas/vaginas.

They are unclean!

A man without a penis can still often get the benefits of being a man

Sure, but he also may face many of the same problems of other uteri-bearers (if he has one), while a woman with a penis is free from those worries.

*admittedly problematic terminology - I'm speaking in broad generalities
posted by pantarei70 at 11:05 AM on December 16, 2014


I'm glad I saw this thread. I haven't had the time to read through every comment but I did want to voice some appreciation for it being here and people's responses. I mean, most people have said things way better than I could ("womanhood exclusively as a political ideology" is great, thank you for that).

But basically this is something I've been struggling with for a long time and something I've realized has undeniably had a significantly negative effect on my life, particularly with regards to my relationships with people, and particularly with men. Because as a group men have very specific expectations and perceptions (whether they reflect reality or not) about me because I look female. Misogyny aside even, when I don't feel like the gender they expect me to be signals get crossed and things can get messy. I could give examples but to be honest it's something I'd probably rather not get into.

Full disclosure: I identify more as genderfluid, but the vast majority of the time it's agender or male. I'm 30 and it's honestly just in like the past year that I had any concept of this whatsoever but as soon as I started reading about it it made sense. Looking back I can literally easily bring to mind dozens of specific and blatant instances/life events that should have probably helped me figure it out (how many of my self portraits were male, really). Evidence piling up + having terminology eventually did it. So yeah. I'm glad people are talking about it in this thread and I'm glad it's getting attention like in the article. Having no one to talk to about it is difficult, and reading things here that I can relate to so much is honestly a big comfort.

If it's helpful at all as an explanation for those who need more experiences: I will consistently (and literally) forget what my gender is, because it's not a concept I'm thinking of most of the time (that makes it sound too active... I guess I just mean, it's not even in the background at all), and if someone were to ask in a neutral, safe setting, I would probably say either agender or male, depending. But what's jarring is to be going along with your life, living the gender you feel you are, and then be dragged out of it by the way people treat you out in the world. This can be blatant (and for me, sometimes misogynistic) or subtle. Offhand comments about my appearance, even compliments, a lot like desjardins said above. Anything, and it's a thousand times a day, all day, every day.

Without the context of society and its insistence that I am female I would absolutely not identify as female virtually any percent of the time.

But like a lot of people have said, I don't tend to talk about it out in the real world. I don't like to, to be honest. I'm pretty much fine with the female pronouns because I've essentially stopped caring. And pronouns are much smaller in the big scheme of things than being interacted with as if I were a woman (Please note: I don't mean to imply pronouns aren't important. They are. Respect people's pronouns for god's sake). But frankly, another reason I don't like to bring it up even online is that I'm tired of it being questioned/contested. I'm tired of it always being a discussion and a list of evidence, I guess. I've tried sharing it with a couple of friends in real life and it ended up being an argument, which is exhausting.

Anyway. It was nice to read something where everyone has good intentions and it's great that Kelsey has such supportive friends. Seriously made me feel a little better. This was a way longer comment than intended.
posted by nogoodverybad at 11:40 AM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]


This was a really refreshing read, and these sorts of discussions about agender clarify my cognitive dissonance with trans issues. Which is that people should be able to identify with whatever gender feels right, and that is separate from whatever they're packing in their pants, yet I don't know what being female is beyond being born with a vagina (and later some righteous cans) and being seen as female.

Being a straight woman, it's easy to have empathy for being gay. I've got experience liking dudes, and I have experience with folks liking (one specific) lady. (me, I'm takling about me, folks) Putting myself in those shoes isn't hard.

For gender, it's impossible. Being my gender is so passive and accidental. Yet thanks to sexism, it's also such a huge source of community and identity. Now it's integral to how I'll always identify myself.

For me, gender was created by sexism in exactly the same way race is created by racism. And it's so foreign to consider gender outside the patriarchy. But these articles help articulate that I'm closer to Politically Female/Gender Neutral. And Gender Female can be something different without making me less Politically Female.

