Tag Archives: genders

More Identity Brain Mash

A short while ago, influential forces in western societies have given us the latest “discovery” in terms of human nature – that a person’s gender has nothing to with their biological sex. This unfounded,  not researched  and unproven view was grabbed by the left with both hands (and even hands it does not possess; such was the desperation) and flung at the world through social activism, as fact.

However, the demolition of the mind does not stop there (by the looks of it, there is no end in sight, until there’s nothing left but a memory of how people used to function and find balance).

Gender identity is separate from gender expression

I understand where some people have trouble: “If you express yourself in this way,” they wonder, “then doesn’t that imply that that is how you identify?”

Sorry for having to explain basic logic, but the mere concept of expressing yourself means projecting an aspect of yourself to the outside world. By doing so, you know exactly how you will be perceived, and it’s only logical for others to believe that you want to be perceived in this manner.

People claiming to be of a different gender than the one indicated by their biological sex often complain of being misgendered. In spite of their efforts to adapt their outer characteristics to the gender they want to be perceived as – one would think.

However, being trans and wanting to be recognised as the opposite sex while preserving all traits of your natural one is deliberately misleading. Wanting to be called a man, to be seen as a man, while being and appearing female in every way is just absurd.

Why would your appearance be called gender expression in the first place, if it has little or nothing to do with the gender you have chosen?

The expression masculine-of-centre is used.

Before even delving into the knot of ideas it must stand for, the very notion begs the question – what is masculine even supposed to represent anymore, if sex is not linked to gender and gender is not linked to gender expression? How can we use and define words such as male, female, masculine and feminine, after completely tearing them down? This should be fun (enough to throw down a pint in one breath to relieve the headache).

So here’s the definition:

Masculine of center (MOC) is a term, coined by B. Cole of the Brown Boi Project, that recognizes the breadth and depth of identity for lesbian/queer/ womyn who tilt toward the masculine side of the gender scale and includes a wide range of identities such as butch, stud, aggressive/AG, dom, macha, tomboi, trans-masculine etc.

So in lay terms, this refers to butch lesbians. For more recent inventions, you can find a broad list here of all “genders” and types of sexual attraction.

Here’s one definition which sums up the spirit of the entire list:

Maverique
Having a gender characterized by autonomy and inner conviction regarding a sense of self that is entirely independent of male/masculine, feminine/femininity, or anything which derives from the two while still being neither without gender nor of a neutral gender. Rhymes with antique (mav-reek).

The question remains – what in the world is masculinity or femininity as a point of reference, in a system of thought which deems it obsolete to be male or female?

As you might expect, that’s not all the “word salad” being served up.

From this article  you can learn that your “romantic” orientation is separate from your sexual one. And in case you didn’t know what a romantic orientation is, here is some enlightenment so you can get to know yourself better:

By “romantic attraction,” I mean a deep desire to have a committed, romantic relationship with someone, and by “sexual attraction,” I mean a desire to have sexual contact with someone.

Pardon my confusion but I was under the impression that the two go together; otherwise we’d call said bond a friendship or platonic love, which has already been coined, so to speak. The desire for physical intimacy in a couple is implied; it’s just what happens.

Although there is one instance when these two “orientations” are invariably separated, and that is  when bestiality is involved. I needn’t explain why, but I do remember a funny line from Father Ted: “We want to stay out of that whole idea of being in love with the horse”.

Cross orientation, also known as “mixed orientation,” is a term given to describe a situation where someone experiences romantic attraction to a different gender group to who they’re sexually attracted to.

An example of someone with a cross-orientation is a woman who is homosexual, but heteroromantic. She would feel sexually attracted to other women, but she’d only experience romantic attraction to people of another gender.

When you start referring to groups in situations which involve individuals, it’s proof that socialism has soaked your brain to the unfortunate degree of  placing everyone into inexistent categories and sticking inexistent labels on them.

This is a personal matter people experience differently and I sincerely doubt every situation of this type has to turn into a pattern  and a lifestyle, to warrant such generalisations.

Someone might also be heterosexual and biromantic, homosexual and panromantic, homoromantic and heterosexual, and so on. For some people, their romantic and sexual orientations might change every day, which means they’re sexually and/or romantically fluid. The possibilities are endless.

