Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-12-2017, 03:52 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
"Guys, gals, and any trans members"

One of the warnings that contributed to Reddy Mercury's banning was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddy Mercury View Post
Am curious to know what you guys, gals, and any trans members think of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction?

I go back and forth on it myself. At one time it was my favorite movie of all time but as of late I feel it's aged poorly.

What about you?
Reddy Mercury, any trans members are either guys or gals, and as such there's no reason to call them out separately. No reason, that is, except to be provocative, which I'm pretty sure is why you did so. This is an official Warning.
At the outset, let me be clear that I don't disagree with the thinking behind the warning, or indeed the banning, because it's clear to me that "...any trans members...' was intended to be dismissive or provocative, as Chronos suggests.

However, because this is the SDMB, and we are interested in reducing misconceptions in the world, it occurs to me that hidden in the trash of his comment there is an opportunity for some truth.

It's possibly true that all trans members here are either guys or gals, but it's not certain, nor may we comfortably assert that all members are either guys or gals. This is an example of genderism, the uncritical acceptance of the gender binary. Gender is understood today as encompassing non-binary or genderqueer people, those whose expression of their genders transcend the cisnormativity that is the historic norm.

I've placed this in ATMB because it rests on a warning, a banning, and a moderator comment, but it may belong in GD, and I have no objection if it moves, since the focus is on the assumption of the gender binary, not the moderator actions of warning or banning.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:00 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,686
To be clear, yes, there are people who, for one reason or another (and there are multiple possible reasons) don't fit into the binary gender categories. But such a person would also not be described by the "trans" label. If the quote had instead been "guys, gals, and any nonbinary folks out there"... Well, given the context, it probably still would have been intended as being provocative, but I wouldn't have given a Warning on it.
__________________
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
--As You Like It, III:ii:328
Check out my dice in the Marketplace
  #3  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:03 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
From the start, in that particular case, the gender (or lack thereof) of the respondents was immaterial. Plus, "trans" is not a gender anyway, and given the context of that poster's history of mocking the subject, I don't see that there is any extenuating circumstances.

If someone wants to post a question in which gender is an important distinction, I don't see any reason why that person can't ask for responses from "guys, gals and other gender options" or even list them specifically in a poll. Or, ask posters to identify their self-identified gender or lack thereof in their posts. No big deal, as long as it's not part of your schtick to mock the subject.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-12-2017 at 04:04 PM.
  #4  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:04 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,848
Even if you believed that all trans members were non-binary, it's hard to understand why you need to make that point in a completely unrelated thread.
  #5  
Old 09-12-2017, 04:31 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 73,984
I felt it was something of a reach. A lot of people attempt to be inclusive by saying things like "men, women, and others." Arguably, somebody might express that idea as "guys, gals, and any trans members." So it could just be a clumsily worded attempt to include non-binary gendered people.

But this is Reddy Mercury. He has expressed his contempt for this kind of inclusiveness in several other threads, including some in which he has mocked the idea of there being other genders. So I feel it was reasonable to assume he was being sarcastic.
  #6  
Old 09-12-2017, 07:33 PM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 11,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post

But this is Reddy Mercury. He has expressed his contempt for this kind of inclusiveness in several other threads, including some in which he has mocked the idea of there being other genders. So I feel it was reasonable to assume he was being sarcastic.
Reddy expressed some level of contempt about almost everything and everyone and sarcasm was pretty much his usual pattern of speech. And in that he wasn't alone here. Its not the norm but he never struck me as malicious in the manner some others have. I didn't like him very much but he did start an interesting thread or 197.

As for the "guys, gals, and any trans members" thing; I took it as a bad attempt at being flip. I've sometimes made some comment something about "men, women, and those investigating other various options" and possibly because the people know how active I've been in the fight for equality for all it didn't draw any attention. Kinda like the
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=836077
thread. Everyone speaks badly some time or another.
  #7  
Old 09-12-2017, 07:42 PM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
One of the warnings that contributed to Reddy Mercury's banning was:



At the outset, let me be clear that I don't disagree with the thinking behind the warning, or indeed the banning, because it's clear to me that "...any trans members...' was intended to be dismissive or provocative, as Chronos suggests.

However, because this is the SDMB, and we are interested in reducing misconceptions in the world, it occurs to me that hidden in the trash of his comment there is an opportunity for some truth.

It's possibly true that all trans members here are either guys or gals, but it's not certain, nor may we comfortably assert that all members are either guys or gals. This is an example of genderism, the uncritical acceptance of the gender binary. Gender is understood today as encompassing non-binary or genderqueer people, those whose expression of their genders transcend the cisnormativity that is the historic norm.