*genuinely saying cognitive dissonance to mean that it's uncomfortable when I realize these beliefs hold contradictions, and yet I feel unable to dismiss either belief. Not that I think my definition of gender trumps others. And when I say I lack empathy for understanding a definition of female beyond the lack of a penis, I don't mean I lack sympathy or support. Only that it's so foreign, I can't put myself in your shoes.
posted by politikitty at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]


I think the thing with reproductive justice and other healthcare issues related to what people tend to think of as the "female body" (which can affect most cis women, many trans women, some trans men, lots of nonbinary types, some intersex folks and some occasional cis men with stuff like breast cancer) is that restrictions on it and lack of coverage for it is misogyny-- that is, hatred of women-- with collateral damage that also hurts trans folks. But it seems really rare that the misogynists advocated against, say, comprehensive reproductive healthcare including birth control and abortions, are actually thinking about trans folks at all when they're doing it. This doesn't take away from the actual harm caused by their doing so, but it makes their actions more in the -ism category than the mis- or -phobia ones, if that makes sense?

It's shitty to advocate for policies that hurt trans people even if you don't know you're doing it, and it's shitty to women to advocate for policies because you don't want them to have complete control over our own bodies; most of these people are intentionally doing the latter and unintentionally doing the former. It's a major issue, though, that a lot of reproductive justice organizations don't really know how to deal with trans men, intersex folks or NB people; even if there are more people explicitly trying to do (cis) women harm through reproductive justice related issues, we have a lot more resources and places to turn for help and don't have to worry about being misgendered, turned away, laughed at, or worse by those places, whereas for trans folks assault is much more likely to come from all sides.
posted by NoraReed at 1:26 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]


I'd like to see a "which gender are you" quiz on Buzzfeed.
posted by desjardins at 2:51 PM on December 16, 2014


restrictions on it and lack of coverage for it is misogyny-- that is, hatred of women-- with collateral damage that also hurts trans folks

Some trans folks ARE women. This is probably just clumsy language use, but it sure looks like you're implying that trans women aren't women. Damage to trans women from misogyny is not collateral - they are part of the target group.

But it seems really rare that the misogynists advocated against, say, comprehensive reproductive healthcare including birth control and abortions, are actually thinking about trans folks at all when they're doing it. This doesn't take away from the actual harm caused by their doing so, but it makes their actions more in the -ism category than the mis- or -phobia ones, if that makes sense?

It's shitty to advocate for policies that hurt trans people even if you don't know you're doing it, and it's shitty to women to advocate for policies because you don't want them to have complete control over our own bodies; most of these people are intentionally doing the latter and unintentionally doing the former


Something doesn't have to be intentionally targeted at trans people to be transphobic. It's entirely possible to do so inadvertently. And there are quite a few people loudly advocating for policies that hurt trans people with that very end goal in mind, on many issues.
posted by Dysk at 3:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]


Augh, you're right, I should've said "trans men, some trans women, some intersex and some NB and/or agender folks" there; sorry! I didn't want to throw trans women into the same category as cis women regarding all healthcare issues, because while some of them apply to both groups trans women frequently end up with different reproductive justice related concerns that really ought to get their own coverage and the like (such as insurance covering freezing sperm in case hormones and/or surgery causes infertility and they want to have biological kids later, for example).

I meant that trans men (and some people who may identify as NB and/or agender) end up as collateral damage from anti-woman policies; this is separate from many of the same people having lots of anti-trans policies. That's inadvertent, but still harmful and still wrong and bad, and I just wanted to note the phenomenon of collateral damage caused by misogyny and patriarchy on gender minorities (that is, everyone who isn't cis). Thanks for the correction and sorry about my poor phrasing.
posted by NoraReed at 3:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


Clearly its coherent to look at the world through the lens of "the set of people who are required by oppressive society to perform a behavior, based on criteria set by the same oppressive society" or, in my words, "the set of people created by how (white, cis) patriarchy would like to taxonomize humans as female/women".

In my opinion, this is a major second-wave-y antipattern and not the best way to go about organizing around and thinking about oppressions, but that's a difficult and rather philosophical thing to talk about.

