"Genderqueer"

[SoupIsGoodFood]

What exactly is "genderqueer"? It isn't recognized by spell check. I asked my gay uncle what it was and he just said "College kids with too much time on their hands". So what is it exactly?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

What exactly is "genderqueer"? It isn't recognized by spell check. I asked my gay uncle what it was and he just said "College kids with too much time on their hands". So what is it exactly?

A genderqueer is someone who does not fall with in the gender "norms" I am a genderqueer and I neither identify as male or female. I prefer the pronoun Ze over he or she.

[New Tet]

A genderqueer is someone who does not fall with in the gender "norms" I am a genderqueer and I neither identify as male or female. I prefer the pronoun Ze over he or she.

Intellectually, I'm okay with that. But I have a longstanding hormonal problem with the opposite sex.

Instead of diminishing with passing time, this hormonal problem has distilled in me an irresistible attraction to the ones I still call SHE. And I don't want to be cured...

"Ze loves [you], yeah, yeah, yeah!".

[Module]

What on earth kind of post was that, New Tet?

[bcbm]

Intellectually, I'm okay with that. But I have a longstanding hormonal problem with the opposite sex.

Instead of diminishing with passing time, this hormonal problem has distilled in me an irresistible attraction to the ones I still call SHE. And I don't want to be cured...

"Ze loves [you], yeah, yeah, yeah!".

I just re-read the thread to make sure and have discovered that, in fact, nobody asked what your preference was, nor was there any suggestion that you change it and that this thread actually is not related to who one prefers to fuck in any way shape or form. This thread is about the subject of "genderqueer" which, as has been explained, refers to those who may not fit into binary gender norms or would prefer to not be identified with any particular gender. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer)isn't too bad and you'd probably do well to read it, especially the section on pronouns since you seem to have a problem respecting other peoples'.

Though I do have to wonder about a person who needs to go completely off-topic as soon as someone mentions they prefer to not be identified as "she" and aggressively assert that they REALLY, REALLY LIKE GIRLS OKAY...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What on earth kind of post was that, New Tet?

I'm not sure myself, but it looks like they can't help but make posts that are borderline trolling on topics concerning sexuality and gender.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I don't tihnk it's right to say that anybody genderqueer comes outside of gender 'norms'. I'd consider myself genderqueer but am fully content in my gender presentation as male, regardless of my other attributes.

I tihnk it's better to say that those who define as genderquer come outside of the gender binary, as a political statement (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderfuck) or because they see no reason to conform to rigid gender binaries that to be quite honest, don't have alot of influence on many of our lives and i'd hope, would be rendered obselete in a post-revolutionary society.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I don't tihnk it's right to say that anybody genderqueer comes outside of gender 'norms'. I'd consider myself genderqueer but am fully content in my gender presentation as male, regardless of my other attributes.

I tihnk it's better to say that those who define as genderquer come outside of the gender binary, as a political statement (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderfuck) or because they see no reason to conform to rigid gender binaries that to be quite honest, don't have alot of influence on many of our lives and i'd hope, would be rendered obselete in a post-revolutionary society.
No offence, but I do kind of have difficulty seeing how someone who just presents as male (and is biologically male) counts as genderqueer. If genderqueer doesn't mean being outside gender norms, then it's hard to see how it means anything at all.

[New Tet]

I just re-read the thread to make sure and have discovered that, in fact, nobody asked what your preference was, nor was there any suggestion that you change it and that this thread actually is not related to who one prefers to fuck in any way shape or form. This thread is about the subject of "genderqueer" which, as has been explained, refers to those who may not fit into binary gender norms or would prefer to not be identified with any particular gender. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer)isn't too bad and you'd probably do well to read it, especially the section on pronouns since you seem to have a problem respecting other peoples'.

Though I do have to wonder about a person who needs to go completely off-topic as soon as someone mentions they prefer to not be identified as "she" and aggressively assert that they REALLY, REALLY LIKE GIRLS OKAY...

True, no one asked what anyone's preference was. Some man or woman, or neither (in his own confused imagination) said he preferred to be addressed as Ze.

Seriously.

And here I thought Monty Python was only kidding!

[Pogue]

Guys, I'd just like to make it clear I'm NOT GAY. THE IDEA OF MEN RUBBING OILS ONTO EACH OTHER BEFORE WRESTLING NAKED TOTALLY DOESN'T APPEAL TO ME. I LIKE GIRLS, ONES WITH BREASTS, AND THE ONLY PENIS I LIKE IS MINE. I'M REALLY REALLY INTO GIRLS, THEY ARE REALLY HOT AND SEXY. YOU KNOW THAT ONE FROM GIRLS ALOUD I LIKE HER, I WOULD TOTALLY DO HER SHE IS FIT. being gay is cool BUT I'M NOT ONE OF THEM BECAUSE I LIKE GIRLS.

[New Tet]

I'm not sure myself, but it looks like they can't help but make posts that are borderline trolling on topics concerning sexuality and gender.

It "looks" like that, yes. [Could it be] because some people have become too sensitive as a result of their adolescent infatuation with bizarre shibboleths?

I get the sense here that there is too much morbid introspection on the part of some people regarding their own sexuality.

[Jazzratt]

True, no one asked what anyone's preference was. Some man or woman, or neither (in his own confused imagination) said he preferred to be addressed as Ze.

Seriously.

And here I thought Monty Python was only kidding!

You disgust me in every way. If I had the power so summarily ban you for this post I would do so with relish.

[Pogue]

before this thread progresses any further could i please remind anyone I AM NOT GAY STILL.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It "looks" like that, yes. [Could it be] because some people have become too sensitive as a result of their adolescent infatuation with bizarre shibboleths?

I get the sense here that there is too much morbid introspection on the part of some people regarding their own sexuality.

Nah. I think it's because you're crass and insensitive.

[New Tet]

You disgust me in every way. If I had the power so summarily ban you for this post I would do so with relish.

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you knew me personally you'd probably form a different opinion.

What I have attempted here and elsewhere is to inject a bit of humor into what I feel is an unhealthy and juvenile preoccupation on the part of some comrades with their (and our) sexual identities.

I am alright with a serious and mature discussion about sexual identities, sexuality and gender relations in the context of our effort to disseminate an idea whose time has come (socialism). What I am uncomfortable with is the tendency to hastily turn into shibboleths whatever conclusion we form in our minds about it.

Sexuality is of supreme importance; It allows us to share a great joy with one another and it facilitates our reproduction as a species. If we are going to discuss it in the context of our need to transform society, we should do it without appealing to the most marginal aspect of it.

[Pogue]

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you knew me personally you'd probably form a different opinion.

What I have attempted here and elsewhere is to inject a bit of humor into what I feel is an unhealthy and juvenile preoccupation on the part of some comrades with their (and our) sexual identities.

I am alright with a serious and mature discussion about sexual identities, sexuality and gender relations in the context of our effort to disseminate an idea whose time has come (socialism). What I am uncomfortable with is the tendency to hastily turn into shibboleths whatever conclusion we form in our minds about it.

Sexuality is of supreme importance; It allows us to share a great joy with one another and it facilitates our reproduction as a species. If we are going to discuss it in the context of our need to transform society, we should do it without appealing to the most marginal aspect of it.

I don't see how we can't 'appeal' (basically, not discriminate against them) to transexuals without alienating hetrosexuals? One of the main reasons why I've never been homophobic is because it has nothing to do with me what other people do sexually/romantically, and further on from this I can recognise someone's right to have their sexuality dealt with appropriately, something you are not doing.

[New Tet]

Nah. I think it's because you're crass and insensitive.

Possibly. But I can't help thinking that maybe you are too sensitive in the wrong places about discussions that involve this kind of topic.

For example, instead on focusing so intensely on my somewhat silly rejoinders you could be reflecting on the insulting and demeaning term of "genderqueer". Why should someone allow themselves to be called queer because they have a different conception of genders and their role?

Instead, some go off on a personal rant over someone else's nuanced (though lame) joke about his hormonal imperatives.

Think, man! Because in the end, when all is said and done, I may be more on your side than you can ever imagine.

[New Tet]

I don't see how we can't 'appeal' (basically, not discriminate against them) to transexuals without alienating hetrosexuals? One of the main reasons why I've never been homophobic is because it has nothing to do with me what other people do sexually/romantically, and further on from this I can recognise someone's right to have their sexuality dealt with appropriately, something you are not doing.

I have only one question for you (and anyone else interested): What exactly is inappropriate about the way I recognize other people's views on sexuality?

I hope this discussion doesn't turn out to be about me and my opinion instead of the original topic, the insulting term "genderqueer".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For example, instead on focusing so intensely on my somewhat silly rejoinders you could be reflecting on the insulting and demeaning term of "genderqueer". Why should someone allow themselves to be called queer because they have a different conception of genders and their role?