I've placed this in ATMB because it rests on a warning, a banning, and a moderator comment, but it may belong in GD, and I have no objection if it moves, since the focus is on the assumption of the gender binary, not the moderator actions of warning or banning.
You didn't ask anything, so what do you suggest?
__________________
I have no signature, now.
  #8  
Old 09-12-2017, 08:47 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
You didn't ask anything, so what do you suggest?
Yeah, this kind of ambiguity ("is this smarm? Is this snark? If I don't make my opinion clear, how can you tell?") is really obnoxious if it's intentional. If it's accidental, it's out of character -- but even Bricker nods, so that's fine, if so.
  #9  
Old 09-12-2017, 09:27 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
"Guys, gals, and any trans members"

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
You didn't ask anything, so what do you suggest?


I'm not suggesting any changes. I'm just reminding readers that it's not necessarily correct to say that all trans members here are either men or women, and certainly not correct to say that all members here are men or women.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 09-12-2017 at 09:28 PM.
  #10  
Old 09-12-2017, 09:37 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'm not suggesting any changes. I'm just reminding readers that it's not necessarily correct to say that all trans members here are either men or women, and certainly not correct to say that all members here are men or women.


To expand: I think we, as a society, have an automatic and unexamined bias towards cisnormative gender-binary classifications. It was my thought that that pointing out that even a seemingly uncomplicated line like Chronos', delivered with every effort to be inclusive to the real nature of transmen being men and transwomen being women still unconsciously locks the discussion down to those, and only those, gender identities.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #11  
Old 09-13-2017, 09:16 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
To expand: I think we, as a society, have an automatic and unexamined bias towards cisnormative gender-binary classifications. It was my thought that that pointing out that even a seemingly uncomplicated line like Chronos', delivered with every effort to be inclusive to the real nature of transmen being men and transwomen being women still unconsciously locks the discussion down to those, and only those, gender identities.
I'm hardly an expert on this, but if you are transgendered, then you identify as a man or a woman. If you don't identify as a man or a woman, then you are something else, not "trans". Does one "transition" into a non-binary gendered state? Again, I am no expert, but that would seem to change the meaning of what "transgendered" is.

If I am wrong, I would argue that such knowledge is not something the average person would be expected to know, at least not at this time.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-13-2017 at 09:16 AM.
  #12  
Old 09-13-2017, 10:19 AM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post

It's possibly true that all trans members here are either guys or gals, but it's not certain, nor may we comfortably assert that all members are either guys or gals. This is an example of genderism, the uncritical acceptance of the gender binary. Gender is understood today as encompassing non-binary or genderqueer people, those whose expression of their genders transcend the cisnormativity that is the historic norm.
Are you serious? Do you really expect posters to concern themselves with cisnormativity when they reply to someone? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. I don't even know if a poster I'm answering is male or female much of the time nor do I care. Unless it affects the argument in some way it is quite irrelevant.

The poster concerned was rightly warned for introducing such an immaterial labeling.

Last edited by aldiboronti; 09-13-2017 at 10:19 AM.
  #13  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:10 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,280
I think Reddy Mercury's tone wasn't always as respectful as it could have been. The problem for Reddy was even if that sort of tone is common around here, the subjects of his commentary weren't on the approved list.

Is including "trans" in the title provocative? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Language is obviously shifting and it's not entirely clear what is the most proper. And some of what is considered "proper" I consider ridiculous. But who am I to fault people for trying to write in a way that acknowledges these linguistic shifts?
  #14  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:16 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm hardly an expert on this, but if you are transgendered, then you identify as a man or a woman. If you don't identify as a man or a woman, then you are something else, not "trans". Does one "transition" into a non-binary gendered state? Again, I am no expert, but that would seem to change the meaning of what "transgendered" is.

If I am wrong, I would argue that such knowledge is not something the average person would be expected to know, at least not at this time.
I think you're wrong for a very small number of cases.

The whole point of non-binary gender understanding is that some people do not identify as either traditional gender.

A transman is certainly someone who was not biologically completely male but is in fact male. And a transwoman is someone who was not biologically female but is in fact a woman.

But I can certainly also picture other people who might well fall under the rubric of "trans" without identifying as male or female. Most obvious is a person born biologically intersex who may seek surgery but nonetheless identifies as genderqueer.

The key point is this: it's factually inaccurate to say, even in passing, that every person is either male or female.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #15  
Old 09-13-2017, 12:19 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Are you serious? Do you really expect posters to concern themselves with cisnormativity when they reply to someone?
I am serious. But I recognize that the gender binary is so embedded in our society that any expectation of eradicating it in speech in the near term is unlikely to be successful.

