The disappearance of Japan’s “third gender”(daily.jstor.org)
daily.jstor.org
The disappearance of Japan’s “third gender”
https://daily.jstor.org/the-disappearance-of-japans-third-gender/
106 comments
Furthermore, as a role, it was largely the result of barbaric cultural norms, and trying to reframe it as a "third gender" is ethically bereft.
In societies where women are treated as valuable familial property, normalized abuse of male children and adolescents is also often prevalent.
The same article could be written about Afghanistan's "dancing boys"; they have unique social positions, rules, hairstyles, and forms of dress, wearing clothes "similar to those worn by unmarried young women".
We rightfully recognize it as sexual slavery and child prostitution, not a third gender.
In societies where women are treated as valuable familial property, normalized abuse of male children and adolescents is also often prevalent.
The same article could be written about Afghanistan's "dancing boys"; they have unique social positions, rules, hairstyles, and forms of dress, wearing clothes "similar to those worn by unmarried young women".
We rightfully recognize it as sexual slavery and child prostitution, not a third gender.
That's an interesting parallel with St. Paul's position on sexual morality. He appears to condemn varieties of homosexual behaviour, but it's in the context of institutionalised behaviour in Roman society which possibly parallels that in Afghanistan today.
A communication misfire I see frequently across perceived ideological boundaries may be summarized as such:
Person A: "social phenomenon XYZ is being abused / misappropriated / spun in a way by people with power"
Everyone else: "you are a bigot who opposes XYZ!"
Person A: reasons that if honest self-expression and concern expressed with nuance yields nothing but insults in response that maybe their original position was too cautious...
Person A: "social phenomenon XYZ is being abused / misappropriated / spun in a way by people with power"
Everyone else: "you are a bigot who opposes XYZ!"
Person A: reasons that if honest self-expression and concern expressed with nuance yields nothing but insults in response that maybe their original position was too cautious...
Interestingly, St. Paul actually condemns both "homosexual" behavior and 'fornication' in very similar terms, and the latter is probably a reference to the practically institutionalized pandering of female slaves as prostitutes that was also a major part of Graeco-Roman sexual norms.
> As an object of desire for men and women, they had sex with both genders. The intricate social rules that governed the appearance of Wakashu also regulated their sexual behavior. With adult men, Wakashu assumed a passive role, with women, a more active one. Relationships between two Wakashu were not tolerated. Any sexual relationship with men ended after a Wakashu completed his coming-of-age ceremony.
> Their most important relationship would be with an older man, which often had both a sexual and a teacher-student element.
That sounds pretty much like a gender role?
> Their most important relationship would be with an older man, which often had both a sexual and a teacher-student element.
That sounds pretty much like a gender role?
I think there’s a train of thought in western (and particularly Americanized society) to see everything as some form of gender grouping when it’s not.
I’ve also seen people who are overly prescriptive and “liberal” with gender terms being offended on behalf of other cultures. Like people being angry about calling Thai ladyboys “ladyboys” and not “women”, when basically every ladyboy self-identifies as a ladyboy.
Most people don’t go around thinking “I do X so that means I must be B gender.” But that’s increasingly common in western society, especially among progressives, and it’s wild, to be frank.
I’ve also seen people who are overly prescriptive and “liberal” with gender terms being offended on behalf of other cultures. Like people being angry about calling Thai ladyboys “ladyboys” and not “women”, when basically every ladyboy self-identifies as a ladyboy.
Most people don’t go around thinking “I do X so that means I must be B gender.” But that’s increasingly common in western society, especially among progressives, and it’s wild, to be frank.
Its strange you say that. Strict gender roles is considered a conservative thought in the US. Thinking of gender as a fluid thing would be considered leftist view.
The introspection of gender roles, as in it being a social construct we can examine and change is also a leftist view, so maybe you're getting that from the fact we're discussing sex and gender at all?
The introspection of gender roles, as in it being a social construct we can examine and change is also a leftist view, so maybe you're getting that from the fact we're discussing sex and gender at all?
> when basically every ladyboy self-identifies as a ladyboy.
Do they? It seems oddly English for a Thai practice, but they're so tourist-oriented that I guess that really could be what they say.
The Chinese term is 人妖, which if nothing else explicitly identifies them as outside the realm of normal human behavior.
Do they? It seems oddly English for a Thai practice, but they're so tourist-oriented that I guess that really could be what they say.
The Chinese term is 人妖, which if nothing else explicitly identifies them as outside the realm of normal human behavior.
The only reason Westerns keep thinking this is due to their limited exposure to particular aspects of Asian culture. The phenomenon of "ladyboys" is widespread all across Asia.
The second supposition, that "ladyboys are ladyboys" is simply wrong. There are many ladyboys that see prostitution as a quick, simple way to earn a living. The economics of prostitution (supply-demand) basically mean many of them choose to assume a role as a ladyboy for a while, and when that part of their life is over they just cut their hair, stop using make-up and high heels and back to the "respected" society.
I can think of nothing more racist than these continued attempts to fit Western models of thought, or theory, onto other societies and their norms and values and then categorize them according to _our_ values. If we really understood it, we would accept it for what it is, and try to understand it from the Asian perspective.
The second supposition, that "ladyboys are ladyboys" is simply wrong. There are many ladyboys that see prostitution as a quick, simple way to earn a living. The economics of prostitution (supply-demand) basically mean many of them choose to assume a role as a ladyboy for a while, and when that part of their life is over they just cut their hair, stop using make-up and high heels and back to the "respected" society.
I can think of nothing more racist than these continued attempts to fit Western models of thought, or theory, onto other societies and their norms and values and then categorize them according to _our_ values. If we really understood it, we would accept it for what it is, and try to understand it from the Asian perspective.
Wow, what's with vitriol towards “western” shit. Nothing you're bitching about is unique to Asia. Close-minded people are close-minded everywhere. Anything that isn't the prevailing norm is going to be demonized.
And while “ladyboys” aren't very common in the west there are equivalents. Gay for pay is a thing in the porn industry and people who can do it make bank.
And while “ladyboys” aren't very common in the west there are equivalents. Gay for pay is a thing in the porn industry and people who can do it make bank.
Look mommie! A cyber stalker!
It's funny how within 3 comments you're just all over the map on what can and cannot offend you or... heaven forbid... comprehend the pearls of wisdom you keep dropping.
Not 2 comments previously you defensively tried claiming you weren't maligning "all" Japanese women... just 2 of them... and here you are engaging in a worse type of assumptions... "vitriol toward 'western' shit."
AAAAAAaaaaaand there you go again back to the inaccurate equivocations about what is and isn't in Asia... vis-a-vis... the West.
Dude.... happy trails. You enjoy your tea in the Fuhrer Bunker. The RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!
LMAO
Where do I block trolls on this thing.
It's funny how within 3 comments you're just all over the map on what can and cannot offend you or... heaven forbid... comprehend the pearls of wisdom you keep dropping.
Not 2 comments previously you defensively tried claiming you weren't maligning "all" Japanese women... just 2 of them... and here you are engaging in a worse type of assumptions... "vitriol toward 'western' shit."
AAAAAAaaaaaand there you go again back to the inaccurate equivocations about what is and isn't in Asia... vis-a-vis... the West.
Dude.... happy trails. You enjoy your tea in the Fuhrer Bunker. The RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!
LMAO
Where do I block trolls on this thing.
> Most people don’t go around thinking “I do X so that means I must be B gender.”