Why don't you ask Fire Queen instead of effectively saying "SRSLY GUISE I'M NOT GAY OR ANYTHING!"


Instead, some go off on a personal rant over someone else's nuanced (though lame) joke about his hormonal imperatives.

I'm ranting? :lol: Look in the mirror, fool.


Think, man! Because in the end, when all is said and done, I may be more on your side than you can ever imagine.

Then prove it by not being a fuckhead.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

True, no one asked what anyone's preference was. Some man or woman, or neither (in his own confused imagination) said he preferred to be addressed as Ze.

Seriously.

And here I thought Monty Python was only kidding!

If you're referring to my "confused imagination" Don't fucking use the word "his"

[New Tet]

Why don't you ask Fire Queen instead of effectively saying "SRSLY GUISE I'M NOT GAY OR ANYTHING!"


I'm ranting? :lol: Look in the mirror, fool.


Then prove it by not being a fuckhead.

I've been called worse things.

Not by a moderator, though.

Do you think that calling me a fool and a fuckhead contributes to a mature, moderate discussion? If so, you have a funny way of interpreting moderation.

Oh, and BTW, I never once declared "I'm not gay or anything!" I leave that to people who are still overly-preoccupied with their sexual passions.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I hope this discussion doesn't turn out to be about me and my opinion instead of the original topic, the insulting term "genderqueer".
No-one is called genderqueer unless they choose the label for themselves? Who is insulted by the term genderqueer? Give me one example of anyone who's been called genderqueer and been offended by it.


Oh, and BTW, I never once declared "I'm not gay or anything!"


Intellectually, I'm okay with that. But I have a longstanding hormonal problem with the opposite sex.

Instead of diminishing with passing time, this hormonal problem has distilled in me an irresistible attraction to the ones I still call SHE. And I don't want to be cured...
:mellow:

[New Tet]

If you're referring to my "confused imagination" Don't fucking use the word "his"

I use whatever word I think is appropriate as long as it is not demeaning or insulting.

By acceding to your concept I accept the absurd implication that "she' or "he" is some form of insult. Not a chance of that, buddy.

Oh, is "buddy" okay or should I use the generically neutral "zuddy"?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I use whatever word I think is appropriate as long as it is not demeaning or insulting.

By acceding to your concept I accept the absurd implication that "she' or "he" is some form of insult. Not a chance of that, buddy.

Oh, is "buddy" okay or should I use the generically neutral "zuddy"?
You certainly can be an unreasonable girl sometimes.

[New Tet]

No-one is called genderqueer unless they choose the label for themselves? Who is insulted by the term genderqueer? Give me one example of anyone who's been called genderqueer and been offended by it.



:mellow:

I never use the term "queer' to refer to anyone, much less my gay comrades. Likewise the racist expression "nigger" to my African comrades. Even though some of them may use it among themselves, I will absolutely not use it because of the terrible, repugnant images of abuse, oppression and exclusion it arouses in my mind.

I don't know anyone insulted by the term "genderqueer". That's probably because it's a rare expression and because I know no one who refers to "zeself" as one.

I don't like the term because it contains the word "queer" which, in my tiny corner of the world, is considered an insult.

[New Tet]

You certainly can be an unreasonable girl sometimes.

Thank you. I think.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I never use the term "queer' to refer to anyone, much less my gay comrades. Likewise the racist expression "nigger" to my African comrades. Even though some of them may use it among themselves, I will absolutely not use it because of the terrible, repugnant images of abuse, oppression and exclusion it arouses in my mind.
I don't know anyone who self-identifies as a "nigger"; I do know people who self-identify as queer, though. If people see themselves as queer, I don't have a problem with calling them that.

[New Tet]

I don't know anyone who self-identifies as a "nigger"; I do know people who self-identify as queer, though. If people see themselves as queer, I don't have a problem with calling them that.

I reject the use of language whose original purpose it is to belittle people and am still learning to incorporate in my vocabulary an idiom that respects other views without giving up the principles I think are still worth keeping.

So I make jokes whose intent it is to highlight the absurdity of trying to impose as ideology other peoples excessive preoccupation with the self.

[Manifesto]

Wait is it like a drag queen or something? I've never heard that phrase "genderqueer" before.

[Jazzratt]

I hope this discussion doesn't turn out to be about me and my opinion instead of the original topic, the insulting term "genderqueer".

Insulting to whom? It is term people elect to use to describe themselves so I'm really not sure that "insluting" is the best term. Your attitude has been far more insluting than the word could ever be, unless you want to explain to FQ why being a dismissive, ignorant little shit to hir was less insulting than a word ze uses to describe hirself.


Wait is it like a drag queen or something? I've never heard that phrase "genderqueer" before.

Someone linked to the wikipedia article, I think. That's a good place to start.

[Pawn Power]

I don't tihnk it's right to say that anybody genderqueer comes outside of gender 'norms'. I'd consider myself genderqueer but am fully content in my gender presentation as male, regardless of my other attributes.

I tihnk it's better to say that those who define as genderquer come outside of the gender binary, as a political statement (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderfuck) or because they see no reason to conform to rigid gender binaries that to be quite honest, don't have alot of influence on many of our lives and i'd hope, would be rendered obsolete in a post-revolutionary society.

So, in this understanding of genderqueer anyone who doesn't believe or accept the gender binary would necessarily be genderqueer? It seems then, that with this definition, it has more to do with an 'understanding' of social constructs rather than an 'identity.'

To be sure, I don't accept the gender binary but don't necessary consider myself genderqueer. My understanding in general is that the term is used without a solid universal definition, mainly do to the fact that it has just recently come into usage and that the whole field of gender studies is relatively new (at least in the West).

[New Tet]

Insulting to whom? It is term people elect to use to describe themselves so I'm really not sure that "insluting" is the best term. Your attitude has been far more insluting than the word could ever be, unless you want to explain to FQ why being a dismissive, ignorant little shit to hir was less insulting than a word ze uses to describe hirself.


I think my attitude has been quite cordial and cheerful. I have not insulted anyone, really, just humorously pointed out the absurdity of wanting to forcibly change the language to fit some outlandish conception.

I suppose there are people who are happy with being called "genderqueer". That's okay. But I won't use the term because it's as demeaning as any combination of words attached to "nigger'. And i will not be compelled agaisnt my will to use it. Especially if it's to please those who are intolerant of contradiction.

You leave much to be desired as a moderator, sir. Your language towards me is insulting and inflamatory where mine is fraternal and respectful of people, if not of their immature viewpoints.

[War Cry]

True, no one asked what anyone's preference was. Some man or woman, or neither (in his own confused imagination) said he preferred to be addressed as Ze.


There is something seriously, seriously wrong with you. I cannot believe you were just fucking disrespectful enough to use the pronoun "he" as opposed to the persons preferred pronoun because of how you feel about the term genderqueer.



You certainly can be an unreasonable girl sometimes.

You're usually not the kind to use femininity as an insult. Are you trying to illustrate some sort of point here?



I reject the use of language whose original purpose it is to belittle people and am still learning to incorporate in my vocabulary an idiom that respects other views without giving up the principles I think are still worth keeping.

By choosing the pronoun "he" to refer to Fire Queen, your original purpose was to belittle hir. The root purpose, to encourage gender conformity. Since ze lives outside of that box, ze threatens all categorization of people into gender binaries.

Genderqueer is the subversion of the gender binary. It can be an outward thing or an inward thing. There are genderqueer femmes, who do not identify as women but incorporate feminine presentation into their daily life. Genderqueer is resisting the immediate catagorization of traits upon birth into male/female by deciding to operate without a gender. That's how I see it.

Fire Queen, I hope his behavior doesn't make you leave the forum. I know that gender neutral pronouns are rarely ever respected, and it's really fucked up.

This conversation is going to get really, really disgusting really, really quickly. I can tell. Anyone with sensitive stomaches or short fuses, be warned.

[Jazzratt]

I think my attitude has been quite cordial and cheerful. I have not insulted anyone, really, just humorously pointed out the absurdity of wanting to forcibly change the language to fit some outlandish conception.

You don't have to call someone names to be insluting. A dismissive and arrogant attitude (really, an "outlandish" conception is it?) can get you just as far. Dressing up an insulting permission in polite language and indirect statements is, frankly, all the more inexcusable.


I suppose there are people who are happy with being called "genderqueer". That's okay. But I won't use the term because it's as demeaning as any combination of words attached to "nigger'. And i will not be compelled agaisnt my will to use it. Especially if it's to please those who are intolerant of contradiction.

Why though? Why are your sensibilities so much more harmed by the term than the people it applies to? Don't you find it absolutely patronising? Like, for example, refusing to use "woman" because anything other than "womyn" is actually offensive even if actual women didn't know that.


You leave much to be desired as a moderator, sir.