You know, I’ve never heard someone say they’re straight today but might be gay tomorrow, or vice-versa. If anything, it goes against what LGBT activism argues, which is that sexual orientation is something you’re born with, influenced by genetic predispositions. This attitude makes it look like a choice one can change on a whim, from one day to the next, like a pair of socks. Sure, there are types who would fuck anything with a pulse, but I trust they are in the absolute minority.

For cross-oriented people, that’s naturally a problem. Sometimes we’re unable to be sexually attracted to someone because of their gender, even if we’re romantically attracted to them – and vice versa.

It’s just a matter of recognising how these two combine and manifest in real life. We can theorise and philosophise all we want; the reality is chemistry plays a big part in how people get together. And if a person decides to form a couple with someone they’re not really attracted to, that is a conscious decision regarding that particular individual, not a “romantic orientation”; as if anyone purposely sought out relationships devoid of physical attraction.

Even those who aren’t cross-oriented might have face a similar issue. For example, a heterosexual woman might find herself sexually attracted to a certain man, without being romantically attracted to him.
Which probably happens on a daily basis to a lot of people, based on instinct alone and not  binding in any way; one does not even have to acknowledge such impulses for more than a split second, let alone ruminate as if they posed an actual problem.

Heteronormative thinking invisibilizes cross-orientation. It tells us that we don’t exist, which is an issue that many queer people face in general.

Because of this, we might have to deal with many incorrect assumptions and expectations. This can lead to us dealing with a number of difficult situations, including:

  • Being expected to enter a romantic relationship with a sexual partner who you’re not romantically attracted to.
  • A romantic partner feeling inadequate because you’re not sexually attracted to them.
  • People assuming that you’re in a sexual relationship with your romantic partner.
  • Being unable to find cross-oriented people represented in the media.

Ultimately, learning about the complexity of attraction will help us challenge these assumptions and affirm the feelings and experiences of cross-oriented people. And it’s really important that we do – because it feels awful to be surrounded by heteronormative thinking when you’re cross-oriented.

Why do I get the feeling some of these people are perpetually alone and split the atom in order to feel better about that?

Partners ultimately not being suitable for each other is an issue which I’m sure predates civilisation; so is one-sided love or one-sided attraction. A “romantic partner” one does not engage with intimately and has no plans of doing so is not a romantic partner, but a friend. None of this is new under the sun; there’s no need to label it and start screeching about “not being represented in the media”.

How about some accountability FFS? Why enter into a relationship which you know is hopeless, if the would-be partner is attracted to you and you are not? Is it carved in stone that all the people you’ll end up sexually active with will be such disappointments on other levels that no other bonds will ever form? Isn’t this world big enough and enjoying enough freedom of movement for you to one day find a suitable partner, with whom all the pieces fit into the puzzle? Is this your way of saying you’ve given up on that prospect and expect those who connect with you intimately to settle for half-assed open relationships? And if so, why not just do that quietly, without feeling the need to blame it on society? Is not settling for such arrangements somehow discriminatory and the fault of heteronormativity?

Here are a few examples of different kinds of attraction:

Sensual attraction is a deep desire to touch someone, to hold them, hug them, and/or cuddle them. 

Aesthetic attraction is an appreciation for the way someone looks.

Platonic attraction is an attraction to someone that isn’t romantic. This often manifests as a desire to be friends.

 What the author defines as sensual attraction is merely an inherent human need, which is rooted in affection. You wouldn’t say you feel sensual attraction towards your children, though you feel the need to cuddle them.

The Merriam Webster definition of “romantic” is of, relating to, or involving love between two people. Hence, platonic attraction combined with sexual attraction. It’s a very simple concept, but somehow manages to elude these strange leftists who could more easily take apart a rocket than figure out how humans actually work.

22 Shades Of Gender Confusion – And Counting

Surprisingly, I find myself linking to a Daily Mail article (though other publications have picked up the story as well). Also, this video  and this other video come to mind.

The list on the survey given to English school kids as young as 13 regarding their gender comprised 25 options; however, the last three were “not sure”, “rather not say” and “others”, the latter being hilarious since the masters of language-twisting have already stretched the limits of their own creativity. Who the hell can come up with others? Unless, of course, non-human or partially human labels are accepted as well.