It’s not completely wild if you recognize that genders are socially-constructed categories consisting of a set of behaviors (stereotypes). If you behave in those ways you could reasonably declare yourself to be that gender. This also requires you to recognise that sex is a completely different thing to gender - that is not socially constructed and you can’t declare yourself to be one of the sexes based on behavior or feelings.
It’s not completely wild if you recognize that genders are socially-constructed categories consisting of a set of behaviors (stereotypes). If you behave in those ways you could reasonably declare yourself to be that gender. This also requires you to recognise that sex is a completely different thing to gender - that is not socially constructed and you can’t declare yourself to be one of the sexes based on behavior or feelings.
Isn't that his point? That it's applying a western social construct to explain a non-western social phenomenon.
Remember: considering that gender is a social construct is also a social construct. It's social constructs all the way down.
Remember: considering that gender is a social construct is also a social construct. It's social constructs all the way down.
[deleted]
> I think there’s a train of thought in western (and particularly Americanized society) to see everything as some form of gender grouping when it’s not.
What? Seeing everything as gender grouping? You can't be serious... where the hell are these people who think a pint of milk is a gender and are they really somehow powerful?
Sounds you've heard a few hot takes on the internet and then concluded that the whole field of gender discourse is that. When you look at our institutions, politicians, companies, even trans acceptance is something that is a struggle. And that's just a small step, never mind accepting gender fluidity.
Painting the struggles of people who do not fit into the western hegemonic gender binary thinking with such broad strokes does nothing good. The issue is much more complex and real than just "people are making up genders".
What? Seeing everything as gender grouping? You can't be serious... where the hell are these people who think a pint of milk is a gender and are they really somehow powerful?
Sounds you've heard a few hot takes on the internet and then concluded that the whole field of gender discourse is that. When you look at our institutions, politicians, companies, even trans acceptance is something that is a struggle. And that's just a small step, never mind accepting gender fluidity.
Painting the struggles of people who do not fit into the western hegemonic gender binary thinking with such broad strokes does nothing good. The issue is much more complex and real than just "people are making up genders".
That’s a role that can only be assumed by one of the gender, which is not the same IMO.
To pull out an analogy straight from the trash, teen girls also have a special position in Japan today. Coupled with the school uniform they have a social niche that is apart from any others, but I wouldn’t call that a “gender” nor “gender role”.
To pull out an analogy straight from the trash, teen girls also have a special position in Japan today. Coupled with the school uniform they have a social niche that is apart from any others, but I wouldn’t call that a “gender” nor “gender role”.
Would you call the Greek erômenos a gender role, too? Now, this would actually help make sense of the otherwise puzzling notion of 'effeminacy', which was quite important to the Classical world but tends to be disregarded nowadays. So I'm not saying that it couldn't be a worthwhile perspective, it's just not the most common one.
Gender role != gender
Author explicitly states ‘third’, suggesting there’s male, female, and wakashu, which is not the case. It’s male and female, with wakashu as a subset of male.
I’m convinced the author is just trying to get attention and be provocative/make a political statement.
Author explicitly states ‘third’, suggesting there’s male, female, and wakashu, which is not the case. It’s male and female, with wakashu as a subset of male.
I’m convinced the author is just trying to get attention and be provocative/make a political statement.
Your "filter" to this subject is the author. You are applying the limits of the "filter" to the subject matter. Like saying... well, everything _is_ red, when looking through a red filter.
It sounds a lot more like sexual abuse to me.
Small nit here (and a common misunderstanding among non-jews): one becomes a bar/bat mitzvah
On your "bar/ bat mitzvah" correction: The liberal, american jews I know don't talk this way.
And for example here's a quote from Seinfeld:
"Elaine: I need someone to go with me to Mr. Lippman's son's Bar Mitzvah."
And for example here's a quote from Seinfeld:
"Elaine: I need someone to go with me to Mr. Lippman's son's Bar Mitzvah."
Thank you!
So a bar/bat mitzvah is a title or a state of being, and not a party/ritual?
So a bar/bat mitzvah is a title or a state of being, and not a party/ritual?
Yes, exactly. It happens to you whether you are aware of it or not, although it is typically celebrated. Think of it like becoming 18 in the US - one day you wake up and you're old enough to buy cigarettes and are generally responsible for your actions. That's what bar/bat mitzvah are.
I had thought that a mitzvah was a religious duty or deed.
jlawson(1)
Another quote from the article:
" However, “youth” in Edo Japan must be understood as a more fluid term, one that is not connected solely to biological age. "
And this is why I am so very critical towards Japan. After living there, working there and being together with Japanese women I have changed my very positive opinion towards Japan.
This paedophilia thing is very big there. I can name so many instances where it just grossed me out - and I am not talking about a 29 year old dude who dates some 17 year old girl. I am speaking about real paedophilia: starting from the school uniforms in middle school over anime to laws. I was myself molested as a kid and discussed this with my Japanese ex girlfriend. Her point was: "well, this man just liked you, it is a wonderful thing".
Work culture, social pressure, blindly following orders, treating women bad, racism, ultra conservative government, the way they treat their historical debt towards Korea and China and so many things more.
It annoys me even more that so many fellow Western people are pro-Japan and adore it and love Japanese people so much. At the same time you see the same Western people who are against China, have hidden racism against the Chinese. Double-standard is very huge.
My point is: Japan has some good aspects, but most of the glue that keeps this archaic society together is worse than in societies and countries. This is my personal experience and I am triggered every time when people fetishize Japan.
" However, “youth” in Edo Japan must be understood as a more fluid term, one that is not connected solely to biological age. "
And this is why I am so very critical towards Japan. After living there, working there and being together with Japanese women I have changed my very positive opinion towards Japan.
This paedophilia thing is very big there. I can name so many instances where it just grossed me out - and I am not talking about a 29 year old dude who dates some 17 year old girl. I am speaking about real paedophilia: starting from the school uniforms in middle school over anime to laws. I was myself molested as a kid and discussed this with my Japanese ex girlfriend. Her point was: "well, this man just liked you, it is a wonderful thing".
Work culture, social pressure, blindly following orders, treating women bad, racism, ultra conservative government, the way they treat their historical debt towards Korea and China and so many things more.
It annoys me even more that so many fellow Western people are pro-Japan and adore it and love Japanese people so much. At the same time you see the same Western people who are against China, have hidden racism against the Chinese. Double-standard is very huge.
My point is: Japan has some good aspects, but most of the glue that keeps this archaic society together is worse than in societies and countries. This is my personal experience and I am triggered every time when people fetishize Japan.
I am one of those who love Japanese pop culture, but you are 100% correct.
It very nearly soured me on Japan serval times as you mention it has you.
Many, not just questionable, but outright disturbing practices make it a very bipolar place to live.
The most vivid thing I personally experienced was going clubbing in Osaka then after closing running into a pair of girls I was dancing with at some point and I asked why they weren’t interested and the reply was that I wasn’t (physically) aggressive enough and asked too many questions. They literally didn’t want me to let them say no, so they wouldn’t have to take “responsibility” of going with me.
That night _really_ turned me off of submissiveness as being an attractive personality trait
It very nearly soured me on Japan serval times as you mention it has you.
Many, not just questionable, but outright disturbing practices make it a very bipolar place to live.
The most vivid thing I personally experienced was going clubbing in Osaka then after closing running into a pair of girls I was dancing with at some point and I asked why they weren’t interested and the reply was that I wasn’t (physically) aggressive enough and asked too many questions. They literally didn’t want me to let them say no, so they wouldn’t have to take “responsibility” of going with me.