Practically speaking, since we're in a trans thread not a feminist epistemology thread, if you do this, you should should think about explicitly identifying yourselves as "cis feminist", or otherwise owning up to the fact that you're centering cis women's experiences in your activism and wordview. There are some feminists out there who think similarly who happen to think "cis" is a slur, i think instead y'all should learn to own it.


I had a college class that was like this; if it had been called "white cis feminist philosophy" i would have loved it. Instead it was just called "feminist philosophy" and it had huge problems.
posted by thug unicorn at 5:13 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]


For gender, it's impossible. Being my gender is so passive and accidental. Yet thanks to sexism, it's also such a huge source of community and identity. Now it's integral to how I'll always identify myself.

One interesting thought experiment: if you woke up tomorrow in a body with a flat chest, penis, etc, how would you feel? Would you wish to transition?

This is how a cis woman explained her own sense of gender identity to me. She said, if she (magically) woke up in what was (to her) a male body, then she'd be really upset, and immediately looking to transition; a cis man with us agreed with her, that he would feel similarly "wrong". Neither I nor another genderqueer friend felt this way at all.

since we're in a trans thread not a feminist epistemology thread

Are we in a trans thread? I thought it was a non-binary/genderqueer/agender thread.
posted by jb at 6:16 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


One interesting thought experiment: if you woke up tomorrow in a body with a flat chest, penis, etc, how would you feel? Would you wish to transition?

Again, it feels closer to race here. My grandmother is Hispanic, but light skinned enough to feel comfortable passing for white. She left her border town and married a white guy. Her children grew up on southern Air Force bases, and grew up with the all the racism associated with being Hispanic. They were precluded from bringing any of their culture on the base, so bilingualism ended with my grandmother. All my inherited hispanic culture is Christmas, because they would leave the base at Christmas and make tamales.

Now she's white. She identifies as White and Hispanic when she's allowed. But it's really harder than it should be. Society treats her as a white woman. And in in the same way that Irish folks are now white, and Italian folks are white, society has whitewashed the racism she experienced as a child and people are genuinely hesitant to believe racism affected her.

For me it's just kinda odd to get the privileges that my relatives can't get, simply because I got super fair skin, blue eyes/blonde hair genes. For my mom and aunt, it's a sense of loss that they don't get recognition for their upbringing as a minority. They've been kicked out of the community that understands being hated and judged for the perceived otherness of their skin.

My 33 years of experiencing sexism has made me female. It would be weird to wake up in a different body, just like it's weird when I see how much weight I've gained. (In my head, I'm about 60 lbs lighter, and can't seem to mentally accept the weight is real). But the real difficulty would be accepting the privileges of being male were real, and being excluded from the women who understand the difficulties I've grown up with, and the insecurities and harm that I'll always carry because of it.
posted by politikitty at 6:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


Let me reiterate: the above comment is about my relationship with my gender. That grandmother was also active in Second Wave feminism as a librarian, so gender as a political and oppressive construct is super ingrained on many levels.

I understand many folks do not experience gender in that sense. And I am supportive of folks expressing that experience in whatever manner they want. But the question isn't useful for me to understand that experience.
posted by politikitty at 7:12 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


Are we in a trans thread? I thought it was a non-binary/genderqueer/agender thread.

Non-binary/genderqueer/agender identities are generally considered to be under the trans umbrella.
posted by transitional procedures at 9:47 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]


and just like trans people can be gay or straight or bi or whatever, people who are like, trans trans can still be nonbinary or genderqueer or agender or whatever.
posted by thug unicorn at 1:21 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


/me waves hand as a NB, GQ trans woman. But I'm rolling on a femme trip these days, so I have sauntered down to one end of the binary, but like, I don't identify solely as that end...
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:14 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]


Just wanted to say how much these threads mean to me. The NB/GQ/agender community on MetaFilter has really helped me in sorting out all this gender stuff for myself in the last few years. </sentimental>
posted by daisyk at 10:04 AM on December 17, 2014 [4 favorites]


Really interesting commentary, politikitty, thank you. It's nice to get another view on it.

sidenote: I wanna hug you all 'cause this thread has been pretty great for me. I don't really get any of this in real life.
posted by nogoodverybad at 12:45 PM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


Non-binary/genderqueer/agender identities are generally considered to be under the trans umbrella.

