Gender Fluidity?

[TwiceRemoved]

Looks like I posted this in the wrong initially (either that or it REALLY is that boring!) but we'll try again here....

Looking at the image for the "Life & Style" section reminded me of a recent conversation over dinner with a group of friends from various backgrounds and with various ideas and conceptions (most of which we all seem to disagree on to some extent) where the subject of gender fluidity was raised.

Being generally biased (all of us) and some of us possibly a tiny bit worse for wear due to the alcohol intake, we seemed unable to find any middle ground - it was either 100% there is room (and possibly a need) for gender fluidity in today's society (the western bit anyway...) or 100% there is absolutely no place for gender fluidity - one is either male with all the 'manly' tracts associated with said gender, or 100% female with similar feminine ways, dress codes, etc.

I am definitely biased towards the "yes, there is a place for it" vote, but then I do paint my nails, wear the odd bit of 'cosmetic refinement' (yeah, OK, call it slap) and am happy to tentatively float between M and F as circumstances dictate or as my fancy takes me when no other overriding circumstances prevail.

One of our female friends is also in the "yes" camp and got quite annoyed with her DP who would only laugh at or derogate comments or arguments rather than come up with anything sensible. I think this made her harden even more towards the "yes" vote rather than settle where she actually meant to be...

Possibly unsurprisingly the split was about 50/50 although with more females in the "yes" camp, and more males in the "no" camp. No-one appeared to be in the nether regions of "don't know, not sure, don't care, etc."

So - gender fluidity - is there a place for it? Is there a time/place when there is absolutely no place for it (perhaps using the public loos in Debenhams?) Can it help or only hinder? Are men frightened of it? Could it close the gender divide or just do even more damage (i.e. to relationships, etc?) Do we all need to be so hung up on gender definitions and stick rigidly to the "real men don't do that" brigade, or can we introduce a 'third' gender. I like the third gender idea, and I'd call it a 'person' (but then like I said, I'm biased).

Pinkfrock, just google what gender and sex actually mean. I'm not coming out with kerazy niche thinking, this is bog standard stuff. People do make the mistake of interchangably using sex and gender as synonyms but they mistaken. Sex is biological, gender is not.

I didn't say gender was a choice: the very fact of it being a culturally enforced construct from birth negates any real choice. Gender is the opposite of choice.

Either you aren't explaining it clearly or you are confused.

Gender is usually used when we talk about 'characteristics' of a sex - male or female.

Gender is fixed the same as sex is.

"It's nothing about 'gender fluidity'- it's about a range of behaviour and personality."

I think I concur at many level(s) pinkfrocks, there is a very diverse range of behaviour and personality (the good, the bad, and the plain old ugly). However, behaviour and personality can be perfectly well expressed without the need for a 'visual' to go with it. I believe that society in general can be quite at ease with blokey girls and girlie blokes, as long as said peeps 'look' normal, e.g. masculine for a male, and feminine for a female.

When gender fluidity becomes not just an attitude, a trait, or a purely behavioural thing but then (as in my case) becomes visual that's when society generally has difficulty getting their heads round it. Some members of society are fine to the point of encouragement, some try to ignore it, some do ignore it, some laugh and ridicule, and some get violent.

When 'looking' like the gender one happens to be happy with at the time becomes socially acceptable and (dare I say) commonplace, then perhaps the gender divide will narrow? it would be good if one day gender equality was the norm, but I think that as long as there are humans around there is as much chance of that happening as racial equality or religious harmony or no traffic jams on the M25.

It seems that it will always be OK to aspire to be masculine, but never OK to aspire to be feminine. A diverse range of behaviour and personality is 'OK' with either gender, but it appears a diverse range of visual expression (clothes, hair, cosmetics, etc.) is only 'OK' for females.

Are you a man?

the west isnt ready to acept gender fluidity as an accepted form as much as the east does, through personal experience its not something people are willing to let happen because of social taboos in the way we raise our kids in this men are butch and woman are girly sterotypes thats being fed to us. yes there is a place for it but at this present time gender fluidity really will be only accepted by people if it is done by a woman. its perfectly acceptable for ladies to go out in guys clothing with little/no make-up wouldn't you say twiceremoved but if its switched around and a man goes out with a dress and/or woman clothing he is automaticly lables as gay or a crossdresser. I'm all for gender fluidity but socity isnt really ready

OxfordBags is right - although gender and sex are often used interchangeably, that's incorrect: 'sex' is biological (genitalia, most obviously) while 'gender' is the socially-prescribed outward manifestation of a sex (from women wearing lipstick to men being aggressive - these are examples of how society constructs gender). So you might be biologically male but (attempt to) construct yourself as being of the female gender. The distinction is significant because it emphasises the fact that how we see gender changes (eg it used to be considered masculine to dress up in exotic clothes and high heels in the court of Charles I, but now such behaviour is seen as feminine), and that not everyone feels their gender matches their biological sex. This might make it clearer: www.iwtc.org/ideas/15_definitions.pdf
Until such ideas are better understood in society gender fluidity is likely to continue to be a difficult concept which isn't widely accepted.

Why do people keep refering to biological gender and sex, gender fluidity isnt the same as gender identity, its an abstract concpet of being BOTH masquline and femine depending on how the person feels at the time.

Wigby - there is no such thing as 'biological' gender. Only sex - one's genitals - is biological.

OP, what you describe about societal attitudes towards it being more acceptable for women to look or act masculine as opposed to men looking or acting feminine, is homophobia and misogyny. Misogyny insists on the lie that male is superior, therefore it's okay for women to want to emulate that, whereas female is inferior, so it's shameful for men to be feminine (it wrongly includes male homosexuality as a form of femininity). All a load of hateful nonsense, of course.

Pinkfrocks, going to out myself a bit now, because I am an academic with a speciality in gender. Believe me, I know more on the subject than you've had hot dinners. I am not confused... but you very much are. If you can't understand the difference between biology and culture then anyone is going to struggle to explain the difference in terms simple enough for you to comprehend. But here goes again:

Gender is NOT fixed. Sex, in actual fact, is not as fixed as people think (there's the issue of transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and also that the percentage of humans with genital or hormonal profiles that can be classified as hermaphrodital, even to a tiny extent, is surprisingly high, for example).

Just because you believe this doesn't make it true. Even academics and scientists who believe gender is fully congruent with sex - who are usually derided as loons by the majority of their peers, and certainly experts on the subject, incidentally - completely accept and know that sex is biology, and gender is social.

If gender is fixed, as you wrongly assert, how come what gender is is not the same throught out the world, and has changed radically and randomly throughout human history? Even the slightest bit of reading on the subject makes it clear that gender is neither biological nor fixed.

Again, this is not my opinion, these are facts.

Oxfordbags

If I understood you earlier you said that the difference between the sexes was a social construct. i.e. that there is no such thing as sexual dimorphism in humans. Did I misunderstand you? Do you have any training in the biological sciences?

To quote you from page 1:

^
Dadwood, men and women are different, but not INNATELY different. We are brainwashed into being different. We are trained from birth to perform whatever gender is congruent with our sex (genitals). This is called being cisgender, (as an aside, constantly reiterating how unsexist you are to women does you no favours. I don't feel the need to tell black people I'm not racist. I'm saying this as a friendly suggestion, btw).^

The quote was meant to be italics. Sorry

Maybe you could explain precisely what you mean by gender as opposed to sex, are these both biological terms to you or is gender the social construct? I can't quite get a fix on what you mean. Please be clear and don't appeal to authority without sources.

Just skim reading as v tired but Oxfordbags thank you so much for elucidating something that continues to frustrate me :0)...As a teacher, I am often incredulous at how conditioned my colleagues are (which is understandable, we're all subject to it) but then they are also totally unaware of such conditioning/social brainwashing etc...So, as an example, they may well logically know pink is 'just a colour' but still DO associate this with girly etc. The people too who proudly boast how they 'let their boys play with dolls too' are also missing the point...Toys are toys and the fact that a big deal is made of the boys pushing prams etc just feeds the 'story' that they somehow shouldn't!
The books too that fill school libraries and classrooms are pretty awful too...Totally fulfill gender stereotypes at every page and continue the conditioning of boys and girls who grow up to fulfil roles which uphold the patriarchy and therefore the status quo...This depresses me.