That night _really_ turned me off of submissiveness as being an attractive personality trait
And more generally it makes me still hate the Japanese love of 仕方ない “It can't be helped” or 我慢 “persevere/endure it” as an all-purpose cop-outs.
Everything bad is either the first or if it's REALLY bad then they pull out the second.
It's better to just put up with it a push through than make waves.
Everything bad is either the first or if it's REALLY bad then they pull out the second.
It's better to just put up with it a push through than make waves.
You know what would be really nice... instead of cultivating an opinion about something you just don't yet understand, to declare, wow, I really don't understand this... and why don't I try to understand the multitude of factors that are at play here... instead of cultivating an opinion that is mostly based on erroneous assumptions.
YOUR socialization process, you think of it as "dating," doesn't match their socialization process. You conclude they are--insert adjectives--instead of using the opportunity to try to understand the differences, and possibilities, that are being presented to you.
To conclude that Japanese women are submissive, because _you_ don't quite understand the intricacies of Japanese social norms, values, customs, language....
We travel to explore and _expand_ our understanding of the world and the human condition, not to confirm our prejudices. Try it.
YOUR socialization process, you think of it as "dating," doesn't match their socialization process. You conclude they are--insert adjectives--instead of using the opportunity to try to understand the differences, and possibilities, that are being presented to you.
To conclude that Japanese women are submissive, because _you_ don't quite understand the intricacies of Japanese social norms, values, customs, language....
We travel to explore and _expand_ our understanding of the world and the human condition, not to confirm our prejudices. Try it.
WTF?
No, I didn't conclude all Japanese women are submissive. I met two who embodied the “ideal of the submissive woman,” which creeped me out completely and showed me how awful that is as an actual personality trait. That's literally what I said.
But you're naive if you don't think there is a deeply ingrained culture of perpetuating learned helplessness because of Japan’s highly hierarchical society or Japanese men and women don't hold up submissiveness as a desirable trait in themselves or their partners. It's every bit as widespread as the perfect housewife image from the 1950s used to be in the US.
No, I didn't conclude all Japanese women are submissive. I met two who embodied the “ideal of the submissive woman,” which creeped me out completely and showed me how awful that is as an actual personality trait. That's literally what I said.
But you're naive if you don't think there is a deeply ingrained culture of perpetuating learned helplessness because of Japan’s highly hierarchical society or Japanese men and women don't hold up submissiveness as a desirable trait in themselves or their partners. It's every bit as widespread as the perfect housewife image from the 1950s used to be in the US.
You said...
<I>I met two who embodied the “ideal of the submissive woman,"</I>
... which plays into a stereotype about Asian women, and Japanese women in particular whether you were generalizing or NOT. You conveniently slap a label on 2 girls you met for a few hours and came to ridiculous conclusions because YOU don't understand Japanese culture. Instead of pausing for a second to think about this, you want to double down on a sloppy inaccurate generalization regarding two girls that conveniently fits into the stereotype about ALL Asian women and pat yourself on the shoulder for not getting it, at all, then polish it off by suggesting I'M the naive one.
LMAO
Have at it. Byyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee
<I>I met two who embodied the “ideal of the submissive woman,"</I>
... which plays into a stereotype about Asian women, and Japanese women in particular whether you were generalizing or NOT. You conveniently slap a label on 2 girls you met for a few hours and came to ridiculous conclusions because YOU don't understand Japanese culture. Instead of pausing for a second to think about this, you want to double down on a sloppy inaccurate generalization regarding two girls that conveniently fits into the stereotype about ALL Asian women and pat yourself on the shoulder for not getting it, at all, then polish it off by suggesting I'M the naive one.
LMAO
Have at it. Byyyyyeeeeeeeeeeee
You do know you'll find people like that literally on every country, specially in a clubbing setting.
Yes, that’s why I called out submissiveness not Japanese women.
Japan is far from the only country that extolls the virtues of submissiveness. But this was my first time experiencing the implications of that in person and it creeped me out.
Japan is far from the only country that extolls the virtues of submissiveness. But this was my first time experiencing the implications of that in person and it creeped me out.
Really how ubiquitous is this though? Pretty much everything you mention I've seen in western countries as well. I've heard people joke about this, but I don't know how true it is in reality. It's hard to judge based on anecdotes and trends, looking at America's treatment of child stars there's some very strange stuff going on in the western world as well
Spend some time on the commie app TicToc. Asian parents, usually upper-middle class mommies, set-up accounts for their prepubescent daughters to act like horny ghetto alley cats and bump and grind in skimpy clothes to the adoration of millions. This is not a Japan-only thing. The framework of laws press this behavior into different avenues, but it's widespread across Asia. If Japan "grossed you out," go live somewhere in Southeast Asia. You can still negotiate a good price for the kid of your choosing directly from the parents. Read up on Arthur C. Clarke.
Btw... I don't have "hidden racism" against Chinese... I have open hatred of the Communist Chinese Party. You're comparing organized industrial scale cannibalism to different sexual mores held on a societal level .... cough .....
Btw... I don't have "hidden racism" against Chinese... I have open hatred of the Communist Chinese Party. You're comparing organized industrial scale cannibalism to different sexual mores held on a societal level .... cough .....
I don't think the person you're replying to would disagree with your sentiment, but that doesn't excuse dismissing their opinion and experience because it's worse elsewhere.
They are pointing out that there's plenty in Japan to make you sick and disgusted with them as a society, but Japan does a great job with the media so they have a mostly undeserved glowing reputation internationally.
You want to hate on China. More power to you, but that doesn't excuse Japan from wrong doing. As a society is has TONS of deep social issues that cause massive damage to it's own citizens and worldwide.
They are pointing out that there's plenty in Japan to make you sick and disgusted with them as a society, but Japan does a great job with the media so they have a mostly undeserved glowing reputation internationally.
You want to hate on China. More power to you, but that doesn't excuse Japan from wrong doing. As a society is has TONS of deep social issues that cause massive damage to it's own citizens and worldwide.
See. Game. Set. Match. You're playing semantics games for the sake of it, or because you insist you are "right."
I tried gently to nudge you back to reconsidering that there was a possibility that maybe, just MAYBE... you weren't right... but here you are... proclaiming....
>"there's plenty in Japan to make you sick and disgusted with >them as a society"
One lazy scroll ago I could swear you were proclaiming your innocence regarding sloppy generalizations... "I wasn't talking about alllllllll Japanese women... just these two I happened to meet," ...
BUT.... lucky for us.... no, you weren't referring to JUST Japanese women, but--this next part is called paraphrasing-- this is when we reword what you said to crystalize the essence of your statement: there's plenty in Japan... to make you sick with them... as a society."
You have fun with your misconceptions. Make sure you travel to continue to confirm your biases and misunderstandings about humans. Happy trails.
Me... I've always thought Japan was FASCINATING and blew my mind... but... you know, I'm just naive. Not like you. Oh wise one.
I tried gently to nudge you back to reconsidering that there was a possibility that maybe, just MAYBE... you weren't right... but here you are... proclaiming....
>"there's plenty in Japan to make you sick and disgusted with >them as a society"
One lazy scroll ago I could swear you were proclaiming your innocence regarding sloppy generalizations... "I wasn't talking about alllllllll Japanese women... just these two I happened to meet," ...
BUT.... lucky for us.... no, you weren't referring to JUST Japanese women, but--this next part is called paraphrasing-- this is when we reword what you said to crystalize the essence of your statement: there's plenty in Japan... to make you sick with them... as a society."