Pandering to social justice warriors, the system is introducing more identity politics into schools, to further confuse the already confused youth, some teenagers doubtlessly being left unable to recognise the world they grew up in as young children. Today, nothing seems to make sense anymore.

Not surprisingly, in order to compile such a long list, they had to use reworded labels and definitions over and over again.

To start with, it includes the conventional “boy”, “girl”, “male”, “female”, “young man” and “young woman”. The only difference between “boy” and “young man” is coming of age, which has nothing to do with gender. Hence they could have simply used any pair of the three, the other two pairs being superfluous. Instead, they multiplied them and ended up with six different options.

Trans-girl and trans-boy, fair enough, that does apply to real life, though the age of it being taken seriously is ridiculously low nowadays and many argue even toddlers are able to make an accurate choice regarding their identity (besides choosing to be Batman or Harry Potter). One is referred to as an adult at 18 for specific reasons; minors need legal representatives when making crucial decisions; however, social justice warriors argue young kids are able to give informed consent to be mutilated with gender reassignment operations and put on cancer-inducing hormone “treatments”.

“Tomboy”. That is not a gender. That word has been used for a very long time to describe very active girls who enjoy boys’ hobbies and hang around boys, but that says nothing about one’s main lifestyle choices or gender.

“Gender fluid” is said to describe those who have “different gender identities at different times”. Basically, they are two or more people in one body, presumably choosing a different name for each one, perhaps different clothes and voices. This sounds a bit like multiple personality disorder, with the difference that the person is aware of switching between identities. I’m assuming it doesn’t refer to those who pretend to be of their natural gender in order to better fit into society, and at night time walk around in drag. This is about people who genuinely have two different identities; one male and one female. Or another couple selected from this list… or more, who knows. We are legion. Let’s just hope no young man chooses to incorporate – as his female side – the identity of his dead mother, who lies mummified in a basement.

“Agender” – “those with no gender identity or a neutral identity”. This term was invented on planet Earth, yet does not apply to it. You can talk about asexuality, which refers to the lack of sexual attraction towards one sex or another, or the lack of sex drive. But every single child is brought up as a boy or girl and thus has a gender identity. I’ve heard of people switching from male to female and vice-versa, but never of having / believing to have/ wishing to have no gender at all. Though the current experimental generation being brought up in Sweden might one day include many of these uprooted, confused people.

“Androgynous – partly male and female; of indeterminate sex”. So I assume androgynous people are androgynous at all times, unlike the gender fluid, who contain multitudes. Let’s look on the bright side – if at some point they deliberately try to confuse others through their appearance, at least they won’t go the transgender way and sue people for misgendering them.

“Bi-gender – those who experience two gender identities, either at the same time or varying between the two.” If it happens at the same time, one is androgynous, right? And if it varies, one is gender fluid. So there was no need for “bi-gender” at all.

From here on, everything apart from intersex is basically repeated and reworded, with nothing truly distinct being added.

“Non-binary” – basically androgynous.

“Demi-boy and demi-girl” – basically androgynous.

“Genderqueer – those who do not subscribe to traditional gender distinctions” – so basically androgynous or agender, if there really is such a thing.

“Gender non-conforming” – the exact same thing with a different name.

“Tri-gender – shifts between three genders, which could include male, female and genderless or be another combination”. So basically gender fluid (those who contain multitudes).

“All genders – someone who identifies as all possible gender options”. A label which teaches us that either gender doesn’t really exist or this person has so many identities they are worth studying. Anyway, gender fluid would cover this one as well.

“In the middle of boy and girl” – How many more categories based on androgyny can they make up?

“Intersex – someone with genetic, hormonal and physical features that may be thought typical of both male and female”.  Although this is a natural occurrence, as I understand, for most people born with mixed physical characteristics a choice is made (usually right after birth) regarding their gender and they are brought up with an either male or female identity. Of course, that has been changing lately.

OK. Now that we’re done with genders.

If we think that any gender could be of any sexual orientation as well,i things really get complicated.