Controversially, I'm a single parent who actively chose to be this. I never got the co-dependency thing. I had 'good& positive' relationships but for me the idea of being a parent was far bigger than the particular relationship I was in.
It frustrates me that while I was conditioned to believe coupledom was the situation you need to aim for actually I am so happy as a single mum. I wonder why happy single mum stories aren't promoted more?? Well that would just rock the patriarchy wouldn't it. We need to be made to feel dependent to promote co-dependency which I think is (potentially) unhealthy for children to see, especially if it's an abusive relationship. Mine never was but equally I knew my child would be much better of with a loving mum & dad who just happened to not be together. It's time we normalised healthy relationships in all their forms rather than stick to rigid ideas...as ultimately the children will suffer.

dadwood - Sex is biology, gender is a social construct. I have been saying this clearly and simply in every comment I have left on this thread. Gender is not biological or natural. The quote you use from me makes perfect sense. It is a simplistic explanation. I did not say there was no sexual dimorphism between the sexes; you have just said that, getting confused because you're not grasping that gender is not the same as sex. There is sexual dimorphism, because dimorphism is about physical difference. The behavioural differences as we perform them, and as we know them, are GENDER. Not sex. These differences, GENDER, are not based in physical truth, or some innate set of traits that correspond with our particular genitals, but specifically-created, agenda-driven artificial binaries that uphold misogyny and patriarchy.

I really cannot understand how to make this simpler to understand, it is so basic. I'm not trying to insult anyone, I just don't understand how anyone can't grasp that biology is not the same as personality and identity created from one's social and cultural upbringing and experience.

For the umpteenth time: sex and gender are NOT the same thing. One is true, the other is a lie we are brainwashed into believing is true and perform because of that belief.

Russett - YYY! And thank you :)

Hi OxfordBags
I am still here, but getting sleepy.
I think the difference between us is that I think some of the apparent gender difference is down to biology and the rest is, as you point out, a social construct which supports misogyny and patriarchy. I just can't accept the blank slate idea that all gender is learned. Therefore, I don't think you can completely separate gender from sex. That is all.

That you deplore gender stereotypes and the unequal power balance between men and women in most societies is something I share with you.

Hope this kind of debate continues (not necessarily here but generally :0) We can definitely learn lots about the 'truths' and 'myths' which exist (for whatever reason) and gain a deeper understanding of all arguments...

Oxfordbags

I don't care whether you are an academic or not, but your last post to me came across as arrogant.
I know more about some academic matters things than you have had hot dinners- but I won't go as far as to say so, because it comes over as pompous.

I would like to know your qualifications- someone else asked and you skipped this.

I suspect you are not a scientist but a sociologist or similar.

I also know enough about research and opinions/ theories in my own field to know that there is more than one theory about anything- especially amongst academics!

I am not an expert on gender, but my common sense tells me that it cannot ever be totally divorced from biology.

I've really enjoyed your posts on this thread, Oxford.

A couple of clarifications if I may...

To those who have asked - I am male (sometimes )

And maybe I should have entitled this thread "fluidity within gender identity" or "fluidity within gender identity and presentation"? That is probably nearer the mark, bearing more resemblance to my particular situation.

pinkfrocks

I have a sociology background and I concur with what Oxford is saying.

If you wrote a list with the headings male and female as the list headings, what type of things would you write underneath?

Perhaps you could just give 3 of each, and it might become obvious what oxford means.

I would expect if you asked enough people, from this culture, other cultures and could go back and forth in time, you would get differing answers and even answers that would be in both lists.

If you make a list with the heading man, woman, I would expect the same answers across the board. Vagina, ovaries, uterus, breasts for woman and penis testicles for men.

See the difference?

I had this conversation with my friend a week ago. And I'm constantly having it with the OH to do with our D's.

I liken it to putting every personality/ emotional trait into a big box ( like a lucky dip) picking them out one by one and then deciding whether they go on the side of a girl/woman or the side of boy/man.

First out crying - oh definitely girl side, 2nd out aggression - oh definitely manly! Etc. Until IMO 75% are on the girl/woman side and 25% is on the boy/man side.

This is just my interpretation by the way, not real.

But then I'll argue with OH that our DS still feels 100% of the emotional traits, so what is he supposed to do with that feeling if he is told it's a female trait? Deny it? Push it down? Turn it to a male trait? (Anger aggression)

It's bloody ridiculous IMO. We are humans with emotions and absolutely thick as fuck to genderise (is that a word?!) emotions!

It beggars belief.

Sorry it is a rant I have A. Lot.

I'm really trying to understand gender dysphoria at the moment. If you hate performing the gender stereotypes of your biological sex then perform the gender stereotype of the opposite sex. Fine. So far I understand. But what is the logic behind wanting to change your biological sex identity? I don't understand the logic or desire behind people wanting a sex change operation. Surely gender performance is on a spectrum and if we have enough fluidity then people wouldn't need or want what is such a superficial indicator of gender eg breasts or penis. Oh I'm so confused
oxfordbags I would love to hear more