You have fun with your misconceptions. Make sure you travel to continue to confirm your biases and misunderstandings about humans. Happy trails.
Me... I've always thought Japan was FASCINATING and blew my mind... but... you know, I'm just naive. Not like you. Oh wise one.
ps -
"As a society is has TONS of deep social issues that cause massive damage to it's own citizens and worldwide."
Yes. Industrial scale cannibalism and submissive giggly girls. Very, very, very similar. Oh, and WRONG!!!! DEADLY EVEN!!!!
Please mods... make this person go away. Pllllllleeeeease....
"As a society is has TONS of deep social issues that cause massive damage to it's own citizens and worldwide."
Yes. Industrial scale cannibalism and submissive giggly girls. Very, very, very similar. Oh, and WRONG!!!! DEADLY EVEN!!!!
Please mods... make this person go away. Pllllllleeeeease....
Similar thing happened to Hijras in India during the British rule... but they didn't completely disappear and are still around.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What is the point of this article? More 'minor attracted person' propaganda? More tries to push pedophilia into normality? Key points: "Gender roles in Edo Japan recognized an in-between position for young men, called Wakashu, that was erased as Japan westernized.", "Wakashu usually ranged between seven to early twenties in age....", "Wakashu were connected to sexuality. As youth, they were considered largely free from the burdens and responsibilities of adulthood but regarded as sexually mature... " so it used to be perfectly fine having sex with 7 years old kids before the narrow minded westerners "invaded" Japan.
This article is not about gender, is about normalizing pedophilia.
This article is not about gender, is about normalizing pedophilia.
It's an article that factually reports an aspect of Japanese history, it's not "pushing" anything. The only point it makes is about LGBTQ+:
"Multifaceted gender expressions and LGBTQ+ rights are constantly negotiated and contested. While in recent decades, gender definitions and LGBTQ+ rights have expanded in many parts of the world, Wakashu illustrate how quickly more open and fluid understandings of gender and sex can be repressed and erased."
"Multifaceted gender expressions and LGBTQ+ rights are constantly negotiated and contested. While in recent decades, gender definitions and LGBTQ+ rights have expanded in many parts of the world, Wakashu illustrate how quickly more open and fluid understandings of gender and sex can be repressed and erased."
Classical antiquity also had different gender roles. I think the clash of cultures narration in the sense of nations is not helpful and could be an easy quick conclusion from the article. It must be made clear that it is part of a nationalistic narration that things are 'naturally' one way in 'our' culture. Ethics and moral need to be always be renegotiated and adjusted. Going back to the past is often not a good idea. Understanding that things can change is a good thing and should be motivating. However, examples of societies that moved towards multifaceted gender would be more encouraging.
I think (one of) the article purpose(s) is psychological desensitisation to the horror of what pedophilia is by having a different main narrative - number of genders, gender fluidity and introducing it as extra.
I see how you jumped to that conclusion, but I think you're conflating two things. First, back then it was sadly very common for children to be considered sexuality mature (age of consent in some European countries is still 13). That's been largely resolved by legal frameworks today (paedophiles still exists, but everyone agrees what they're doing is bad)
And the other idea you're conflating is that (which I think the article dispels) is that feudal Japan consider youth to be tied to age. For all we know, it might be a concept unfamiliar to us westerners that got projected onto "youth" to make the article approachable to Western audiences.
And the other idea you're conflating is that (which I think the article dispels) is that feudal Japan consider youth to be tied to age. For all we know, it might be a concept unfamiliar to us westerners that got projected onto "youth" to make the article approachable to Western audiences.
In the US, sometimes less
"In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age [of consent] at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895)."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent>
"In the United States, as late as the 1880s most states set the minimum age [of consent] at ten to twelve (in Delaware, it was seven in 1895)."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent>
cosmin800(2)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I’m not sure the Japanese concept here is the same thing as what we call trans today. This article seems to portray a more societally enforced “role” for this third gender rather than treating it as an “expression” or “identity”. But I do wonder why Western (progressive / left / whatever) views are insistent on additional genders being hierarchically related to traditional genders (like transwomen being a subset of women) whereas older societies like some Asian ones have a catch-all third gender approach that placed them alongside the two typical genders. To me the latter makes more sense, because there are clear and significant differences between trans and non trans people, so having a new category feels consistent and natural.
> But I do wonder why Western (progressive / left / whatever) views are insistent on additional genders being hierarchically related to traditional genders (like transwomen being a subset of women)
Er, they aren’t.
First of all, “transwoman” (or, as many will inform you is correct “trans woman”) isn’t an additional gender. The gender is “woman”. “trans” is not a gender identity, it is a statement about the relation of the gender identity to the socially ascribed gender (often called “sex”) assigned at birth.
Second of all, the actual “additional” genders, i.e., those outside of the binary, are, well, outside of the binary, not “heirarchically related” or even mapped to that binary.
Er, they aren’t.
First of all, “transwoman” (or, as many will inform you is correct “trans woman”) isn’t an additional gender. The gender is “woman”. “trans” is not a gender identity, it is a statement about the relation of the gender identity to the socially ascribed gender (often called “sex”) assigned at birth.
Second of all, the actual “additional” genders, i.e., those outside of the binary, are, well, outside of the binary, not “heirarchically related” or even mapped to that binary.
If transwoman = woman, wouldn't it logically follow that woman = transwoman?
If all dogs are animals, it wouldn't follow that all animals are dogs
Except in this analogy it would be calling dogs human, not animals. Transwoman is not a subset of woman, it is a different thing entirely. Not meant in a pejorative way, just definitionally. That is unless we are just equating gender to personality type, since using this approach makes gender essentially undefinable. It means goth or geek or whatever can be called genders.
I can understand the point, but I do not agree. While that definition is possible, I think that it is unnecessary. "Woman" is the gender (she/her/etc, and commonly associated with many social traits, too), and "transwoman" means (as far as I understand it) a woman who is assigned as male at birth (whether or not she is male now, or even if that question has a clear answer, which in some cases it doesn't). (Another possibility, that some writers had used in the past, is using the pronouns as nouns. That might not work in all languages, though.)
If being biologically male/female is what is relevant instead of gender (grammatically male/female) then you can say that, but that isn't really that simple anyways (and the sex is not quite as well-defined as many people say it is anyways) and so it is better to specify specifically what is needed. I once saw the mention of a medical form that instead of male/female it says "persons with [some organ or condition, I forget which one]". It isn't due to political correctness; there is an actual good reason, which is that presumably this is the specific aspect which is important for this medical procedure.
However, "mother" and "father" are different. You could use these words in the biological meaning or in the adoptive meaning (even if they are your biological parents). (Maybe there should be other words, e.g. maybe "mom" and "dad" for the "adoptive" meanings instead.) If adoptive, then it would seem to be related to gender (and is unclear if the gender does not apply, then what?). If biological, then it is different, and has to do with function instead of with grammar/social. If you are pregnant with your child then you will be that child's mother, regardless of your sex and/or gender in your past, present, and future. Consider hypothetically, that somehow somehow can be changed and have both reproductive functions, that you might be one child's mother and another child's father at the same time!
I do not understand how is "goth", "geek", etc as a gender, since gender is a grammatical construct. What will be the pronouns, prefixes/suffixes (for languages that use them), titles, etc (if any)? (Maybe there is one, but if so, I do not know what it is.) Doctors may use "Dr." in front of their name, but not pronouns for them, so even though there is that I wouldn't call that a gender, either.
I had once mentioned the possibility of someone's gender being different in different languages; I don't know whether or not any people choose to do that, though.