Don't you sir me you little sod. I hate it enough when people who don't know any better say it, but you should at least be able to adress me without couching it deferential language.


Your language towards me is insulting and inflamatory where mine is fraternal and respectful of people, if not of their immature viewpoints.

My language isn't anything to do with my ability to run this forum. Moving posts, deleting things, banning people and handing out warning points - that's what I'm obliged to do as a mod. That list does not include "being polite to snotty little bastards who are up their own arses".

[New Tet]

There is something seriously, seriously wrong with you. I cannot believe you were just fucking disrespectful enough to use the pronoun "he" as opposed to the persons preferred pronoun because of how you feel about the term genderqueer.


You're usually not the kind to use femininity as an insult. Are you trying to illustrate some sort of point here?



By choosing the pronoun "he" to refer to Fire Queen, your original purpose was to belittle hir. The root purpose, to encourage gender conformity. Since ze lives outside of that box, ze threatens all categorization of people into gender binaries.

Genderqueer is the subversion of the gender binary. It can be an outward thing or an inward thing. There are genderqueer femmes, who do not identify as women but incorporate feminine presentation into their daily life. Genderqueer is resisting the immediate catagorization of traits upon birth into male/female by deciding to operate without a gender. That's how I see it.

Fire Queen, I hope his behavior doesn't make you leave the forum. I know that gender neutral pronouns are rarely ever respected, and it's really fucked up.

This conversation is going to get really, really disgusting really, really quickly. I can tell. Anyone with sensitive stomaches or short fuses, be warned.

No before it became absurd.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I use whatever word I think is appropriate as long as it is not demeaning or insulting.

By acceding to your concept I accept the absurd implication that "she' or "he" is some form of insult. Not a chance of that, buddy.

Oh, is "buddy" okay or should I use the generically neutral "zuddy"?

Calling someone by a term that they don't identify with is insulting.

... and I think at this point, it's a fair assumption to say that I'm not your buddy.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I'm now more confused. This is probably gonna sound stupid, but it seems to me that genderqueer people are just straight liberals who want to be a minority. Like if you don't want to subscribe to gender norms, fine, but why act like you aren't straight or a man if you clearly have a penis and are attracted to women? Just sayin.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There is something seriously, seriously wrong with you. I cannot believe you were just fucking disrespectful enough to use the pronoun "he" as opposed to the persons preferred pronoun because of how you feel about the term genderqueer.


You're usually not the kind to use femininity as an insult. Are you trying to illustrate some sort of point here?



By choosing the pronoun "he" to refer to Fire Queen, your original purpose was to belittle hir. The root purpose, to encourage gender conformity. Since ze lives outside of that box, ze threatens all categorization of people into gender binaries.

Genderqueer is the subversion of the gender binary. It can be an outward thing or an inward thing. There are genderqueer femmes, who do not identify as women but incorporate feminine presentation into their daily life. Genderqueer is resisting the immediate catagorization of traits upon birth into male/female by deciding to operate without a gender. That's how I see it.

Fire Queen, I hope his behavior doesn't make you leave the forum. I know that gender neutral pronouns are rarely ever respected, and it's really fucked up.

This conversation is going to get really, really disgusting really, really quickly. I can tell. Anyone with sensitive stomaches or short fuses, be warned.

I'm not going to leave. I maybe insulted by New Tet's posts, but I won't let that sway me too much.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm now more confused. This is probably gonna sound stupid, but it seems to me that genderqueer people are just straight liberals who want to be a minority. Like if you don't want to subscribe to gender norms, fine, but why act like you aren't straight or a man if you clearly have a penis and are attracted to women? Just sayin.

And who said that I'm attracted to women when I have a lover who identifies as male?

[New Tet]

Calling someone by a term that they don't identify with is insulting.

... and I think at this point, it's a fair assumption to say that I'm not your buddy.

That's funny, because I thoughthe same thing: expecting someone to submit to the ridiculous ergot of your absurd ideology is insulting.

[New Tet]

I'm not going to leave. I maybe insulted by New Tet's posts, but I won't let that sway me too much.


Good! I look forward to a fruitful relationship with you!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

That's funny, because I thoughthe same thing: expecting someone to submit to the ridiculous ergot of your absurd ideology is insulting.

This isn't about ideology, it's about who I am.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

You're usually not the kind to use femininity as an insult. Are you trying to illustrate some sort of point here?

I was trying to treat New Tet the way she's treating Fire Queen, to show how annoying it is when someone consistently refers to you as being a gender you're not.

I'm now more confused. This is probably gonna sound stupid, but it seems to me that genderqueer people are just straight liberals who want to be a minority. Like if you don't want to subscribe to gender norms, fine, but why act like you aren't straight or a man if you clearly have a penis and are attracted to women? Just sayin.
But there's more to being a "man" in our culture than just having a penis, tho.

[Hiero]

It seem New Tet is basically saying "he knows better then you".

[bcbm]

He certainly knows how to be wildly offensive and disgusting more than just about anyone else in the thread.

[bcbm]

True, no one asked what anyone's preference was. Some man or woman, or neither (in his own confused imagination) said he preferred to be addressed as Ze.

Didn't you just say you support that intelectually? I suppose that was a joke too. But really I don't find anything humorous about disrespecting people for not upholding the gender binary our society has constructed; a binary that has historically been traumatic for many people.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good! I look forward to a fruitful relationship with you!

Seriously, get lost you fucking creep. It's disgusting how you couch your ignorance in this faux-polite passive-aggressive tone, instead of having the bravery or intelligence to ask questions before shooting your mouth off.

Now, you can either save yourself from further embarassment and drop the supercilious pontificating on subjects you're obviously ignorant of, or you can carry on the way you are now and I'll bring up your quite frankly idiotic behaviour in the CC.

Consider this a verbal warning.

[New Tet]

Seriously, get lost you fucking creep. It's disgusting how you couch your ignorance in this faux-polite passive-aggressive tone, instead of having the bravery or intelligence to ask questions before shooting your mouth off.

Actually, I've been trying not to giggle throughout your hysterics.


Now, you can either save yourself from further embarassment and drop the supercilious pontificating on subjects you're obviously ignorant of, or you can carry on the way you are now and I'll bring up your quite frankly idiotic behaviour in the CC.Maybe it's you who are trying to survive the embarrassment of your own ridiculous pseudo-radical posturing. I'm surprised you haven't brought it up already to the CC (what is that, Central Committee?). Moreover, I'm surprised how easily your chain is rattled by an "obviously ignorant" "supercilious" pontificator!


Consider this a verbal warning.I am properly awed into frightened silence.

Laughing though I am, I'm disappointed how quickly I dug up the extremist, authoritarian elements of this forum. It's a shame, really.

[New Tet]

Didn't you just say you support that intelectually? I suppose that was a joke too. But really I don't find anything humorous about disrespecting people for not upholding the gender binary our society has constructed; a binary that has historically been traumatic for many people.

I'm a socialist. And, whereas I respect the general rights of minorities, I am not well disposed to the idea that a minority of people should impose their conceptions on the rest of us.

Besides, this gender binary stuff some here are engaging in looks more and more like some type of concocted distraction meant to steer away from the supremely important issue of overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with a sane society.

[New Tet]

This isn't about ideology, it's about who I am.

In other words, it's all about you, right?

Thank you.

[New Tet]

I'm now more confused. This is probably gonna sound stupid, but it seems to me that genderqueer people are just straight liberals who want to be a minority. Like if you don't want to subscribe to gender norms, fine, but why act like you aren't straight or a man if you clearly have a penis and are attracted to women? Just sayin.

Or, more importantly, why treat it as some sacred doctrine to which all must bow at the risk of being expelled from Eden?

[New Tet]

You don't have to call someone names to be insluting. A dismissive and arrogant attitude (really, an "outlandish" conception is it?) can get you just as far. Dressing up an insulting permission in polite language and indirect statements is, frankly, all the more inexcusable.

You have not met the impolite side of me. Besides, I didn't come here to seek excuses, I came here to debate and to be critical.


Why though? Why are your sensibilities so much more harmed by the term than the people it applies to? Don't you find it absolutely patronising? Like, for example, refusing to use "woman" because anything other than "womyn" is actually offensive even if actual women didn't know that.

Because it seeks to unfairly impose on me obscure, irrelevant doctrines that have little, if anything to do with the real task at hand. That is, to overthrow capitalism and replace it with economic democracy.


Don't you sir me you little sod. I hate it enough when people who don't know any better say it, but you should at least be able to adress me without couching it deferential language.

How undemocratic of you! I choose my words and you choose yours, SIR.

Because you're a moderator, it seems, you feel that your role is not to moderate the discussion and channel it along edifying paths, but to inflame passions and insult anyone who disagrees with your own biases.



My language isn't anything to do with my ability to run this forum.

Well, it ought to, for the sake of the forum you claim to lead and your own.