Forget being attracted to both sexes as a tricky situation – imagine what happens if you have multiple identities and each of them has their own sexual preference or preferences. What if you’re biologically female, gender fluid, sometimes feeling female and sometimes male, and you’re attracted to men? Does that make you a straight woman or a gay man, or both? Is your partner considered bisexual by default, as you alternate between identities?

And if you’re androgynous, how can you tell if you’re gay or straight? Very confusing indeed.

Not to worry though, confusion isn’t all bad, at least that’s what “genderfuckers” think. No, honestly, that’s a word; it describes those who include traits belonging to both sexes in their appearance, for the fun of it, such as bearded men in skirts or high heels. It’s a thing now. Apparently.

UPDATE

After more pondering on this complicated issue, there are even more questions to ask regarding the implications of generally accepting the fact that people can have two or more genders simultaneously.

Is every gender one is thought to have associated with a distinct identity?

When one thinks of themselves as interchangeably male and female, it makes sense to appear as such in order to make the change recognisable by others (to be treated as their chosen gender at the time of their choice). That would mean alternating between a male and female appearance, a male and a female name and potentially other characteristics as well. It doesn’t make sense to be Miss John or Mr Lilly. And sure enough, a simple search on “gender fluid” reveals people who do dress differently and adopt different names.

If so, how often are these identities interchangeable? 

Some suggest a choice is made each day according to how male or female or agender that person feels that morning. It makes sense (to the extent any of this can make sense) for the choice/ identity to last as long as the appearance does. I don’t suppose switching every five minutes is likely; I can just picture a dialogue:

“Do you really think that about me?”

“No, that was Dan.”

“So you’re… Dana now?”

“No, Dana doesn’t think that way either. Only Dan.”

“So you’re not Dana either? Like, right now, who are you?”

“I just realised I had a completely different side as well; genderqueer; I think I’ll name them Dingo.”

“So… that would make you genderqueer as well? You as in your… source… identity?”

“No, silly; I’m trigender. Only Dingo is genderqueer.

Trigender? Kind of like the Holy Trinity, three different entities who are simultaneously one being? Is that applicable to humans?”

I’m quite confident it wouldn’t work that way (and sorry if that sounds very insensitive).

What legal implications are there to identifying as more than one person?

Even if one’s personality remains the same all throughout, with opinions and attitudes being consistent, which is less confusing than having different personalities as well.

Purely for administrative purposes – how would having two or more identities work in terms of getting a job and on occasion turning up as somebody else? Which identity is legally responsible and would this person sign with a different name according to how they felt that day? Does anyone else see how that would be a problem?

“About that raise you mentioned, Dana…”

“Ask Dan. He’s got to sign for it. He’s not in right now and I can’t forge his signature. That wouldn’t be right; I would be breaching my own rights.”

“Uh… When is he…due back?”

“When I feel more male.”

“Can you.. like… give him a call, at least? How do you contact him? Is he… in there? Of sort? Do you have to conjure him up? Because right now it feels like you’re just being a bitch not wanting to give me a raise.”

Surely nothing this ridiculous would happen – however,  though it’s hard to imagine outside of creating humour, if the law protects someone’s right to emulate the Holy Trinity if they so wish, who’s to say that employers won’t be forced to do so as well? That would be a first in granting someone the privilege to sign using two or three different names, which would be illegal for the rest of us.

Is gender really just a state of mind?

My question is simple (and logical I dare think) : if biologically, gender-specific traits are determined by hormones (testosterone for men and estrogen for women), how can anyone be SURE they actually identify as the opposite sex, without having had a genuine experience of what that is?

Intersex people are actually born with male and female characteristics, at a physical level, which gives them a combined experience of the world, therefore they are unique in that sense. However, most people are not.Chemistry is a real issue here; hormones play a significant role in the perceptions and behaviour of a human being. Men who think they are partially female identify with their image of women, without knowing exactly how women actually feel, and vice-versa, because that would be impossible.When somebody says “today I feel more male”, what they must mean is “today I feel like displaying characteristics I interpret as being male”.

The intention behind my post is not to pointlessly cause offence but to doubt the “science” (is there any?) behind this very popular tendency of fragmenting people’s identities.