If being biologically male/female is what is relevant instead of gender (grammatically male/female) then you can say that, but that isn't really that simple anyways (and the sex is not quite as well-defined as many people say it is anyways) and so it is better to specify specifically what is needed. I once saw the mention of a medical form that instead of male/female it says "persons with [some organ or condition, I forget which one]". It isn't due to political correctness; there is an actual good reason, which is that presumably this is the specific aspect which is important for this medical procedure.
However, "mother" and "father" are different. You could use these words in the biological meaning or in the adoptive meaning (even if they are your biological parents). (Maybe there should be other words, e.g. maybe "mom" and "dad" for the "adoptive" meanings instead.) If adoptive, then it would seem to be related to gender (and is unclear if the gender does not apply, then what?). If biological, then it is different, and has to do with function instead of with grammar/social. If you are pregnant with your child then you will be that child's mother, regardless of your sex and/or gender in your past, present, and future. Consider hypothetically, that somehow somehow can be changed and have both reproductive functions, that you might be one child's mother and another child's father at the same time!
I do not understand how is "goth", "geek", etc as a gender, since gender is a grammatical construct. What will be the pronouns, prefixes/suffixes (for languages that use them), titles, etc (if any)? (Maybe there is one, but if so, I do not know what it is.) Doctors may use "Dr." in front of their name, but not pronouns for them, so even though there is that I wouldn't call that a gender, either.
I had once mentioned the possibility of someone's gender being different in different languages; I don't know whether or not any people choose to do that, though.
>I do not understand how is "goth", "geek", etc as a gender, since gender is a grammatical construct.
I guess the question is...why not?
Nobody seems to be able to clearly define what a gender actually is. What are the definitional requirements/restrictions for something to be considered a gender? How many genders are there, and where I can I find a list of them so that I may better understand what is and isn't a gender?
I guess the question is...why not?
Nobody seems to be able to clearly define what a gender actually is. What are the definitional requirements/restrictions for something to be considered a gender? How many genders are there, and where I can I find a list of them so that I may better understand what is and isn't a gender?
[deleted]
> If transwoman = woman, wouldn't it logically follow that woman = transwoman?
A trans woman's gender identity (and ascribed gender in a system which ascribes gender based on identity when known) is just woman (or, rather, female; “woman” mixes in another orthogonal category to gender, age.) A trans woman’s relationship of gender identity to gender ascribed at birth is trans. “trans woman” is not a separate gender from “woman” (or “cis woman”), in much the same way that “woman” is not a separate gender from “girl” or “Black woman” is not a separate gender from “Asian woman”.
Saying that Black women are not a separate, subordinate gender from women is not saying “woman = Black woman”.
A trans woman's gender identity (and ascribed gender in a system which ascribes gender based on identity when known) is just woman (or, rather, female; “woman” mixes in another orthogonal category to gender, age.) A trans woman’s relationship of gender identity to gender ascribed at birth is trans. “trans woman” is not a separate gender from “woman” (or “cis woman”), in much the same way that “woman” is not a separate gender from “girl” or “Black woman” is not a separate gender from “Asian woman”.
Saying that Black women are not a separate, subordinate gender from women is not saying “woman = Black woman”.
This line of thinking requires us to pretend there is no connection between sex and gender. But that raises bigger issues.
For one, if gender has no relation to sex then what is it? Is tomboy a gender? Hipster? Geek? If not, why not?
Also, if we are going to assert that there is no relation to sex, then why are the acronyms FtM and MtF used in the trans community? Male & female are biological sexes, not genders. So how does one transition between biological sexes?
Not trying to be combative, just not clear on how these issues are handled in the community. I'm an outsider so I know that I may just not have the information. Looking for clarity.
For one, if gender has no relation to sex then what is it? Is tomboy a gender? Hipster? Geek? If not, why not?
Also, if we are going to assert that there is no relation to sex, then why are the acronyms FtM and MtF used in the trans community? Male & female are biological sexes, not genders. So how does one transition between biological sexes?
Not trying to be combative, just not clear on how these issues are handled in the community. I'm an outsider so I know that I may just not have the information. Looking for clarity.
> This line of thinking requires us to pretend there is no connection between sex and gender.
No, it doesn't.
In fact, the view of gender identity as innate is perfectly consistent with viewing it as one of many sex traits (whose distribution with regard to other sex traits is itself consistent with the bimodal-but-not-binary distribution of other sex traits.)
> why are the acronyms FtM and MtF used in the trans community?
mostly, AFAICT, they aren't; it's been years since I've seen them used except by people outside of the community and/or in marketing to the trans fetishist audience.
I don't see trans people describing themselves as MtF, I see those who that label used by others would apply to describing themselves as “woman”, “trans woman”, or “(trans) woman who is AMAB (assigned male at birth)”.
> Male & female are biological sexes, not genders.
No, they are the names of both biological sexes [0] and the genders stereotypically ascribed based on sex traits. It is inconvenient that the names are identical, but they serve as both, because of historical sex essentialism in assignment of ascribed social roles. MtF and FtM refer to (imposed ascribed gender) to (gender identity and aspirational ascribed gender).
[0] arguably, though arguably the mapping of multidimensional sex traits to binary “sexes” is itself really just another system of ascribed gender.
No, it doesn't.
In fact, the view of gender identity as innate is perfectly consistent with viewing it as one of many sex traits (whose distribution with regard to other sex traits is itself consistent with the bimodal-but-not-binary distribution of other sex traits.)
> why are the acronyms FtM and MtF used in the trans community?
mostly, AFAICT, they aren't; it's been years since I've seen them used except by people outside of the community and/or in marketing to the trans fetishist audience.
I don't see trans people describing themselves as MtF, I see those who that label used by others would apply to describing themselves as “woman”, “trans woman”, or “(trans) woman who is AMAB (assigned male at birth)”.
> Male & female are biological sexes, not genders.
No, they are the names of both biological sexes [0] and the genders stereotypically ascribed based on sex traits. It is inconvenient that the names are identical, but they serve as both, because of historical sex essentialism in assignment of ascribed social roles. MtF and FtM refer to (imposed ascribed gender) to (gender identity and aspirational ascribed gender).
[0] arguably, though arguably the mapping of multidimensional sex traits to binary “sexes” is itself really just another system of ascribed gender.
>It is in inconvenient that the names are identical
I always assumed that was intentional. Also, are you sure male/female can be genders? If so, how is science supposed to refer to biological sex? You don't see this issue in animal classifications so I'm stumped.
I'm still not sure what gender actually is then. What makes something a gender? Is there a reason geek, or goth or whatever can't be a gender?
I always assumed that was intentional. Also, are you sure male/female can be genders? If so, how is science supposed to refer to biological sex? You don't see this issue in animal classifications so I'm stumped.
I'm still not sure what gender actually is then. What makes something a gender? Is there a reason geek, or goth or whatever can't be a gender?
> I always assumed that was intentional.
Well, yes, and I explained why. That doesn't make it less unfortunate.
> Also, are you sure male/female can be genders?
Yes.
> If so, how is science supposed to refer to biological sex?
With... exactly the language it does, for now. It is inconvenient for discussions where both sex and gender are involved that major categories of each have similar names, but most discussion of biological sex aren't impacted by that, and “sex” vs. “ascribed gender” vs. “gender identity” can be specified where necessary to disambiguate. It's hardly the only overloaded set of descriptors in the English language.
Over time the language on one side or the other might evolve (I though femme and masc might evolve as gender terms, but they have instead become terms of presentation distinct from gender, which is another useful distinction.)
> What makes something a gender?
What makes it an ascribed gender is if society attributes it to be people and sees it as exclusive of other ascribed genders. What makes it a gender identity is if people view it as the aspect of their own identity in the same space as socially ascribed genders.
> Is there a reason geek, or goth or whatever can't be a gender?
There's no reason they can't be, but they usually aren't, either as ascribed genders or gender identities.
Well, yes, and I explained why. That doesn't make it less unfortunate.
> Also, are you sure male/female can be genders?
Yes.
> If so, how is science supposed to refer to biological sex?
With... exactly the language it does, for now. It is inconvenient for discussions where both sex and gender are involved that major categories of each have similar names, but most discussion of biological sex aren't impacted by that, and “sex” vs. “ascribed gender” vs. “gender identity” can be specified where necessary to disambiguate. It's hardly the only overloaded set of descriptors in the English language.
Over time the language on one side or the other might evolve (I though femme and masc might evolve as gender terms, but they have instead become terms of presentation distinct from gender, which is another useful distinction.)
> What makes something a gender?
What makes it an ascribed gender is if society attributes it to be people and sees it as exclusive of other ascribed genders. What makes it a gender identity is if people view it as the aspect of their own identity in the same space as socially ascribed genders.
> Is there a reason geek, or goth or whatever can't be a gender?
There's no reason they can't be, but they usually aren't, either as ascribed genders or gender identities.
>There's no reason they can't be
So if we're saying there is no reason goth or geek or whatever can't be considered gender, then we're just saying that gender is akin to personality type.
So if we're saying there is no reason goth or geek or whatever can't be considered gender, then we're just saying that gender is akin to personality type.
> So if we're saying there is no reason goth or geek or whatever can't be considered gender
That's not what I said. There's a very good reasons why, as they usually exist, those cannot be considered genders, and I provided that reason.
There's no obvious logical (though there may be a practical) reason they couldn't not have the feature which makes them not genders, in which they could be genders, it's just that that doesn't actually happen. (Whether that's because of social inertia around gender categorizations or whether despite the label being a social construct there is some inherent human function of self-and-other gender categorizations which, even when one escapes socially imposed rigid binary stereotypes they still don't fit is...beyond the scope of what I am willing to stake a claim on.)
That's not what I said. There's a very good reasons why, as they usually exist, those cannot be considered genders, and I provided that reason.
There's no obvious logical (though there may be a practical) reason they couldn't not have the feature which makes them not genders, in which they could be genders, it's just that that doesn't actually happen. (Whether that's because of social inertia around gender categorizations or whether despite the label being a social construct there is some inherent human function of self-and-other gender categorizations which, even when one escapes socially imposed rigid binary stereotypes they still don't fit is...beyond the scope of what I am willing to stake a claim on.)
Based on this definition, gender is anything anybody wants it to be. To test this, I wonder if anybody can list out all of the genders. How many are there and what differentiates them?
teakettle42(1)
The gender binary is arguably one of the strongest and most deeply-rooted concepts of western societies. Because of it I suspect it's a lot easier to accept that some people belong to the category that they weren't assigned at birth rather than accepting that gender has no business with being a binary system and is completely independent from sex.
I see it as baby steps, hopefully we'll get there someday.
I see it as baby steps, hopefully we'll get there someday.
What is a coherent (non-recursive) definition of gender that is completely independent from sex?
To me it seems like you're just left with 'subculture' at that point, but I think that's missing something very core to gender, namely sexuality.
To me it seems like you're just left with 'subculture' at that point, but I think that's missing something very core to gender, namely sexuality.
Sex is a biological concept, and not even a binary one, as intersex people exist, gender is a social concept.
Sex is mostly based on a mix of genome and primary sexual characteristics. Gender is based on how one presents themselves in society and in turn gets treated by it, as our societies are very gendered.
They're concepts in two very different domains, why would you assume them to be interdependent? They only tend to be statistically correlated in the same way that gender and sexuality tend to be: most people are heterosexual but the two are independent as being a man doesn't mean one is attracted to women. Same goes for gender, being born with female sex doesn't mean one's gender is female.
Honestly I've some trouble understanding how some people find this to be such a hard concept, it's exactly the same thing as gender/sexuality and this is even without getting into that neither sex nor gender are binary, as shown biologically by intersex people and socially by the very article we're discussing.
Sex is mostly based on a mix of genome and primary sexual characteristics. Gender is based on how one presents themselves in society and in turn gets treated by it, as our societies are very gendered.
They're concepts in two very different domains, why would you assume them to be interdependent? They only tend to be statistically correlated in the same way that gender and sexuality tend to be: most people are heterosexual but the two are independent as being a man doesn't mean one is attracted to women. Same goes for gender, being born with female sex doesn't mean one's gender is female.
Honestly I've some trouble understanding how some people find this to be such a hard concept, it's exactly the same thing as gender/sexuality and this is even without getting into that neither sex nor gender are binary, as shown biologically by intersex people and socially by the very article we're discussing.
Sex is very much a 'binary' concept; it's fundamentally tied to a property of reproduction strategies; the size of the gametes. To quote [0]:
> The type of gametes produced by an organism defines its sex. Commonly in plants and animals, male organisms produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while female organisms produce larger gametes (ova, often called egg cells).
Convention is; if you produce small gametes, you're male, if you produce big gametes, you're female. Sexual reproduction happens pretty much exclusively in two sexes. Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex.
To quote from [1]:
> There are almost invariably only two gamete types, all analyses showing that intermediate gamete sizes are eliminated due to selection.
Gender can be considered a cultural construct based upon the interpretation of sexually defined roles and strategies. But sex itself is binary. So "Intersex people" - your words, not mine - do exist but as an defective expression of the reproductive function, see above. I'm not aware of any medical condition in humans that results in functional hermaphrodity as seen in some plant species, that is; individuals that produce functional small and large gametes. Although there is a condition called 'True Hermaphrodity' whereas an individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissue, this does not result in functional gametes.
> Sex is mostly based on a mix of genome
There are many sex-determination mechanisms, not all of them involve different genomes. Some are based on temperature, for example. Again; see [0].
> Honestly I've some trouble understanding how some people find this to be such a hard concept,
I do wonder that myself and I guess it's because for some people this is a placeholder for some kind of ideological discussion, separate from the actual discussion about sex. The impreciseness of colloquial language probably also plays a part. But to summarize;
Gender: cultural construct based on interpretation of reproductive roles and strategies, pretty much unbounded in its expression and shape and form
Sex: "binary" reproductive trait that comes in two expressions; male (small gametes) and female (large gametes), although there are some species where both male and female is expressed in single individuals. Sex doesn't necessarily depend on the chromosomes but in many species can also be decided by external factors.
Hope that helps!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete
> The type of gametes produced by an organism defines its sex. Commonly in plants and animals, male organisms produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while female organisms produce larger gametes (ova, often called egg cells).
Convention is; if you produce small gametes, you're male, if you produce big gametes, you're female. Sexual reproduction happens pretty much exclusively in two sexes. Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex.
To quote from [1]:
> There are almost invariably only two gamete types, all analyses showing that intermediate gamete sizes are eliminated due to selection.
Gender can be considered a cultural construct based upon the interpretation of sexually defined roles and strategies. But sex itself is binary. So "Intersex people" - your words, not mine - do exist but as an defective expression of the reproductive function, see above. I'm not aware of any medical condition in humans that results in functional hermaphrodity as seen in some plant species, that is; individuals that produce functional small and large gametes. Although there is a condition called 'True Hermaphrodity' whereas an individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissue, this does not result in functional gametes.
> Sex is mostly based on a mix of genome
There are many sex-determination mechanisms, not all of them involve different genomes. Some are based on temperature, for example. Again; see [0].
> Honestly I've some trouble understanding how some people find this to be such a hard concept,
I do wonder that myself and I guess it's because for some people this is a placeholder for some kind of ideological discussion, separate from the actual discussion about sex. The impreciseness of colloquial language probably also plays a part. But to summarize;
Gender: cultural construct based on interpretation of reproductive roles and strategies, pretty much unbounded in its expression and shape and form
Sex: "binary" reproductive trait that comes in two expressions; male (small gametes) and female (large gametes), although there are some species where both male and female is expressed in single individuals. Sex doesn't necessarily depend on the chromosomes but in many species can also be decided by external factors.
Hope that helps!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete
> Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex.
So you agree that it's not a binary trait: masculine, feminine and none is ternary. If people can come in those three flavours then we're beyond a binary.
That said I'm fine with that definition but it does imply that we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.
Thank you for the thorough answer!
So you agree that it's not a binary trait: masculine, feminine and none is ternary. If people can come in those three flavours then we're beyond a binary.
That said I'm fine with that definition but it does imply that we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.
Thank you for the thorough answer!
> So you agree that it's not a binary trait:
Ha, here's the question: Is the lack of a trait one of its expressions? Is 'none' a reproductive strategy or is it the absence of one? I guess ones view on the "binary" nature of sex very much depends on that.
> [..] we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.
I think that is a very interesting question and debate. I broadly agree that this would be the implication, although I can see why many people would be uncomfortable with that. I think it would be good for the discussion of topics like the one in the original post if people had a clearer understanding that sex and gender - albeit related - are distinct concepts.
Ha, here's the question: Is the lack of a trait one of its expressions? Is 'none' a reproductive strategy or is it the absence of one? I guess ones view on the "binary" nature of sex very much depends on that.
> [..] we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.
I think that is a very interesting question and debate. I broadly agree that this would be the implication, although I can see why many people would be uncomfortable with that. I think it would be good for the discussion of topics like the one in the original post if people had a clearer understanding that sex and gender - albeit related - are distinct concepts.
Calling asexual reproductive capability a sex is like calling atheism a religious belief.
I think of gender as a subjective feeling of identity. It correlates with sex most of the time: most men feel like they are men, and most women feel like they are women. That feeling is a cis identity. But for some people their subjective feeling of identity is just as obviously trans as for most people their cis identity is obvious. If you are cis, then you know what gender identity feels like. For trans people, it's just a different identity from their assigned gender at birth.
There are of course also people whose identity is non-binary, whose experience may be more difficult for cis people to understand, but are a better example of a gender identity that is not easily relatable to sex characteristics.
I found learning about fa’afafine was helpful to show where gender identities from my (Anglo) background did not adequately describe a material situation that is uncontroversial in its own cuktire.
I found learning about fa’afafine was helpful to show where gender identities from my (Anglo) background did not adequately describe a material situation that is uncontroversial in its own cuktire.
What you're describing just sounds like any other subculture. Can you define what a gender is not? As in, why are "goth" or "emo" not a gender, by your definition of gender?
At least as far as I know, non-binary identities are still anchored to the male-female dimension (which correlates to sex), but in a, well, non-binary way (i.e. a mix or complete rejection). From quickly looking them up the fa’afafine seem to line up with that.
What makes the “subjective feeling of identity” different from just having a different personality? Or what makes it different from a subculture like the ones of the past - punk, goth, emo, and so on. I think of gender as being strongly related to sex (like a trait of belonging to a certain sex), although I recognize there is an ongoing debate around how to define this word (gender). And I view personality as more personal, variable, and subjective. Is it that personality implies individuality whereas the subjective feeling of identity for trans people comes with group belonging?
That's a meaningless tautology — a recursive definition.
> If you are cis, then you know what gender identity feels like.
I think that, near universally, we do not. I don't feel my gender; there is no frame of reference against which I could possibly correlate my subjective and entirely internal mental experience against some normative model of what it "feels" like to either be male or female, much less your tautological definition of "man" or "woman".
> If you are cis, then you know what gender identity feels like.
I think that, near universally, we do not. I don't feel my gender; there is no frame of reference against which I could possibly correlate my subjective and entirely internal mental experience against some normative model of what it "feels" like to either be male or female, much less your tautological definition of "man" or "woman".
This is a weird way of talking about feeling. Do you correlate your sensations of happiness or impatience or satisfaction against normative models using objective indicia, or do you just, you know, feel them? When someone tells you that they are feeling one of these things, do you tell them that there is no objective way of understanding the words that they are saying, or do you refer to your own experience where you reached for similar words to understand them?
If you live in a society, you are surrounded by archetypes and roles and norms of gender - or of the performance of gender - which might be a helpful way to think about this post. Things like what clothing and grooming is appropriate are easy examples - and depending on where you are in the world, those standards may be radically different - in some cultures men are expected to adorn themselves to be attractive to partners, in some it’s women. But it’s also what emotions it’s appropriate to display, what kind of authority is afforded to a person, what physical strength and which ailments are reasonable, what kinds of body hair is attractive. We have words that describe a favourable performance of those gender roles (womanly, manly) and unfavourable words (effeminate, mannish). They are enforced, or at least patrolled, in all kinds of ways. Easy example is the kind of differential permissiveness around alcoholism. Why is that? If we have a social or a moral standard, why is it gendered?
You have without a doubt experienced this in your life - and if you’re lucky it’s been internal and not at the hands of the local bully. If you’ve ever checked or modified your demeanour or your outfit or your tone because you are aware that it is too girly or too butch or too macho or too slutty, then that is the sensation of being trained back towards the model.
If you live in a society, you are surrounded by archetypes and roles and norms of gender - or of the performance of gender - which might be a helpful way to think about this post. Things like what clothing and grooming is appropriate are easy examples - and depending on where you are in the world, those standards may be radically different - in some cultures men are expected to adorn themselves to be attractive to partners, in some it’s women. But it’s also what emotions it’s appropriate to display, what kind of authority is afforded to a person, what physical strength and which ailments are reasonable, what kinds of body hair is attractive. We have words that describe a favourable performance of those gender roles (womanly, manly) and unfavourable words (effeminate, mannish). They are enforced, or at least patrolled, in all kinds of ways. Easy example is the kind of differential permissiveness around alcoholism. Why is that? If we have a social or a moral standard, why is it gendered?
You have without a doubt experienced this in your life - and if you’re lucky it’s been internal and not at the hands of the local bully. If you’ve ever checked or modified your demeanour or your outfit or your tone because you are aware that it is too girly or too butch or too macho or too slutty, then that is the sensation of being trained back towards the model.
> Do you correlate your sensations of happiness or impatience or satisfaction against normative models using objective indicia
Of course we do. It’s how we establish shared meaning about what it means to feel any of those things.
The rest of your post describes gender roles; as in, social standards and stereotypes of behaviors attached to sex.
We don’t use the words “woman” and “man” to denote roles or a social subculture, and we’ve never segregated bathrooms, or established segregated sports programs, on the basis of gender roles.
How I feel internally, even if you could correlate it to some objective definition of “feeling female” — which you cannot — does not change that I am a man; an adult human male.
Of course we do. It’s how we establish shared meaning about what it means to feel any of those things.