But I can chip away at the preconception by taking opportunities like this to point out when it is unconsciously used.

Quote:
The poster concerned was rightly warned for introducing such an immaterial labeling.
A point that I agree with, and made clear in my OP.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #16  
Old 09-13-2017, 01:49 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I think you're wrong for a very small number of cases.

The whole point of non-binary gender understanding is that some people do not identify as either traditional gender.

A transman is certainly someone who was not biologically completely male but is in fact male. And a transwoman is someone who was not biologically female but is in fact a woman.

But I can certainly also picture other people who might well fall under the rubric of "trans" without identifying as male or female. Most obvious is a person born biologically intersex who may seek surgery but nonetheless identifies as genderqueer.
Well, let's see what our residence experts have to say. The current locution is LGBTQ, where Q = queer or genderqueer. You seem to be suggesting that we need: LGBT[T-Q]Q, which seems a bit excessive.

Quote:
The key point is this: it's factually inaccurate to say, even in passing, that every person is either male or female.
Yep, and I said the same in my first post. However, it should be noted that Chronos did not say that in his moderator note.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-13-2017 at 01:50 PM.
  #17  
Old 09-13-2017, 01:59 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Well, let's see what our residence experts have to say. The current locution is LGBTQ, where Q = queer or genderqueer. You seem to be suggesting that we need: LGBT[T-Q]Q, which seems a bit excessive.
I don't say we need more initials.

I *do* say that we need to be reminded that gender is not necessarily binary. The existing initials, if read correctly, capture this.

Quote:
Yep, and I said the same in my first post. However, it should be noted that Chronos did not say that in his moderator note.
Well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos in his mod note
Reddy Mercury, any trans members are either guys or gals, and as such there's no reason to call them out separately.
I argue it's not necessarily correct to say that ANY trans members are either guys or girls (although it's likely to be true).
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #18  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:04 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,443
I don't know if Bricker is correct that some people identify as both trans and genderqueer. But if he is, there would be no need to modify LGBTQ to include such people. Many people consider themselves members of more than one category. You might be, for example, a bisexual transwoman. So even if you considered yourself trans and genderqueer, you wouldn't need an additional category for that.
  #19  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:36 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
I don't know if Bricker is correct that some people identify as both trans and genderqueer. But if he is, there would be no need to modify LGBTQ to include such people. Many people consider themselves members of more than one category. You might be, for example, a bisexual transwoman. So even if you considered yourself trans and genderqueer, you wouldn't need an additional category for that.
But "Q" is different. For instance, if you are "Q", can you also be "Bi"? My understanding is that "Q" is more of a catch-all phrase for everyone who doesn't fit into the LGBT categories. If we were being rigorous about such things (and I'm not sure we need to be), we would replace "Q" with "A" for asexual, "I" for intersex, etc. etc. etc.
  #20  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:49 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
But "Q" is different. For instance, if you are "Q", can you also be "Bi"? My understanding is that "Q" is more of a catch-all phrase for everyone who doesn't fit into the LGBT categories. If we were being rigorous about such things (and I'm not sure we need to be), we would replace "Q" with "A" for asexual, "I" for intersex, etc. etc. etc.
Q means, among other things, questioning, queer (regarding sexual orientation), and/or genderqueer. So, yes, you can be both Q and B. That is, even if you regard Q as to orientation as mutually exclusive with B, you could be Q as to gender identity and B as to sexual orientation.

But as you note, the whole spirit of the thing is that sexual and gender identities are fluid spectrums. So I don't think most people read that much into the precise boundaries of each category.
  #21  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:23 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,686
Again, there are non-binary people out there, and they're just as legitimate and have just as many rights as any of the rest of us. But "trans" is not an accurate description for those people, any more than "cis" is. "Trans" means "on the other side", and you're not on the "other side" if you're not on any side at all.
__________________
Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
--As You Like It, III:ii:328
Check out my dice in the Marketplace
  #22  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:33 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Q means, among other things, questioning, queer (regarding sexual orientation), and/or genderqueer. So, yes, you can be both Q and B. That is, even if you regard Q as to orientation as mutually exclusive with B, you could be Q as to gender identity and B as to sexual orientation.
Yeah, it's easy to get confused with labels that span gender as well as sexual orientation, and maybe the whole "trans" thing is complicated by the term having been coined back when people were used to thinking of gender being only male or female. I was thinking that although I've heard of trans-male and trans-female, I've never heard of trans-intersex or trans-asexual. But I guess there is no reason to assume such a category might not exist, which of course assumes we need a category for everything in the first place.