But it's not appropriate for trans people who aren't genderqueer to speak for all nonbinary/genderqueer people. We're different. We may be invited under the umbrella, but it doesn't always cover us and our experiences of gender and/or sex.
posted by jb at 2:31 PM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]


right, jb, because there's two components at work that make this difficult, one is the performative notions of gender (constructed) and the second are identity components of gender (innate). I think a lot of the difficulty comes in when people speak past each other, one speaking from a position of dealing with the performative aspects of the lived trans experience, and the other speaking from the identity position.

The way those two interplay is very complicated in Cis people, and in trans people we make that even more difficult to parse out and discuss. Especially with the GQ/NB identified people for whom gender identity and gender performance interact with each other in very subtle ways that can sometime mask one component for the other.

I identity as a trans woman, who is genderqueer. That means I am a girl who likes to look boyish. In order to sort my mess out, I needed to correct a fundamental disconnect between my brain and my body to match up the identity and sex, this is all very personal and internal stuff for me, it was about me seeking treatment to get to a point that my body literally stopped rejecting itself.

Now that has been solved and I am having a great time exploring the performative aspects of gender, and I feel like I can comment on what it feels like to be a tomboy who likes to skateboard and wear dresses. Now that I am living in the world and understood by my community to be an actual, you know, woman, I can get on with being a genderqueer tomboy femme. So I get how genderqueer intersects, and also does not intersect with trans women identities. It's hard sometimes to separate the two things, but when I do I find discussions go a hell of a lot smoother. In terms of how this all interacts with prior lived experiences, yeah, there are differences, but there are also intersections. I am interested in finding the intersections as a way for each of us cis/trans/GQ/NB/* to better understand each other's lived experiences.

That said, I have zero tolerance or time for gender abolitionists. That stuff is anathema to the entire gender spectrum (cis, trans, all of it) and is a kind of modernist manifesto-driven construct that IMO borderlines on fascist.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:01 PM on December 17, 2014 [6 favorites]


But it's not appropriate for trans people who aren't genderqueer to speak for all nonbinary/genderqueer people.

...is anyone doing this?
posted by Dysk at 1:19 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]


one is the performative notions of gender (constructed) and the second are identity components of gender (innate).

How are they not both constructed? If I were raised in the woods alone, I would not know what gender is. If there were one other person with me, we would perceive similarities and differences in our bodies and in our personalities, but there would still be no concept of "gender," innate or not. That only happens when there's a society, and it only feels "innate" because it exists whether or not you express it to anyone else. There are things I've never told anyone ever, but they're not innate. I wouldn't know what it feels like to be [this] or [that] if I'd been born in the woods.

There are studies that show that brains of trans people are different from those of cis people, but I would include that as one of the markers of sex (like chromosomes or genitalia), not gender.
posted by desjardins at 6:40 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


If you were raised alone in the woods alone you would not become a fully developed human being. Anything you are and do would not be considered proof of anything but having severe developmental issues.

Gender identity is kinda like the capacity for language, it is innate and it takes other people to help socially construct it.

Furthermore, in my experience, there is no other way to state this: my body literally rejected it's sex. Medically treating it to re-contextualize my sex into a trans body has alleviated issues I've physically had being a person since childhood. It's innate and I don't have to prove it to you.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:17 AM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]


This is what I mean when I say for trans people with both the identity and performative sides of the equation to solve for that it becomes really hard to draw lines between what is constructed and what is identity. The identity portions really have no bearing beyond the most basic senses of what the body is signalling to itself at a very low level as to "what sex it is". Gender and biological sex, at the identity levels, are interacting. They sure as hell do for me at least.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:21 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]


Gender identity is kinda like the capacity for language, it is innate and it takes other people to help socially construct it.

Ah, this makes sense. I apologize, I was not trying to invalidate your experience.
posted by desjardins at 7:59 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]


Hugs everyone. I'm kinda trigger-happy on the blue perhaps? Sighs, love and more assumption of good intent :-)
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:02 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]


« Older Snap, Crackle and Pop!   |   I picked my spot in the glass and called it my... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments