heron61: (Dandy)
[personal profile] heron61
Here's an interesting and thankfully entirely non-transphobic article about a woman and her butch but definitively female-identified daughter

This article reminds me of various comments [personal profile] teaotter has made, that one huge problem with modern constructions of gender is that definitions of male and female have become increasingly narrow, and while we are both pleased that there's increasing awareness of transgendered, non-binary and bi-gendered people, there's absolutely no reason that acknowledging their existence needs to narrow gender categories.

Also, it doesn't look like that's the causation. Instead, it appears that both male and female gender norms began narrowing prior to the most recent surge in transgendered, non-binary and bi-gendered awareness, presumably as a backlash or reaction to both social pressures towards gender equality and growing acceptance of people who are not heterosexual. I'm assuming that at least part of the reason is straight cis people's fear of being assumed to be something other than straight and perhaps cis given that other options are now possible to openly discuss *sigh*.

However, despite such fears, not all male bodied people with gender presentations that don't conform to masculine norms (like me *waves*, with my proud self-definition as a fop and a sissy) are transgendered, non-binary, or bi-gendered (but some definitely are), and in fact, not all such male-bodied people are even gay (although many are).

Similarly, not all female bodied people with gender presentations that don't conform to feminine norms (like [personal profile] teaotter) are transgendered, non-binary, or bi-gendered (but some definitely are), and in fact, not all such female-bodied people are even lesbians (although many are).

Once again, we face the fact that there are no simple answers or formulas for human behavior – living creatures are complicated, and sentient ones are ever more so.

Date: 2017-04-21 08:51 am (UTC)
autopope: Me, myself, and I (Default)
From: [personal profile] autopope
Plausible, but a bit on the abstract side? And doesn't take into account inter-cultural variations and whether or not there's a short-term correlation with large scale economic security.

Date: 2017-04-21 06:52 pm (UTC)
graydon: (Default)
From: [personal profile] graydon
I think economic and patriarchal are functionally the same thing; if you have no economic security you are very, very aware that someone can tell you what to do.

The whole point of patriarchal norms is to guarantee that no one tells you what to do who "doesn't have the right"; that's older men with more power. (Most of the Trump racist support is driven by a great screaming need to be certain the pain of having to think of a black man as able to tell them what to do goes away.) Women can't have management jobs because it violates patriarchal norms. Race hierarchies are a way to make sure the bottom tier white males have someone to exercise power on with impunity, and so on. High-tech is objectionable because it doesn't work on seniority; the whole "boss baby" thing wouldn't have any cultural resonance at all if it wasn't a real thing and a real social fear. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

September 2017

345 6789

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 05:20 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios