Gender

[tusayan]

My two bits.

Interesting topic and there are some interesting personal takes on the Western concept of gender, which is not universal to the human condition. There are many instances in non-Western societies of "multiple genders" recognized regardless of a persons anatomy. There are also multiple roles that people of either sex can take that may be looked on by Western observes as "gender bending" or switching roles but is seen quite differently by the group in question.

It's also a fact that in some other societies, assuming a gendered role does automatically mean that the person in question assumes the sexual lifestyle as well. For example, a woman choosing an otherwise male role in society is not necessarily sexually attracted to women -- she may have other motivations, feelings, aspirations.

Gender is something constructed by society, different from biological sex. The meaning of what is to be male in terms of gender will be different in different societies. Are there some general patterns? Sure. But it does not surprise me that people don't always view themselves as conforming to the "normal" concept of gender. Nor should we feel constricted to do so.

I'd say that I fit the general Western concept of male gender and never thought otherwise, but it never surprises me that there are a multitude of different personal perspectives on gender in the world.

[Veridical]

Gender to me is something rather interesting to recount.
For one, I feel that all females should be submissive, and all males, Dominant, but that's my personal feelings and I don't force these things on other people, especially not my friends. To this end, I feel that with women I'm generally more 'hard', in the sense that I feel they should be at their Masters' feet, and with men I am generally more 'soft', as in, I am more submissive toward them. My theory is rather hypocritical, I realize, because I basically just contradicted my first statement in saying that I tend to be dominant toward women and submissive toward men. I never claimed my logic was without flaw though, and I fully admit to being a filthy, dirty hypocrite.

Anyway. I differentiate with gender in that sense. With men I am attracted to Dominance. With women I am attracted to submissiveness. This is not to say I'm a switch. Far from it. It's just my views. I've never had the urge to smack some woman's ass, or pull her hair back and call her a dumb cunt. But I DO have the urge to have it done to me by the right guy. ;D

[blythe spirit]

Gender is something constructed by society, different from biological sex.

Gender = masculine or feminine. Sex = male or female.

Masculine = male. Feminine = female.

Are definitions different in other parts of the world, or philosophies?

[Dom Teacher]

I guess the point he was trying to make is that gender is more fluid than sex. There are multiple masculinities and there are multiple femininities. This is especially true when gender is compounded by class, race, and other aspects of identity.

[tusayan]

I guess the point he was trying to make is that gender is more fluid than sex. There are multiple masculinities and there are multiple femininities. This is especially true when gender is compounded by class, race, and other aspects of identity.

Yeah, something like that. You said a lot more concisely than I did. lol

[tusayan]

Gender = masculine or feminine. Sex = male or female.

Masculine = male. Feminine = female.

Are definitions different in other parts of the world, or philosophies?

Well, you can break it down into those categories (I would, anyway). But it's more complex than that (isn't everything? lol).

Even within the Western world, you have people (I'm thinking of some feminist theorists in this case) that would challenge those basic categories.

But, what I meant was that in every society there are norms accepted by the majority of people that define what is masculine and feminine. And these aren't the same across the board. They even change through time.

For example, in the US today the majority would probably not define a real man as a male who wears lace, is well perfumed, wears make-up, a powdered wig of long hair and is well versed in romances and ballroom dancing.

But, there are also third genders or multiple gender categories that are accepted in other cultures. And it has to do with the role people take on, not necessarily their sexuality (although it may involve sexuality as well).

This is really interesting to me compared to the orthodox Western view of two genders, two sexes, two different roles, one type of sexuality and anything is else is outside of the norm.

We're seeing in this thread, too, that individuals have their own take on how they accept or reject, enact or react to those norms.

[leo9]

For example, in the US today the majority would probably not define a real man as a male who wears lace, is well perfumed, wears make-up, a powdered wig of long hair and is well versed in romances and ballroom dancing.

In Britain a man who wears a powdered wig of long hair, a velvet robe and stockings is a High Court Judge, which just goes to show that the gender role of costume is a social construct.

I've been reading a book (The Sexual Rainbow, Olive Skene Johnson) which tries very hard to be an objective study of gender, but the snag that keeps tripping the author up is how to define "masculine" and "feminine" in human terms. You can study rats till the Grant Allocations come home, and if they mount other rats they're behaving in a "masculine" way, if they build nests they're "feminine"; but when you apply the same methods to humans you're trying to nail down smoke. Johnson admits herself that a lot of the behaviour defined as "masculine" or "feminine" in classic 1950s studies would today be just laughable.

Less than a hundred years ago, doctors seriously debated whether women could work in the professions without becoming infertile. We have come a long way from such a simplistic equation between gender role and sex, but perhaps we have to go a bit further and accept that body gender is only a small part of what makes a person what they are.

I'm physically male and happy to be so (though I admit to a sneaking envy of female orgasms.) I grew up in a household of females with a largely absent father, which according to old stereotypes should make me gay, or at least a male sub; I've tried both, but ended up primarily a het Dom. But I don't feel that kneeling at a woman's feet makes me "feminine", any more than beating her makes me "masculine".

[Saheli]

Gender is something constructed by society, different from biological sex.

Though we cannot deny the physical embodiment of gender, I believe that most of the idea of gender is psychological. Gender therefore has two separate parts. And though both parts interrelate, they do not necessarily cause each other. I can be born female but identify with more "masculine" things. Like tusayan said, what one culture defines as feminine or masculine another might not. So those terms are cultural and not definitive.

I personally tend to think more like guys do. I get along better with males, and they seem to understand me better than females, which makes me believe that I must think more like males than females. But I can't REALLY say for sure, since I've only been inside my mind. The point I'm making is that perhaps I identify more easily with males because I've spent more time with them. If I could restart my life and only be around females, perhaps I would identify with them more...if transgendered, maybe them...if homosexual or bi or any other type of group imaginable, maybe I would identify more with them.

I wonder whether we identify out of a certain level of comfort: "I have spent most of my time around __________(insert group here) so I understand them more; having that understanding makes me understand them in turn, which brings about a closeness I don't feel toward any other group. Therefore, I identify best with ________."

I don't think this an absolute...everything in the world has exceptions. But I wonder how often it occurs that we identify with a group, attributing it to 'who we are' when actually the connection might be best explained by how much we have invested in that identification, rather than the connection being inherent based on attributes we are born with.

What do you guys think?