The rest of your post describes gender roles; as in, social standards and stereotypes of behaviors attached to sex.
We don’t use the words “woman” and “man” to denote roles or a social subculture, and we’ve never segregated bathrooms, or established segregated sports programs, on the basis of gender roles.
How I feel internally, even if you could correlate it to some objective definition of “feeling female” — which you cannot — does not change that I am a man; an adult human male.
But that's a definition that hinges on sex, so it's not at all independent. If you were to remove the correlation to sex, 'subjective feeling of identity' is essentially just subculture, so hipster, goth and skater would also be 'genders'.
Sorry I thought you were genuinely curious, and not just baiting for a debate. I'm not interested.
It's not that complicated a concept. Even kids can understand it quite well and there's plenty of information available when you decide that you want to actually learn instead of trying to debate your way into confirming your own opinions.
It's not that complicated a concept. Even kids can understand it quite well and there's plenty of information available when you decide that you want to actually learn instead of trying to debate your way into confirming your own opinions.
[deleted]
If you have a cogent argument, make it; someone genuinely curious is still going to need more than "because I say so" to work with.
> It's not that complicated a concept. Even kids can understand it quite well
Children will also readily believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if their parents tell them that they exist. That's not an argument.
> It's not that complicated a concept. Even kids can understand it quite well
Children will also readily believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if their parents tell them that they exist. That's not an argument.
Like I said, I'm not here to argue or debate. Genuinely curious people can find ample information on Wikipedia.
If one applies any intellectual rigor to the question at all, the ample information to which you refer makes it clear why you refuse to define "gender", "man", or "woman"; you cannot.
Your assertions are prima facie undecidable, and it's not merely that you're unwilling to defend them — you cannot defend them.
Your assertions are prima facie undecidable, and it's not merely that you're unwilling to defend them — you cannot defend them.
It's not "baiting for a debate", your explanation of gender, while reasonable on its own, is simply not what I asked for. I specifically wondered about a concept of gender completely independent of sex, because I'm not sure how that'd work. At the very least I imagine it has to be something radically different from the usual mainstream conceptions of gender.
But seeing as you had to trot out the generic, condescending 'go educate yourself', I'll just assume you simply don't know.
But seeing as you had to trot out the generic, condescending 'go educate yourself', I'll just assume you simply don't know.
You could compare to Samoa’s “fa'afafine”. Gender non-conformance exists in most cultures. The western analysis of gender non-conformance results in what we call “trans”, but other cultures have had, and continue to have, different approaches.
No. Being gender non-conforming and being trans are two massively different things. I am gender non-comforming in. I am not trans at all. Whenever I read about trans, I can't relate to it and their feelings, issues etc are puzzle to me. I can relate to what other gender non-conforming people say perfectly fine.
Also, seems to me that being gender non conforming is much much less issue then being trans. To the point it is not much issue while being trans seems to sux.
Also, seems to me that being gender non conforming is much much less issue then being trans. To the point it is not much issue while being trans seems to sux.
I agree 100% they are not the same thing and I’m explicitly trying to call out that what we call trans is a western lens on GNC and other lenses are available across the world.
I was reacting to "The western analysis of gender non-conformance results in what we call “trans”".
My point was, it does not. "Western" people nor Western analysis confuses me with trans.
My point was, it does not. "Western" people nor Western analysis confuses me with trans.
I would guess, for one we have a learned tendency to classify things and rank them. Libraries’ DDC comes to mind, where we tried to force an clean order on basically the whole universe.
Second would be that christian societies have a very clear cut Adam/Eve dichotomy that I think was enforced way more than other places. Having genders hanging out of the dichotomy becomes more difficult than in laxer societies.
Second would be that christian societies have a very clear cut Adam/Eve dichotomy that I think was enforced way more than other places. Having genders hanging out of the dichotomy becomes more difficult than in laxer societies.
I don’t think there’d be significant objection to the notion of transgender folks being recognized as transgender if it weren’t for the fact that trans people experience significant amounts of discrimination explicitly associated with that distinction, in the context of a society that perceives a gender binary.
I'm surprised at how many people here seem to take this personally. A few comments who were."against" this notion made some good points, just to taint the argument with their own insecurities about gender.
Everyone needs to understand that humans aren't "binary" in most things. Sure, some biological binarities exist, as do some social ones, but they're exceptions not rules.
I think the raise of modern gender fluidity comes as a backlash of people being forced into two binary groups.
Let's keep to simple examples (alas, I await some misguided binarist soul to tell me how the example is too simple, only to be caught in their own web of oversimplification). All men must wear blue and leather. All women must wear silky dresses.
What if you're uncomfortable in leather? What if you like yellow? You change what you wear and you're suddenly ridiculed for not being a man. So what are you?
What if you don't like silk? You're a mechanic and it gets stuck on everything, it easily gets dirty. You trip on it all the time. Even if you're not a mechanic, maybe you hate pink and like green. Why oh why can't you wear green?
Take this sitations and apply them to:
- jobs - clothes - hobbies - behaviours - interests - who you can be attracted to
And you have gender norms. Current/modern gender norms are very tightly restricted. Most people don't realise this, because gender norms are both imprinted on us by parents and society, but also because they are stereotypes. Edit: And because of this "programming head start" in childhood, a lot of people fall into this without thinking or realising. People who didn't have this programming don't have a path to follow, and they cut their own path. Sometimes it ends on the same masculine or feminine path as others of their sex, but sometimes it's a unique one.
One could argue that these binary stereotypes have had an advantage during more primitive lifestyles. But they're losing their benefits, and I'd argue they're holding society back because of these polarising views.
I don't want to get political, but religions are making this worse. I always believed religions to be tools, both personal and societal, that helped humanity thrive. However, they've become dull, and they need to be reshaped if they want to spiritually guide society forward, instead of hold it back.
Everyone needs to understand that humans aren't "binary" in most things. Sure, some biological binarities exist, as do some social ones, but they're exceptions not rules.
I think the raise of modern gender fluidity comes as a backlash of people being forced into two binary groups.
Let's keep to simple examples (alas, I await some misguided binarist soul to tell me how the example is too simple, only to be caught in their own web of oversimplification). All men must wear blue and leather. All women must wear silky dresses.
What if you're uncomfortable in leather? What if you like yellow? You change what you wear and you're suddenly ridiculed for not being a man. So what are you?
What if you don't like silk? You're a mechanic and it gets stuck on everything, it easily gets dirty. You trip on it all the time. Even if you're not a mechanic, maybe you hate pink and like green. Why oh why can't you wear green?
Take this sitations and apply them to:
- jobs - clothes - hobbies - behaviours - interests - who you can be attracted to
And you have gender norms. Current/modern gender norms are very tightly restricted. Most people don't realise this, because gender norms are both imprinted on us by parents and society, but also because they are stereotypes. Edit: And because of this "programming head start" in childhood, a lot of people fall into this without thinking or realising. People who didn't have this programming don't have a path to follow, and they cut their own path. Sometimes it ends on the same masculine or feminine path as others of their sex, but sometimes it's a unique one.
One could argue that these binary stereotypes have had an advantage during more primitive lifestyles. But they're losing their benefits, and I'd argue they're holding society back because of these polarising views.
I don't want to get political, but religions are making this worse. I always believed religions to be tools, both personal and societal, that helped humanity thrive. However, they've become dull, and they need to be reshaped if they want to spiritually guide society forward, instead of hold it back.
I would liken the title to males before their bar mitzvah being considered a third gender, a definition which very few people would ascribe.