Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

I use SignAvatar or what is it for my rotating avatar (to which I should add more slightly edgy foxes).

[None]

I'm asking from a point of ignorance here, and I realize the answer is probably some nuance of 'it depends' or 'it differs by person,' but I'd really like to know better.

Does genderqueerness/gender nonconformity imply a sort of dysphoria, or is it moreso leveraged on one's expression of self against the sociocultural expectation of gender? Like, if a person goes by they/them pronouns, is it an expression that they do not embody their gender assigned at birth (or the opposite gender, if you'll forgive the crudeness of the binary axis here), or is it closer to an ideological individuation from the static social idea of gender? If one has no interest in 'traditional'(?) 'maleness' or 'femaleness' or whatever they were raised on, but no inclination to change who they are or how they express themselves, is that part of the same terminology?

...I'm, well, sorry, for lack of better words, for not already knowing better.

[Rolan7]

One of my favorite creators talked about this recently on a humor podcast.  To paraphrase - they used to try to deal with their dysphoria by working out a lot, performing masculinity.  When that didn't work they they tried to be fully feminine.
Nowadays they're a jacked enby who *enjoys* pumping iron and life in general.  A similar lifestyle was insufferable when it was performed for mistaken reasons.

Your question is tricky because we think in symbols, and we've learned to think in binary gender (specifically the gender of our time and place).  But it's like being asked "Do you really like this punk/obscure stuff, or do you only like it because it's not pop?".  In my case, I (surprise) actually liked the music I was obsessively listening too.  It's not like I had any punk friends to impress, it was good on its own merits.  Nowadays I enjoy a lot of pop and punk music because I have that freedom.

I personally have a relatively minor dysphoria situation... either that or I just don't like my face, which happens to lots of people.  That's basically a separate issue from my gender.  My gender is nonbinary because I don't feel like a "guy" or "gal" (in my culture).

If one has no interest in 'traditional'(?) 'maleness' or 'femaleness' or whatever they were raised on, but no inclination to change who they are or how they express themselves, is that part of the same terminology?

Absolutely, one-hundred percent.

Like, if a person goes by they/them pronouns, is it an expression that they do not embody their gender assigned at birth (or the opposite gender, if you'll forgive the crudeness of the binary axis here), or is it closer to an ideological individuation from the static social idea of gender?

The latter, yeah.  Though there's also "gender abolition", an idea I used to support.  The idea that ALL gender is fake and everyone's gender should be abolished because it only drags people down, and is bad and awful.

While I am politically against forced gender roles, I think I was largely projecting when I was a loud gender-abolitionist.  Talking to trans people showed me that these roles were... more than just deference to authority figures.  Some people desperately need to be binary, whether they're trans or cis.  It's kinda wonderful, actually.  Yes it's a social construct, but it's deeply meaningful.

I'm still searching, but that's not what makes me NB.  I'm just kinda slow   It's possible I could land on 2022 Southern American Male - no joke, sometimes that feels right.  (which might suggest that I'm genderFLUID, but that's a different bag of worms).
When I'm most calm and collected, this is still how I see myself: https://i.imgur.com/1TKkLiN.png

At times I thought I'd pull free from the layers of disguise and find some powerful inner truth.  But I write down my dreams, and I'm almost never male or female in them.  If I even have a body.

Hope that helps  

[Vector]

Yeah, I'm not for gender abolition. I think gender is a meaningful concept.

I know people who go by they/them and refer to everyone around them to go by they/them as a kind of anarchist expression of enbyness. I think that's an interesting idea, but I made friends with binary trans people before I made friends with nonbinary trans people, and it needs to be something that others around you are OK with signing onto. In particular there is a strong tendency for haters to describe binary trans people as "they" as a way to delegitimize their chosen gender (this especially happens to trans women, but I've seen it happen to trans men, too). See also calling people "it" who did not indicate they wanted to be called that.

But what that says is: in some people's mind, being nonbinary is the delegitimizing of gender. It isn't a position in and of itself, not something you can affirmatively choose to become. It represents the removal of gender.

There are also binary trans people who transition not due to gender dysphoria, but due to what is called gender euphoria. How they are is fine, but they think it would just be STELLAR to be a girl/guy instead. Pain is not what legitimizes gender.

The answer to your question is that being nonbinary is actually ANOTHER umbrella. It includes gender anarchists, agender people, bigender/genderfluid people ... and me, who got so tired of being beat up for doing my gender wrong and feeling incapable of reforming that I completely gave up and made myself a new identity. One that better matched who I was and a person, and which I could affirmatively choose.

For me, that's literally a 0% ideological decision. I am happier identifying as genderqueer and I genuinely feel it is safer (because I wasn't interested in defending myself when I did my best to kowtow to the altar of Female, and now I no longer just take it when people hurt me, because the thing I have to protect, my self, now has a non-zero value to me). When I act the way that I used to before I forcibly changed all of my physical mannerisms, interests, and fashion sense in late high school for ~marriage~ and ~finding a masculine man~, I feel I am often-to-usually gendered correctly in public. Despite my long hair and lack of bodily modifications.

The last part of your question sounds like being gender nonconforming, which is considered part of the trans umbrella because it represents a chosen deviation from societal expectations of gender performance. In some ways being queer (i.e. gay or lesbian) is a kind of transness, except that it may be restricted to the domain of sex and romance. Transness radiates out from there to incorporate other deviations. And, being nonbinary describes deviations which are intentional in their expression of chaos, absence of gendered behavior, or fluidity, or neutrality.

Essentially, think about the things that a cisgender person is supposed to expect from their gender as a category.

1. They are supposed to perform some kind of gender. Not performing gender is not an option.
2. The options are male and female. There are no other options. Not, for example, a spectrum.
3. They are expected to perform the gender that matches what the doctor said, not one they choose or construct.
4. That gender is supposed to be stable across time (nonfluid).
5. That gender is supposed to be stable in the moment (not pulling at any particular time from the toolboxes of other, legitimized genders).

And then more rules for trans people specifically . . . which universally assume binaryhood.
6. A good trans person aspires to pass.
7. A good trans person spends all money and social resources available in order to pass.
8. A good trans person recognizes that they are not what they have become, and should restrict themselves from normal activities that every other person of their gender gets to participate in as a matter of fact. Such as: using a public restroom. Or buying clothes. Or expecting that a public restroom in line with their gender be available.
9. A good trans person understands that nobody wants their child to be like that and restricts themselves from public spaces accordingly.
10. A good trans person understands that nobody wants to be around them, hire them, or house them.
11. A good trans person does not reproduce, either biologically or by acting as though it is acceptable to be trans, and *especially* not after transitioning.
12. A good trans person has a story that explains why they are trans. By necessity, that story makes it clear that the trans person knows transness is unacceptable. They are requesting clemency by telling this story which explains their transness; making it clear that they would not be trans if they had had any other choice.

Must I go on?

(nobody, everybody: these refer to the expectations and experiences of the "straight" world)

Why choose not to do any one of those first five things? Well ... lots of people have their reasons. Some are political, some are probably biological, some are based on experiences (stereotypically, trauma), some are based on about as much decision-making as one might take when grabbing a t-shirt out of the closet. I.e. simple preference.

Anyone can use any pronouns that they want. For any reason. They can wear skirts and suit jackets, cut their hair this or that way, or seek out hormones for as long or as little as they like.

[TD1]

If I'm being frank, and without any rudeness intended, I don't understand the underlying premise.

There are 'cultures' built around physical sexual attributes, but they're hardly set in stone. A man adopting female culture is building a... stereotype, I suppose? ... of femininity and then performing it.

The end goal is to be treated the same by society as a female, or so I gather.

I feel that this only reinforces gender stereotypes. The adoption of any culture is fraught with such problems. An American who adopts French culture may have good reasons for so doing - they like wearing berets, and 'monsieur' feels like a cool mode of address to them. But by becoming 'French' instead of an American who likes these things, a latticework of stereotype is drawn upon. Suddenly the American is adopting a French accent, wearing striped clothing, and carrying a baguette.

An extreme example, I know, but you get the point. I tend to feel this creates a new culture, one which builds its own conceptual baggage - 'Americans who act French.'

I suppose I don't understand why one can't be an American who holds traits in common with some (not all by any means) Frenchmen. In defining oneself as French, a new category of Born-American-but-seeming-French is developed, which I don't think was the intention, but was always going to be the natural conclusion.

A sensitive subject for many on these forums, I know. But I feel it can be important to be honest about issues.

[Kagus]

...huh. I've been known to use "they" when talking about people--cis or otherwise--even if I know their preferred pronouns, but I was doing that specifically to try to 1) Reinforce "they" as a functional individual pronoun, 2) Avoid conveying gender stereotyping, people are people whether I'm talking about men, women, or others, 3) Distance the usage of "trans" almost exclusively referring to MtF.

I never realized it could be seen as delegitimizing someone's gender.

[dragdeler]

I did it a few times to people here: asumme gender, go wowow use they instead two posts later, decide to check profile day after and oops they're openly declaring thesemelves as male. When it comes to linguistic formalities it's probably allways best to let a five be an even number. I avoid gender stereotypes too, or maybe just made up my own set.

I don't know why I giggled at the frenchman example, but I'm not in the mood to think it through either, but I think the striped shirt part had me loudest.

[None]

I think, to use the french/american axis, it outlines that there exists a very real slice of the population, a population that already exists- french americans- that may bear some of the stereotypical trappings of one or the other nationality(whether by preference or out of convenience when dealing with people who are not french americans), but otherwise has its own organic culture, usage of language, expression, etc.

We're still thinking on a binary axis here, which I understand isn't so helpful

Thanks for humoring my naivete, folks, I hope my question wasn't framed offensively.

[Frumple]

I never realized it could be seen as delegitimizing someone's gender.