Quote:
But as you note, the whole spirit of the thing is that sexual and gender identities are fluid spectrums. So I don't think most people read that much into the precise boundaries of each category.
And as regards the rules of this MB, I think we should focus on whether a person is being sincere, is genuinely ignorant, or is trying the mock people. That's what matters rather than insisting everyone always get their genders and sexual orientations precisely correct.
  #23  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:04 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
And as regards the rules of this MB, I think we should focus on whether a person is being sincere, is genuinely ignorant, or is trying the mock people. That's what matters rather than insisting everyone always get their genders and sexual orientations precisely correct.
Concur completely with this, which is why I said I had no concerns with the moderating decision.

And it's why I highlighted my own comment as being more pedantic (in the good sense of the word) with respect to the issue.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #24  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:06 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,412
I'm not an expert, but I have talked to people online who identify as trans but not gender binary. They still "transitioned" in the sense that they stopped identifying as their birth gender. One I know got top surgery to remove the obvious indication that they were born female.

On the other hand, I've also seen some rants by trans* who thought they were muddying the waters and leading to people seeing trans men and trans women as not really men and women, respectively. (Though they are far more upset by crossdressers taking on the label, even though they acknowledge there are some overlap in issues for both.)

Either way, I am 1000% with Bricker on this, and in fact refused to join a set of message board until I found out they were going to add an "other" option to their required gender identification. (I presume for advertising purposes.) If it isn't required, I don't care. But requiring gender and enforcing the gender binary? I do not support that, and I told them so.
  #25  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:10 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Again, there are non-binary people out there, and they're just as legitimate and have just as many rights as any of the rest of us. But "trans" is not an accurate description for those people, any more than "cis" is. "Trans" means "on the other side", and you're not on the "other side" if you're not on any side at all.
I'm not sure I agree that this is a useful categorization. "Trans," can refer to "the other side," of one's biological sex, one's expected gender identity, or one's expected gender expression - at a minimum.

That is to say, an individual may be trans by virtue of a gender expression that differs from from one's assigned sex at birth, but be genderqueer with respect to gender identity.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #26  
Old 09-13-2017, 05:00 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 26,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
To expand: I think we, as a society, have an automatic and unexamined bias towards cisnormative gender-binary classifications.
Perhaps the bias is unexamined because the explanation is too simple and obvious: heterosexual men and women have contributed to the propagation of the species in the obvious ways, by siring and bearing children; others have not. But now medical science has improved to the point where that latter is changing.
__________________
Quartz
  #27  
Old 09-13-2017, 07:30 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Perhaps the bias is unexamined because the explanation is too simple and obvious: heterosexual men and women have contributed to the propagation of the species in the obvious ways, by siring and bearing children; others have not. But now medical science has improved to the point where that latter is changing.
What better reason to re-examine long-held assumptions, then? Classic physics worked fine for dropping stuff off Italian towers, but ultimately, as our understanding of the world grew, it became clear that the traditional models were insufficient.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #28  
Old 09-13-2017, 10:32 PM
Reluctant A. Reluctant A. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Q means, among other things, questioning, queer (regarding sexual orientation), and/or genderqueer. So, yes, you can be both Q and B. That is, even if you regard Q as to orientation as mutually exclusive with B, you could be Q as to gender identity and B as to sexual orientation.
That's interesting. I'd always been led to believe that gender-queer, as a nomenclature, specifically referred to people who identified as cisgender, but whom rejected social and cultural gender norms.
  #29  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:02 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reluctant A. View Post
That's interesting. I'd always been led to believe that gender-queer, as a nomenclature, specifically referred to people who identified as cisgender, but whom rejected social and cultural gender norms.
I'm not sure that's wrong. The point I was making was that Q encompasses more than just gender-queer. It includes people whose sexual orientation does not fit comfortably within a category, among other things.
  #30  
Old 09-14-2017, 09:24 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reluctant A. View Post
That's interesting. I'd always been led to believe that gender-queer, as a nomenclature, specifically referred to people who identified as cisgender, but whom rejected social and cultural gender norms.
Honest question: How can you identify as cisgendered and also reject social and cultural gender norms?
  #31  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:02 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,595
AFAICT because "cisgendered" is biology and "male/female/man/woman" is social and cultural. The nomenclature "cisgendered" is misleading, IOW, because having a penis or a vulva isn't a gender. It is similar to the notion that a person who comes out as a transwoman isn't changing genders - 'I was always a woman, now I am admitting it.'

Regards,
Shodan
  #32  
Old 09-14-2017, 12:35 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Honest question: How can you identify as cisgendered and also reject social and cultural gender norms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
AFAICT because "cisgendered" is biology and "male/female/man/woman" is social and cultural. The nomenclature "cisgendered" is misleading, IOW, because having a penis or a vulva isn't a gender. It is similar to the notion that a person who comes out as a transwoman isn't changing genders - 'I was always a woman, now I am admitting it.'
Yes. "Cisgendered," can mean that your biological sex at birth matches your gender identity but is not related or consistent with your gender expression.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #33  
Old 09-14-2017, 01:52 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes. "Cisgendered," can mean that your biological sex at birth matches your gender identity but is not related or consistent with your gender expression.
OK. That's even more confusing than the statement that generated my question, but I think at this point I'll just drop it.
  #34  
Old 09-14-2017, 08:51 PM
Reluctant A. Reluctant A. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
OK. That's even more confusing than the statement that generated my question, but I think at this point I'll just drop it.
The simplest, albeit crudest way I can think to express it: say you're a cis male who identifies as male, but you prefer to wear traditionally women's clothing, and/or feel more comfortable performing in traditionally/stereotypically 'feminine' roles, you would be gender-queer.
  #35  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:08 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Honest question: How can you identify as cisgendered and also reject social and cultural gender norms?
I think they're making it too complicated. Try these examples instead.

Even though I am a cisgender male, I could choose to reject the male gender norms. For example, I could go around wearing dresses and feminine-looking makeup.

I'd still be male. I'd still identify as a man. But I'd be rejecting the cultural/social gender norms that say I have to avoid those things because I'm a man.

Not everything has to be that absolute, either. A cisgender woman could just choose to be an engineer. Sure, female engineers aren't that uncommon. But it's still a role where the "norm" is that it is a man's job. (And, if you disagree, substitute some other job traditionally held by men.)

And, finally, there's just the idea that I might not be talking about myself. This is actually my position. I reject gender norms. I follow a lot of them myself, but only because I choose to. I reject the idea that I should see that guy wearing a dress and makeup as "weird" and "wrong." I reject the idea that men must be tough and women must be delicate flowers.

It's similar to how someone can be a feminist, but also want to be a traditional housewife with no outside job and who basically lets the husband take the lead on everything.
  #36  
Old 09-15-2017, 07:22 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,686
Quote:
Not everything has to be that absolute, either. A cisgender woman could just choose to be an engineer. Sure, female engineers aren't that uncommon. But it's still a role where the "norm" is that it is a man's job. (And, if you disagree, substitute some other job traditionally held by men.)
You can even have, for instance, someone born with ambiguous physical sexual traits, raised as a boy, who becomes an engineer, who's attracted to women, and who still describes herself as female.

EDIT: I hope that I'm not intruding on her privacy by saying that, but she's made all of that known publicly on the board.

Last edited by Chronos; 09-15-2017 at 07:24 AM.
  #37  
Old 09-17-2017, 11:29 AM
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Where the T-Girls Are...
Posts: 15,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You can even have, for instance, someone born with ambiguous physical sexual traits, raised as a boy, who becomes an engineer, who's attracted to women, and who still describes herself as female.

EDIT: I hope that I'm not intruding on her privacy by saying that, but she's made all of that known publicly on the board.
Do you mean me?
  #38  
Old 09-17-2017, 12:11 PM
Irishman Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 12,167
Chronos, you didn't mention a name or hint at anyone in specific until you made the disclaimer that suggests your example is a poster on this board. Mighta just left that out.
  #39  
Old 09-17-2017, 04:52 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,686
It'd be surprising if we had two members by that description, wouldn't it? I think I got it accurate. And again, my apologies if it was inappropriate to say so.
  #40  
Old 09-17-2017, 06:45 PM
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Where the T-Girls Are...
Posts: 15,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It'd be surprising if we had two members by that description, wouldn't it? I think I got it accurate. And again, my apologies if it was inappropriate to say so.
Neither inaccurate nor inappropriate. I just wondered. I've been very scarce for a while so for all I knew there was...another.
  #41  
Old 09-17-2017, 07:10 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
It'd be surprising if we had two members by that description, wouldn't it? I think I got it accurate. And again, my apologies if it was inappropriate to say so.
But without that addendum, lots of people would not know you are talking about someone who posts on this MB. Not that it's a big deal, but I think you're missing that part.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-17-2017 at 07:11 PM.
  #42  
Old 09-17-2017, 07:55 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,686
Yeah, I really didn't think that part through.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017