Moving posts, deleting things, banning people and handing out warning points - that's what I'm obliged to do as a mod. That list does not include "being polite to snotty little bastards who are up their own arses".

Come, come! So you view the role of moderator as that of a party commissar, charged to keep the sheep in line? Little did I suspect!

[bcbm]

I'm a socialist.

So start acting like one?


And, whereas I respect the general rights of minorities, I am not well disposed to the idea that a minority of people should impose their conceptions on the rest of us.

What conception are they imposing? That gender itself, let alone the gender binary, is a social construction? No, this is pretty basic stuff that most leftist theorists on things like gender and sex agree with, to say nothing of the historical and sociological evidence suggesting as much.

You're the one who wandered into this thread and was immediately rude and offensive. Since then you've more or less continued to be so. It is one thing to discuss the idea of genderqueer from a critical standpoint but it is quite another to be an arrogant prick to people and dismiss their identity with no idea of who they are, why they choose to identify that way, etc and then have the nerve to say they're imposing anything on you besides wanting some basic human decency.


Besides, this gender binary stuff some here are engaging in looks more and more like some type of concocted distraction meant to steer away from the supremely important issue of overthrowing capitalism and replacing it with a sane society.

How do mutually inclusive goals distract from each other? Is fighting against any sort of bigotry a distraction? Of course not. Beyond that, I don't think being asked to have a basic respect for other people's identities is a "distraction." In a "sane society," I would think it would be common sense.

[New Tet]

So start acting like one?

By being critical of half-baked ideas? Done.


What conception are they imposing? That gender itself, let alone the gender binary, is a social construction? No, this is pretty basic stuff that most leftist theorists on things like gender and sex agree with, to say nothing of the historical and sociological evidence suggesting as much.

Gender is not merely a social construct. It is also determined, in most cases, by biology. To deny that is to deny the truth of our natural evolution.


You're the one who wandered into this thread and was immediately rude and offensive.

That's incorrect. I came here deliberately, attracted by the heading on the thread. Also, I have not been rude and offensive. If my nuanced jokes are offensive to people who find them too far above their heads it's probably because they are too focused on their particular shibboleths to raise it to its full height.


Since then you've more or less continued to be so. It is one thing to discuss the idea of genderqueer from a critical standpoint but it is quite another to be an arrogant prick to people and dismiss their identity with no idea of who they are, why they choose to identify that way, etc and then have the nerve to say they're imposing anything on you besides wanting some basic human decency.

Yeah, I know, like Stan/Loretta and the "right to have babies" in that Monty Python skit, right?



How do mutually inclusive goals distract from each other? Is fighting against any sort of bigotry a distraction? Of course not. Beyond that, I don't think being asked to have a basic respect for other people's identities is a "distraction." In a "sane society," I would think it would be common sense.

We are not yet in a sane society. To achieve that society we must struggle to overthrow the foundation of the old one and all of its superstructure. So far as I can see, this so-called genderqueer infatuation occupies no important space in the scheme of things and can therefore be dispensed with.

[Module]

And, whereas I respect the general rights of minorities, I am not well disposed to the idea that a minority of people should impose their conceptions on the rest of us.The concept of gender binary is imposed upon a minority of people that just don't fit into it. So, you don't think, then, that sort of discrimination should be rectified?
Evidently not. So much for respect.

Gender is not merely a social construct. It is also determined, in most cases, by biology. To deny that is to deny the truth of our natural evolution.And to deny that biological sex encompasses more than simply 'men' and 'women' is to deny the truth, also.

[New Tet]

The concept of gender binary is imposed upon a minority of people that just don't fit into it. So, you don't think, then, that sort of discrimination should be rectified?

Sure, but why elevate it to the level of a sacred doctrine?



Evidently not. So much for respect.

So you ask the question and answer it yourself in my behalf? Brilliant strategy!

[Module]

Sure, but why elevate it to the level of a sacred doctrine?Sacred... doctrine? I'm sorry, I think you'll find it's just a matter of being basically considerate and respectful.



So you ask the question and answer it yourself in my behalf? Brilliant strategy!No, you already answered it, by calling Fire Queen a 'he'.

[New Tet]

Sacred... doctrine? I'm sorry, I think you'll find it's just a matter of being basically considerate and respectful.



No, you already answered it, by calling Fire Queen a 'he'.

Would calling Fire Queen "Your Royal Highness" made a difference?

[Module]

Would calling Fire Queen "Your Royal Highness" made a difference?
So, you admit, then. You are essentially okay with sexual/gender discrimination. Or, more than okay, in fact, you actively participate in it.

[Invariance]

New Tet, stop being an asshole.

Sure, you don't have to call someone by the personal pronoun of their choice. Nor is anyone trying to 'compel you against your will.' :rolleyes:

But it's just called being considerate and polite, respecting the wishes of an individual.

Deliberately calling someone by a personal pronoun which they don't wish to be called in order to belittle them or make a joke of them is just being really assholish.

[New Tet]

So, you admit, then. You are essentially okay with sexual/gender discrimination. Or, more than okay, in fact, you actively participate in it.

That reminds me of the famous trick question, "do you still beat your wife?"
If the answer is "yes", you're a wife-beater; if "no", you're a former wife-beater.

But I'll play along.

My answer to your question is an unequivocal "yes" AND "no".

I discriminate only in as much as I consciously regard myself heterosexual and I choose, to the degree my circumstances allow, to be in the company of women with whom I can have sex.

I discriminate between genders only insofar as I see both sexes as biologically distinct one from the other.

I do not discriminate against people on the basis of their gender or lack thereof.

I do not discriminate agaisnt people on the basis of their consensual sexual practices except those who engage in bestiality or the sexual exploitation of children.

I don't like wife-beaters (Here I might get into trouble with the wife-beating tendency in this forum!).

[New Tet]

New Tet, stop being an asshole.

Sure, you don't have to call someone by the personal pronoun of their choice. Nor is anyone trying to 'compel you against your will.' :rolleyes:

But it's just called being considerate and polite, respecting the wishes of an individual.

Deliberately calling someone by a personal pronoun which they don't wish to be called in order to belittle them or make a joke of them is just being really assholish.

And it is your assertion that I called him a "him" to belittle him?

You know, there is a such a thing as taking an idea over the edge and off into the deep end.

[bcbm]

Gender is not merely a social construct. It is also determined, in most cases, by biology. To deny that is to deny the truth of our natural evolution.

Sex is determined by biology, but sex is not a binary either. Gender is the social construction of identities and roles surrounding sex and is even more diffuse. Historically these have been used as an oppressive force, especially against women, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and others who refused to accept their role within the gender binary. So if you want to be critical of "half-baked" ideas it may make sense to start by understanding the basics of sex and gender and how those institutions have been used to destroy people's lives before you start calling them names and undercutting their identity.



Also, I have not been rude and offensive.

A person said they prefer a particular pronoun and you have consistently refused to use it when regarding them. That is certainly rude and offensive behavior.


So far as I can see, this so-called genderqueer infatuation occupies no important space in the scheme of things and can therefore be dispensed with.

And you have the perspective of what, a male bodied person who identifies as male bodied? Maybe its time to step outside your bubble.

[New Tet]

Sex is determined by biology, but sex is not a binary either. Gender is the social construction of identities and roles surrounding sex and is even more diffuse. Historically these have been used as an oppressive force, especially against women, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and others who refused to accept their role within the gender binary. So if you want to be critical of "half-baked" ideas it may make sense to start by understanding the basics of sex and gender and how those institutions have been used to destroy people's lives before you start calling them names and undercutting their identity.

Who's calling who "names"?



A person said they prefer a particular pronoun and you have consistently refused to use it when regarding them. That is certainly rude and offensive behavior.

"Them" may put you in hot water with those who want to be addressed only as 'Zem'.



And you have the perspective of what, a male bodied person who identifies as male bodied? Maybe its time to step outside your bubble.

Not if my "bubble" contains the warm body of a good person of the opposite sex!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

That reminds me of the famous trick question, "do you still beat your wife?"
If the answer is "yes", you're a wife-beater; if "no", you're a former wife-beater.

But I'll play along.

My answer to your question is an unequivocal "yes" AND "no".

I discriminate only in as much as I consciously regard myself heterosexual and I choose, to the degree my circumstances allow, to be in the company of women with whom I can have sex.

I discriminate between genders only insofar as I see both sexes as biologically distinct one from the other.

I do not discriminate against people on the basis of their gender or lack thereof.

I do not discriminate agaisnt people on the basis of their consensual sexual practices except those who engage in bestiality or the sexual exploitation of children.

I don't like wife-beaters (Here I might get into trouble with the wife-beating tendency in this forum!).

That was one hell of an incoherent statement. It reminds me of some of Sarah Palin's nonsensical rants. But what does "Bestiality" or "sexual exploitation of children" or "wife-beating" have to do with genderqueers?

[New Tet]

That was one hell of an incoherent statement. It reminds me of some of Sarah Palin's nonsensical rants. But what does "Bestiality" or "sexual exploitation of children" or "wife-beating" have to do with genderqueers?

Nothing, as far as know. Why do you ask?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Not if my "bubble" contains the warm body of a good person of the opposite sex!

It seems as though your bubble contains the fear of your masculinity (and your overly simplistic world) feeling threatened.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Nothing, as far as know. Why do you ask?

Because you seemed to be trying to connect things that have nothing to do with each other.

[bcbm]

Who's calling who "names"?




"Them" may put you in hot water with those who want to be addressed only as 'Zem'.



Thanks for proving the most minor point I was making and completely ignoring the larger point. I'm happy to discuss this and its importance with you, even if you choose to be critical, but if you're just going to keep being dismissive and rude, I don't really see much of a point. So do you actually want to discuss these issues or just make crude jokes?


Not if my "bubble" contains the warm body of a good person of the opposite sex!

Which brings us full circle. Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with sexuality, so why do you keep bringing it up?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am properly awed into frightened silence.

Fucking liar:


In other words, it's all about you, right?

Thank you.

And you're still posting pointless "I really am not gay" crap.


Laughing though I am, I'm disappointed how quickly I dug up the extremist, authoritarian elements of this forum. It's a shame, really.

Yeah, it's a shame you had to be pretty much a fucking troll from your first post in this thread.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Not if my "bubble" contains the warm body of a good person of the opposite sex!
Why do you have to keep asserting that you're straight? We get that you're straight, already.

It's pretty obvious that you don't understand gender issues. That's fine - no-one understands everything. I'm ignorant as shit about plenty of things. I don't understand why you have to keep on showing your ignorance off. If you just want to talk about socialist revolution, then fine. There are plenty of threads where you can do just that (and, from what I've seen, your contributions to them are usually pretty well-thought-out). But you seem to have some attraction to threads about gender. I don't really understand hip-hop*. But I don't seek out every thread about hip-hop and start posting about how I don't understand it, embarrassingly misusing ghetto slang and going on about no rapper will ever be as good as Nick Cave and everyone's wasting their time listening to hip-hop when they could be reading Malatesta. I don't do that...basically because it would be utterly pointless and make me a dick. Why do you seem compelled to do the same thing with threads about gender?



* not that I'm equating something as trivial as musical taste with something as important as gender issues, this is just for the sake of argument.

[Hiero]

He certainly knows how to be wildly offensive and disgusting more than just about anyone else in the thread.
That is the inevitable result when your ignorant and arrogant at the same time. And now we all hate him, so well done to him.

[Revy]

It's disturbing that threads on transgender topics get turned into flamewars. I don't know why.

Anyway, genderqueer as I understand it is rejecting social norms relating to gender, or the strict male-female gender binary.

[Hiero]

It's disturbing that threads on transgender topics get turned into flamewars. I don't know why.

I think by rejecting what feels natural disgust and terrorisise thoose who adhere to this "natural" feeling. Like saying "how dare you challenge what is natural to who I am"

Much the same feeling people get about Communist, because private property and the way we functon in economic life is so "natural", challenging it sort of disgust the participants of that order.

In this liberal society now we have a contradiction. You can be what you want, but don't challenge my way of life by exhibiting your existence with a label. Once we have a label/term/signifer, the thing that is being signified comes into the structure of language, and then where do these hetrosexuals orientate themselves if what they are is not natural?

[New Tet]

It seems as though your bubble contains the fear of your masculinity (and your overly simplistic world) feeling threatened.

Could be. Although I feel no great anxiety about being accepted by you or anyone else in this forum, bubble or no.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I did a little research on it. It seems like more of a subculture than a sexual orientation. People are born gay, straight or bi or whatever since the beginning of time. There's evidence of it in nature. But this genderqueer thing has only been around for a little while. I don't think criticizing it or whatever makes you a bigot, but I'm not about to do it cause I don't feel like getting *****ed out today.

[New Tet]

Because you seemed to be trying to connect things that have nothing to do with each other.

I was tempted to make a joke here but I'll save it for a more opportune occasion.

Asked (somewhat dishonestly) about discrimination, I offered up part of my credo to answer and I stated quite clearly that I do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their consensual sexual practices. I made the distinction between them and those who would use what freedom they enjoy to deprive others of their freedom, privacy and dignity through sexual exploitation.

It was stated quite clearly. If you see Sarah Palin in my answers, you should either check your eyes or go to the nearest mental health expert.

[Lynx]

You can avoid the use of gender pronouns and refer to the person by using their pseudonym.

[New Tet]

I did a little research on it. It seems like more of a subculture than a sexual orientation. People are born gay, straight or bi or whatever since the beginning of time. There's evidence of it in nature. But this genderqueer thing has only been around for a little while. I don't think criticizing it or whatever makes you a bigot, but I'm not about to do it cause I don't feel like getting *****ed out today.

You've done enough to get yourself banned into the 5th circle of hell!

Some here (including at least one moderator) seem intent on creating an environment of fear around discussion of particular topics. Their motivations are unclear but, I think, some evidence of it can be found in their signatures and avatars.

[New Tet]

You can avoid the use of gender pronouns and refer to the person by using their pseudonym.

Why? Even when you join this forum our gender is an issue because it is requested at signup!

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Our forum is so bigoted.....

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I did a little research on it. It seems like more of a subculture than a sexual orientation. People are born gay, straight or bi or whatever since the beginning of time. There's evidence of it in nature. But this genderqueer thing has only been around for a little while. I don't think criticizing it or whatever makes you a bigot, but I'm not about to do it cause I don't feel like getting *****ed out today.

Hijras (India), Muxes (Mexico), two spirits (Northern Native American), look back through history and you will find genderqueer (or something similar) over and over just with different names.

Hijras, Muxes, And Two Spirits were often considered spiritually more powerful in many non-european cultures.

[New Tet]

Fucking liar:



And you're still posting pointless "I really am not gay" crap.



Yeah, it's a shame you had to be pretty much a fucking troll from your first post in this thread.

By your speech it would seem that "Troll" is the new "Trotskyist" accusation hurled between contending Stalinist factions, me thinks.

No sir, it is you who are the troll. On at least one occasion you have openly stated that if it was in your power you'd have me banned from this forum. IOW, there is a desire on your part to silence me and possibly an intent to provoke an incident that would get me expelled.

I am no fascist, sexist, homophobe, crypto-capitalist, racist, anti-Semite or what have you; I just don't give in to the type of brow-beating you and others like to proffer here. I am a genuine card-carrying socialist whose sole agenda is the overthrow of capitalism and the building of socialism where even half-baked doctrinaires like yourself can at last live in real peace and security.

And you want me banned. Congratulations, comrade!

[New Tet]

That is the inevitable result when your ignorant and arrogant at the same time. And now we all hate him, so well done to him.

Formidable appeal to reason!

BTW, hatred is a heavy burden to carry around. Get rid of it quick, while you're still young and able to fully love.

[Lynx]

Why? Even when you join this forum our gender is an issue because it is requested at signup!
It's requested, not required. It's optional.

[New Tet]

It's requested, not required. It's optional.

Absolutely true.

Just the same, it's a tacit concession to the Binary Genderist Party of Great Britain (BGPGB). Bunch of Trots they are...A pox upon their house!

[War Cry]

I did a little research on it. It seems like more of a subculture than a sexual orientation. People are born gay, straight or bi or whatever since the beginning of time. There's evidence of it in nature. But this genderqueer thing has only been around for a little while. I don't think criticizing it or whatever makes you a bigot, but I'm not about to do it cause I don't feel like getting *****ed out today.

I don't think that's necessarily correct. Genderqueer had no need in societies with fluid gender roles, and is present here in our society because of the rigidity of what we consider to be masculine and feminine. As for historically, just what Fire Queen said.


And goddamn it, would you people just stop fucking using *****. Sorry excuses for revolutionaries, that word is a weapon used to SILENCE women because every time we raise reasonable concerns that battle against oppression we're fucking *****es.

And no, I'm not going to convince you of that (Pogue, New Tet, Soup, don't bother) even if this is a thread about gender discrimination because gender queer is more important and goddamn it, I'm tired. Just take it as it personally offends and silences me, and leave the word be.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

obviously i didnt mean anything sexist by using that expression but dont let that get in te way of your getting offended. I'm very drunk right now peace homie.

[bcbm]

You've done enough to get yourself banned into the 5th circle of hell!

Some here (including at least one moderator) seem intent on creating an environment of fear around discussion of particular topics. Their motivations are unclear but, I think, some evidence of it can be found in their signatures and avatars.

There's absolutely no problem with discussing these issues from a critical standpoint. That's why we have a forum. The problem is your repeated abuse of other members, dismissive and rude attitude and complete refusal to offer any sort of, ahem, discussion, preferring instead to make jokes, whine about the moderation team and generally be an ass.

I mean look at your last line of replies. You replied to everything except my post, which was the one requesting a real discussion on the issue of gender.


I am no fascist, sexist, homophobe, crypto-capitalist, racist, anti-Semite or what have you; I just don't give in to the type of brow-beating you and others like to proffer here. I am a genuine card-carrying socialist whose sole agenda is the overthrow of capitalism and the building of socialism where even half-baked doctrinaires like yourself can at last live in real peace and security.

I would consider disrespecting peoples' gender identities and other statements you have made here a form of sexism, actually. You continually call our ideas "half-baked," etc but likewise continually refuse to enter into any real discussion on them. To me this suggests your only real interest in this thread is to be abusive and not engage in any discussion or attempt to learn anything, two things that I would expect a "socialist" to do.

I've already explained how your conception of both sex and gender are wrong. Do you have anything to say in response, or are we to assume you have nothing but to cling to your incorrect assumptions? Again, I am happy to discuss these issues. If you would like to do so, let's, otherwise you should take your chauvinism someplace else.

[yuon]

A genderqueer is someone who does not fall with in the gender "norms" I am a genderqueer and I neither identify as male or female. I prefer the pronoun Ze over he or she.
Out of interest, is there a reason you chose that rather than one of the other possibilities? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

Also out of interest, do you make a conscious effort (or is it now unconscious?) to use your preferred gender neutral pronouns in your writing?
(Personally, I just try and use gender-neutral language, "they" gets used a lot in my writing. It makes it easier, though having a note explaining the use of (e.g.) ze, hir and hirself is not hard.)


Why? Even when you join this forum our gender is an issue because it is requested at signup!
Yes, and did you notice that there was an "other" box?

[It is optional ]Absolutely true.

Just the same, it's a tacit concession to the Binary Genderist Party of Great Britain (BGPGB). Bunch of Trots they are...A pox upon their house!
I guess not.

What pronoun do you use when someone has ticked that "other" box? In your case, you seem to like to use "he", even though someone has explicitly rejected that pronoun.

---

As for genderqueer generally, I see nothing wrong with people identify as "genderqueer". I don't personally, I don't have a problem with the gender I identify as. (I do, however, "genderfuck" when given an appropriate opportunity. I need to work on that.)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I am a genuine card-carrying socialist whose sole agenda is the overthrow of capitalism and the building of socialism where even half-baked doctrinaires like yourself can at last live in real peace and security.

That's a good agenda. I like it. How does going out of your way to offend other socialists who reject traditional gender roles help advance your agenda in any way?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Out of interest, is there a reason you chose that rather than one of the other possibilities? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

Also out of interest, do you make a conscious effort (or is it now unconscious?) to use your preferred gender neutral pronouns in your writing?
(Personally, I just try and use gender-neutral language, "they" gets used a lot in my writing. It makes it easier, though having a note explaining the use of (e.g.) ze, hir and hirself is not hard.)

For the first part, I found that "ze" was a pronoun that felt right. Amongst gender neutral pronouns, I'm not ultra-picky. The preference goes to "ze". (except I don't like being referred to as "it".) I still would rather go by any gender neutral pronoun over "he" or "she". (except "it" is just as bad for me in my view)

As for the second part, consciousness vs. unconsciousness varies from time to time. But unconsciously is more frequent.

[yuon]

Yes, being called "it" is being regulated to the position of a thing, rather than a person. Of course everyone would object to being considered a thing. And, of course, if you don't consider yourself male or female, it's no more sensible to refer to you by male or female pronouns, then it is to refer to someone who considers themselves male by female pronouns (or vis-versa). It's a pity that not everyone in this thread can see that...

[Devrim]

For the first part, I found that "ze" was a pronoun that felt right. Amongst gender neutral pronouns, I'm not ultra-picky. The preference goes to "ze". (except I don't like being referred to as "it".) I still would rather go by any gender neutral pronoun over "he" or "she". (except "it" is just as bad for me in my view)

As for the second part, consciousness vs. unconsciousness varies from time to time. But unconsciously is more frequent.

If the subject pronoun is 'Ze' what is the object, the possesive adjective, the possesive pronoun?

Personally, I don't see anyway that you can expect people to adopt a personal pronoun purely for yourself. Surely the point of having pronouns in a language would be defeated by having one that refereed just to yourself. People may as well just use your name as it too would reference only you.

Actually, you might be happy in this coutry, Turkey. Not only is İstanbul the transvestite/transexual capital of Europe, but the pronouns would suit you too. There is only one pronoun for third person singular, i.e. the is no seperate'he/she/it' but a pronoun that covers all of them, 'o'.

Devrim

[yuon]

Devrim, "ze" is part of a collection (actually, apparently three collections...), "ze", "hir", "hir", "hirs" and "hirself" (see the Wikipedia article linked earlier for other collections). The male collection that is equivalent is "he", "him", "his", "his" and "himself", and female, "she", "her", "her", "hers", "herself".

The point is, it isn't a personal pronoun purely for one person, it is a pronoun intended for anyone who says that they are not part of the gender binary (male/female). Anyone who is part of a "third" gender, could rightly claim that "ze" is more appropriate than "she" or "he".

(And of course, Turkish isn't the only language that is gender neutral, the Wikipedia article mentions a few others.)

[New Tet]

That's a good agenda. I like it. How does going out of your way to offend other socialists who reject traditional gender roles help advance your agenda in any way?

You can reject all you want and I can object to your rejections all I want.

My contention is that biology will always assert itself over the rejection of gender roles because when it comes down to it, it takes people of opposite, complementary sexes to make up humanity. Therefore we must constantly invent new words that distinguish them one from the other.

As I've stated elsewhere, I vigorously oppose unfair discrimination on the basis of gender and to accomplish [real equality] it is not necessary to reject a distinction between them, even in our language.

HIM/HER: I like it and see no practical need to change it. Is that clear?

[Revy]

In English it is common to say "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. Some people think its grammatically incorrect (because they is often a plural pronoun, referring to a group of people), but it's been largely accepted as part of the language.

So whenever I have to use a pronoun on this forum, I try to avoid saying "he" and instead I say "they". I'm not going to use "ze" though, I don't think it sounds right to me.

[yuon]

You can reject all you want and I can object to your rejections all I want.

My contention is that biology will always assert itself over the rejection of gender roles because when it comes down to it, it takes people of opposite, complementary sexes to make up humanity. Therefore we must constantly invent new words that distinguish them one from the other.

As I've stated elsewhere, I vigorously oppose unfair discrimination on the basis of gender and to accomplish [real equality] it is not necessary to reject a distinction between them, even in our language.

HIM/HER: I like it and see no practical need to change it. Is that clear?
Are asserting that there are only two genders, and that anyone who claims to be of another gender is wrong, and is really part of the two you claim are the only two?

'Cause that's absurd. What about hermaphrodites? If someone is born with genitalia that is both male and female, how can you claim that they are either male or female? They are either both, or neither, not one or the other.

In such cases, what is an appropriate pronoun? Certainly not "him" or "her".

As I said above:
"And, of course, if you don't consider yourself male or female, it's no more sensible to refer to you by male or female pronouns, then it is to refer to someone who considers themselves male by female pronouns (or vis-versa). It's a pity that not everyone in this thread can see that..."

You're basing your argument on a real misunderstanding of biology. You are saying, "there are male, and there are female, and everyone is one or the other", and that's wrong. Does it make sense to call someone who has had their sex organs removed "male" or "female"? Certainly they still retain most or all of the outward physical characteristics, but they are no longer able to be a parent by the "normal" method.

Anyway, the point is, to claim that everyone is either male or female, that's the same as claiming that everyone is actually heterosexual. That queer folk are sick, and can be cured. To claim that there exists two boxes ("male" and "female") and that everyone can fit into one or the other, that is more discriminatory, than the claim that it doesn't matter how many boxes there are, and to treat everyone with respect.

At the very least, to acknowledge that a person does not identify as male or female, and to not then, refer to them as male or female, that's the way to show respect. Something which you have consistently not shown in this thread.

[bcbm]

My contention is that biology will always assert itself over the rejection of gender roles because when it comes down to it, it takes people of opposite, complementary sexes to make up humanity.

I'll mention again that I've already opened up discussion on this topic and shown your ideas of sex and gender to be incorrect. So, once again, would you like to discuss this issue or continue to dodge and assert nonsense?



HIM/HER: I like it and see no practical need to change it. Is that clear?

Liking it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

In English it is common to say "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. Some people think its grammatically incorrect (because they is often a plural pronoun, referring to a group of people), but it's been largely accepted as part of the language.

So whenever I have to use a pronoun on this forum, I try to avoid saying "he" and instead I say "they".
Yeah, that's pretty reasonable, I think "they" covers everyone. The only problem is that "theirself" or "themself" are a bit clunky (my spellcheck says they're not words), but they're still better than any of the alternatives.

[New Tet]

I'll mention again that I've already opened up discussion on this topic and shown your ideas of sex and gender to be incorrect. So, once again, would you like to discuss this issue or continue to dodge and assert nonsense?




Liking it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

As long it's just a matter of opinion, I'm good with it.

[Devrim]

Yeah, that's pretty reasonable, I think "they" covers everyone. The only problem is that "theirself" or "themself" are a bit clunky (my spellcheck says they're not words), but they're still better than any of the alternatives.

I think that in I informal spoken English we would use 'themselves'.
The point is not that it is plural. They is plural too, but we would be quite happy to say " if anybody, calls tell them I am out".
Therefore "if anybody asks me to do it, tell them to do it themselves" sounds reasonable.

Devrim

[bcbm]

As long it's just a matter of opinion, I'm good with it.

I don't think chauvinist thought that leads to verbally abusing people is "a matter of opinion."

[New Tet]

I don't think chauvinist thought that leads to verbally abusing people is "a matter of opinion."

You keep making this accusation but you don't seem to feel in the slightest bit obligated to substantiate it.

Learn this: An accusation, in and of itself, is not proof.

[Pogue]

You keep making this accusation but you don't seem to feel in the slightest bit obligated to substantiate it.

Learn this: An accusation, in and of itself, is not proof.

Various users, notably Godstomper, have linked to your predjudiced posts.

Learn this, perhaps: Denying you're being bigoted, in and of itself, does not mean you are not being bigoted.

[New Tet]

Various users, notably Godstomper, have linked to your predjudiced posts.

The link leads to the top of the "genderqueer" thread, not to my supposedly offensive posts. And even if that were the case, that they lead to my posts, It would still not be enough because it is the obligation of whoever is accusing me to point out exactly where my words are offensive and bigoted.


Learn this, perhaps: Denying you're being bigoted, in and of itself, does not mean you are not being bigoted.

You must have slept through Logic 101! The burden of proof is on the accuser, my medieval friend.

[Pogue]

The link leads to the top of the "genderqueer" thread, not to my supposedly offensive posts. And even if that were the case, that they lead to my posts, It would still not be enough because it is the obligation of whoever is accusing me to point out exactly where my words are offensive and bigoted.



You must have slept through Logic 101! The burden of proof is on the accuser, my medieval friend.

And we've accused you with proof, and I am not your friend, you fucking creep. Now fuck off and deal with your insecurities about your sexuality, you stupid fuck.

[New Tet]

And we've accused you with proof, and I am not your friend, you fucking creep. Now fuck off and deal with your insecurities about your sexuality, you stupid fuck.

Don't panic, Pogue, we can disagree and still be friends!

BTW, I really like that picture you posted of me and my partner doing the funky chicken. Call me a narcissist if you must, but I'm really proud of my washboard abs!

[bcbm]

You keep making this accusation but you don't seem to feel in the slightest bit obligated to substantiate it.

Learn this: An accusation, in and of itself, is not proof.

I've explained in several posts which you have declined to reply to. The ball is in your court.

[New Tet]

I've explained in several posts which you have declined to reply to. The ball is in your court.

You've characterized mostly by innuendo.

[yuon]

New Tet you have consistently refused to engage in meaningful debate in this thread. You ignore arguments and information that runs counter to your world view.

In the thread in the Member's forum, you discount intersex people as an insignificant proportion of the population. That's bigoted.

What pronouns do you think should be used for people who obviously do not fit into the two boxes ("male" and "female") that are normally provided? You haven't provided an answer to that.

Instead, you have ignored the issue.

You even claimed earlier in the thread that:
"Gender is not merely a social construct. It is also determined, in most cases, by biology. To deny that is to deny the truth of our natural evolution." 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1505436&postcount=54)
Yet, you are ignoring biology in favour of ideology. Whoops, looks like you fucked up...

[New Tet]

New Tet you have consistently refused to engage in meaningful debate in this thread. You ignore arguments and information that runs counter to your world view.

Untrue. In fact, you provide evidence to the contrary below.


In the thread in the Member's forum, you discount intersex people as an insignificant proportion of the population. That's bigoted. No it isn't.


What pronouns do you think should be used for people who obviously do not fit into the two boxes ("male" and "female") that are normally provided? You haven't provided an answer to that. Now this is a valid question! I would refer to them as "He", "She", "Heshe"
and even "Ze", if required. But that is an existing practical problem and different, way different, that what the so-called genderqueers intend with their absurd attempt on the language.


Instead, you have ignored the issue.

And the "issue" is...?


You even claimed earlier in the thread that:
"Gender is not merely a social construct. It is also determined, in most cases, by biology. To deny that is to deny the truth of our natural evolution." 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1505436&postcount=54)
Yet, you are ignoring biology in favour of ideology. Whoops, looks like you fucked up...Although I disagree with your interpretation of what I said, I humbly thank you at least for being honest enough to quote my words back to me. Well done!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You keep making this accusation but you don't seem to feel in the slightest bit obligated to substantiate it.

Learn this: An accusation, in and of itself, is not proof.

Here's something that is quite offensive:


Some man or woman, or neither (in his own confused imagination) said he preferred to be addressed as Ze.

[ls]

Can we just ban New Tet? This isn't even trolling, these arguments are so arduous to wade through and he's such a prejudiced prick.

[bcbm]

You've characterized mostly by innuendo.


Sex is determined by biology, but sex is not a binary either. Gender is the social construction of identities and roles surrounding sex and is even more diffuse. Historically these have been used as an oppressive force, especially against women, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and others who refused to accept their role within the gender binary. So if you want to be critical of "half-baked" ideas it may make sense to start by understanding the basics of sex and gender and how those institutions have been used to destroy people's lives before you start calling them names and undercutting their identity.

Where is the innuendo in this paragraph I wrote that you failed to respond to? You have a reactionary view on the issue of sex and gender which leads to chauvinist behavior like not calling someone the pro-noun they wish to be addressed as and, indeed, denying the very existence of their gender identity. I have been nothing but clear cut about this.

[Salabra]

Yeah, that's pretty reasonable, I think "they" covers everyone. The only problem is that "theirself" or "themself" are a bit clunky (my spellcheck says they're not words), but they're still better than any of the alternatives.

Just add 'em to your spellchecker (and bad cess to Bill Gates, say I!) :)

But Devrim is right - "themselves" is the most aceepted form.

[Pogue]

I'd say themselves.

[counterblast]

No offence, but I do kind of have difficulty seeing how someone who just presents as male (and is biologically male) counts as genderqueer. If genderqueer doesn't mean being outside gender norms, then it's hard to see how it means anything at all.


Gender presentation and gender identity are two different things.

h0m0 can indentify with neither gender, while preferring the physical appearance of a cisgendered male.

Gender isn't simply determined by whether you prefer to wear a suit or dress or both. Its more complex than that.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Gender presentation and gender identity are two different things.

h0m0 can indentify with neither gender, while preferring the physical appearance of a cisgendered male.

Gender isn't simply determined by whether you prefer to wear a suit or dress or both. Its more complex than that.
Would you include behaviour as part of presentation or identity? Cos if someone wears the clothing of a cisgendered male, and behaves in stereotypical male ways, I would have a hard time seeing them as not being male. Obviously, people are free to identify as whatever they want to identify as, but I genuinely don't really see how someone who presents as male can be called not male. What's left of gender identity when you remove presentation? What else is there, specifically?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Would you include behaviour as part of presentation or identity? Cos if someone wears the clothing of a cisgendered male, and behaves in stereotypical male ways, I would have a hard time seeing them as not being male. Obviously, people are free to identify as whatever they want to identify as, but I genuinely don't really see how someone who presents as male can be called not male. What's left of gender identity when you remove presentation? What else is there, specifically?

I think you're 90% right. Gender presentation is more than half of what would constitute adherence to gender norms. Of course it's more complex than that, intersex individuals for example, regardless of their presentation may have sexual organs that do not correspond to their presentation, simiarly trans people may have. I think the confusion here though stems from what is seen as gender presentation, I don't for one minuted think you were alluding to this, but it's worth saying that gender presentation isn't binding insofar as there are many people for whom such a label of gendered presentation just doesn't register, their appearence, clothing, where they do/do not shave etc etc are wholly personal choices outside of any gendered appearence - this isn't any part of the myriad of LGBTQ sexualityies/gender choices, but just coming outisde of gendered appearence.