Yeah, can confirm it definitely can be seen that way. Sometimes someone or another will be really invested in one gender or another for whatever reason, and dislike to whatever extent being labeled somethin' else, even something intended to be a catch-all.

I've noticed I've been kinda' drifting away from using non-personal pronouns at all, probably because there's like... not a general use term that doesn't trip over someone, and a lot of the time I just don't have the goddamn energy to pay attention to and remember that kind of thing, especially not on a case by case basis. I try, because you try to do right by folks as a general thing, but gods alive is it something I'm just not built or raised or whatever to keep on top of and I'm always goddamn exhausted dealing with everything else these days.

Nevermind gender issues specifically, it's a pain in the ass to remember to pay attention to outward expression at all -- it's really hard for me to give a shit how I'm presenting to other people, and that translates to how I (don't) expect other folks to present... probably either some sort of non-conforming/non-binary/whatever or somewhat schzoid, from what I can tell.

Manage to an extent for survival reasons but, just... I wish to fuck we all didn't have to manage it all and could just chill with life without it running the risk of hurting or getting hurt by folks, y'know?

[McTraveller]

The problem with modern philosophy on pronouns is that they have broken the old cultural shorthand - you used to be able to, with 99% accuracy, be able to use a pronoun when first meeting someone new just based on physical appearance.

We've basically destroyed that use for pronouns now - they are almost as arbitrary as names.  More often than not now I just tend to refer to people by their name, instead of a pronoun, because it's just too problematic otherwise.  I mean seriously, you now are expected to know name + pronoun combos, not just names.  And I had enough trouble just remembering people's names in the first place...

[heydude6]

Thankfully, most people still use standard pronouns. IRL, 99% of the time you don't have to put much thought into it. That 1% does take some time to get used to though, but as long as you're making an effort and the other person is reasonable, it shouldn't cause too many problems.

EDIT: On reflection, I can't help but be reminded about the people who believe that gendered language as a concept should be abolished. If non-standard pronoun usage became widespread enough that managing them genuinely did become a headache, I think people would rather switch to genderless pronouns rather than learn the combos McTraveller talks about.

[Frumple]

The problem with modern philosophy on pronouns is that they have broken the old cultural shorthand - you used to be able to, with 99% accuracy, be able to use a pronoun when first meeting someone new just based on physical appearance.

Like, I don't think that's actually true? The accuracy wouldn't have been much different than it is now, it was just more culturally acceptable to shit on the folks that were being missed, and they were even more worried about pushing on it (due to entirely legitimate fear of being beaten, murdered, etc., that still isn't exactly nonzero) than now. The "cultural shorthand" was "to hell with anyone that doesn't match the standard designations, if they complain take them out behind the shed". It wasn't exactly an improvement, ha.

[Iduno]

...huh. I've been known to use "they" when talking about people--cis or otherwise--even if I know their preferred pronouns, but I was doing that specifically to try to 1) Reinforce "they" as a functional individual pronoun, 2) Avoid conveying gender stereotyping, people are people whether I'm talking about men, women, or others, 3) Distance the usage of "trans" almost exclusively referring to MtF.

I never realized it could be seen as delegitimizing someone's gender.

I'm not sure I've ever seen someone upset at being called "them" unless you've been told otherwise multiple times. Worst case, you didn't know and tried to avoid screwing it up.

The problem with modern philosophy on pronouns is that they have broken the old cultural shorthand - you used to be able to, with 99% accuracy, be able to use a pronoun when first meeting someone new just based on physical appearance.

Like, I don't think that's actually true? The accuracy wouldn't have been much different than it is now, it was just more culturally acceptable to shit on the folks that were being missed, and they were even more worried about pushing on it (due to entirely legitimate fear of being beaten, murdered, etc., that still isn't exactly nonzero) than now. The "cultural shorthand" was "to hell with anyone that doesn't match the standard designations, if they complain take them out behind the shed". It wasn't exactly an improvement, ha.

Yeah, I'm guessing you're a lot more correct on this one. I think it's also something like 5%? But those numbers are hard to pin down when it's dangerous for a lot of people to be out, and society pushes it as "not an option" so people don't realize "not that gender" is what's been going on with them. You'd have to go back to the 1950's or 60's, when people were more accepting (which is more of a complaint about today then a compliment to then).

[None]

Other cultures have rules about first names, last names, honorifics, etc. in how you refer to someone, and other rules about how you refer to people in the third person- I think we can manage a pronoun if we've been corrected or informed a certain way.

[McTraveller]

Sorry my 99% meant if you saw someone it would be very rare to be corrected if you called someone a she instead of he or vice-versa.  I did kind of pull that out of my made-up numbers bag though; I don't know if there were any statistics gathered about that before about 20 years ago.

Also remember that pronouns aren't just about the person being referred to; they're also part of general social interaction.  I guess maybe in that way having ambiguous or wrong pronouns may be a benefit, because it forces actual conversation and getting to know someone a bit before making assumptions about what type of sexual activities they're interested in.

(To be fair - other than sexual activities or culturally-enforced gender roles, what is the purpose of a gendered pronoun anyway?)