Furthermore people can actively change their gendered role and/or appearence, there are overt examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderfuck) and more subtle ones. So i'd argue that it's strange for somebody, like myself, who has come to adhere (obey?) masculine traits, in line with the gender assigned at birth to call themselves gender queer, but my gender, like that of so many others isn't fixed. Somebody caan make a rational, perhaps political choice to not adhere to any gender roles, or this could be an innate feeling. Like many other youths around that age (16-18) I was highly confused about my gender and spent near-on two years as a presenting female whilst at college. I don't think how anybody dresses for any length of time, the way anybody acts for some length of time can then invalidate their innate gender-less-ness. But im absolutly open to debate on that, it's something im confused on, debate reading on the subject at length :P.

There's also another, less talked about side of playing with gender roles and norms, and that's gender-play as a sexual tool, some people, especially in the gay community (transmen, bisexual males etc)(im actively ignoring Lesbians for a second) like to act in a gendered way, their presentation and disposition of hyper-masculinity may not stem from what they feel about gender, the weight they put onto their gendered roles may have absolutly nothing to do with what they feel inside, other than a sexual attraction to that gendered role that is above and beyond the typical gender presentation and/or role. This can be seen in leather fetisihists, steel fetishists etc., who exaggerate their machismo for no other reason than sexual gratification. Often this is not how this person acts or presents outside of their sexuality. Of course this is a minority of genderqueer individuals, but their appearence, often only occasionally fitting so rigidly into a gendered role, in no way invalidates their ability to feel completely removed internally from any role of gender in their everyday lives, their sexual encouters aside.

[black magick hustla]

beyond the whole thing of gender or not, people should be called as however the hell they want. why do you need to be a dick?

[h0m0revolutionary]

beyond the whole thing of gender or not, people should be called as however the hell they want. why do you need to be a dick?

I respectfully disagree, no matter how much solidairty I have with the trans community, if i called myself trans I'd hope i'd be open to attack.

[counterblast]

Would you include behaviour as part of presentation or identity? Cos if someone wears the clothing of a cisgendered male, and behaves in stereotypical male ways, I would have a hard time seeing them as not being male. Obviously, people are free to identify as whatever they want to identify as, but I genuinely don't really see how someone who presents as male can be called not male. What's left of gender identity when you remove presentation? What else is there, specifically?

It is entirely possible for someone to identify as a transwoman without emulating stereotypically female body/personality traits, just as it is possible for a ciswoman to do so and still identify as a woman.

You don't have to wear dresses or like sewing or be sexually attracted to men to be a woman.

Maybe you identify as a butch softball playing lesbian who prefers mens clothes because they're more comfortable.

Or maybe you don't feel especially connected with ANY gender, and your traits and interests just happen to fall in line with what society deems male.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I respectfully disagree, no matter how much solidairty I have with the trans community, if i called myself trans I'd hope i'd be open to attack.
Exactly. There's a level of privilege associated with obeying gender norms, and a level of oppression associated with transgressing them; so if someone who conforms to a cisgendered role wants to claim a word associated with people who transgress gender roles, and face the oppression associated with doing so, I think I'm entitled to be curious about why that is.

It is entirely possible for someone to identify as a transwoman without emulating stereotypically female body/personality traits, just as it is possible for a ciswoman to do so and still identify as a woman.

You don't have to wear dresses or like sewing or be sexually attracted to men to be a woman.

Maybe you identify as a butch softball playing lesbian who prefers mens clothes because they're more comfortable.
This does seem kind of weirdly gender essentialist to me, but I guess I just don't fully understand trans. What you're describing does sound a lot more like "genderqueer" than "fully trans" to me, at least as I understand those concepts. FWIW, the transfolk I know tend to act more "gendered" than I do.

Or maybe you don't feel especially connected with ANY gender, and your traits and interests just happen to fall in line with what society deems male.I don't believe that anyone has any essential connection to any gender; but if someone's a cis-male whose traits and interests match up with the socially constructed category of male, I can't see how any reasonable definition of male would not include them. I'm not trying to be transphobic or anything here (and I suspect we're getting into angels-on-a-pinhead category, since at least 99.9% of genderqueer individuals are not cis-males whose traits and interests match up with the socially constructed category of male), but I think the idea you're positing does rely on the concept of men who do "feel especially connected" with maleness, as if maleness came naturally to most men, instead of being a role that they're socialised into.

[*Red*Alert]

I'm completely lost...

I've balls (which makes me a Male, regardless of what I think myself or want to call myself) and I like girls. :cool:

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm completely lost...

I've balls (which makes me a Male, regardless of what I think myself or want to call myself) and I like girls. :cool:
Here we go again. Hello New Tet!

[*Red*Alert]

Here we go again. Hello New Tet!
Sadly I'm not New Tet, nor am I as articulate as him.

But I just don't get this whole personal self-definition of Gender/Sexuality, like it's over intellectualizing something that shouldn't even be of concern. If you've got a penis, you're a Male (whether you're human or not) and if you've got one of those "other things", you're a female (whether you're human or not).

You can't change that, no matter how much you want to change it or unnecessarily destroy age old social conventions that surround it. It's quite frankly a pointless and non-relevant topic and is why the Left, beyond Reformists, are seen as a bunch of old ball headbangers.

[Elly]

Exactly. There's a level of privilege associated with obeying gender norms, and a level of oppression associated with transgressing them; so if someone who conforms to a cisgendered role wants to claim a word associated with people who transgress gender roles, and face the oppression associated with doing so, I think I'm entitled to be curious about why that is.

While I relatively agree with what you say, on the other hand, I think it's also important not to consider that some things (e.g., wearing a dress and make-up for a girl) necessarily mean that a person is in conformance with her gender role (I'm not saying it's what you do but, from my experience, it does happen)


This does seem kind of weirdly gender essentialist to me, but I guess I just don't fully understand trans. What you're describing does sound a lot more like "genderqueer" than "fully trans" to me, at least as I understand those concepts. FWIW, the transfolk I know tend to act more "gendered" than I do

I don't see why saying that trans women can be outside of "feminine women" stereotypes is gender essentialist ?

If I take my personal case, I think Iam a woman because I live as one and am usually treated as one, with all sexist shit that implies. (And also think I am trans because, well, I've been a boy)

That doesn't prevent mo from liking girls, wearing some masculine clothes, and sometimes getting some shit because of that (though I appreciate the irony of being bashed because "hey girl, you believe you're a man or what?" while being a trans girl)

I don't think it's "gender essentialism". I'd rather say it's getting influenced by my dykes friends:p

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm completely lost...

I've balls (which makes me a Male, regardless of what I think myself or want to call myself) and I like girls. :cool:

What exactly was the point of this post?

[counterblast]

I'm completely lost...

I've balls (which makes me a Male, regardless of what I think myself or want to call myself) and I like girls. :cool:

:rolleyes:

Yes you're macho and don't understand gender politics at all, we get it.

[*Red*Alert]

What exactly was the point of this post?
In the hope that someone might enlighten me as to what the fuck people are talking about in this thread?

[counterblast]

In the hope that someone might enlighten me as to what the fuck people are talking about in this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

[Atrus]

If this is off track, please feel free to delete it/tell me to delete it, but surely the logical progression after acceptance is to abolish gender labels entirely, except for the functional straight up fact of biology?
Personally I believe "genderqueer" is an entirely real thing, there is massive stigma surrounding it needlessly, personalities/the inner person cannot just be lumped into categories. Actual biology can, and in some cases must be, but more than that is an entire spectrum, not a binary system. There's so many different posiblities that to name them all would be stupid. Eventually, when society grows to accept this, "gender roles" will be abolished, because there's no place for them. People claim they're needed as there are physical differences "between men and women" but this too is bullshit. Some jobs require physical strength, fine, give the job to the physically strongest, whether they've got a penis or vagina changes nothing.
Apologies again if I've gone off course on this rant.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In the hope that someone might enlighten me as to what the fuck people are talking about in this thread?

Generally you do that by asking questions, not going "Rah rah I'm straight yes!"

[Jazzratt]

In the hope that someone might enlighten me as to what the fuck people are talking about in this thread?

You could have read the thread, or at the very least the OP, you could have realised no one gives a fuck about your balls and you could have actually asked a sodding question. Those a three suggestions which, when combined, would have made you look like less of a macho prick and more like someone with a genuine interest in "what the fuck people are talking about in this thread".

[*Red*Alert]

Ok I'll ask questions now, given that I took time to read this shitstorm of a thread and I now understand less than I did before.

Firstly, I'll admit that I am ignorant and somewhat biased like New Tet and believe that there are only Males and Females, and that anything other than that is unnecessary, like inventing personal pronouns like (Ze, Zhem, etc.) is just plain silly. As regards sexuality, as far as I understand there are Hetrosexuals, Homosexuals, and Bisexuals.

So, here we go:

1. What is a "Genderqueer" and, more importantly, why do they exist?

2. Is it a social construct created by trans-gender people to justify their existence?

3. If I have no reproductive organs, I am still a Male as I was born with such organs and all other functions are still as they were before. So, why would someone feel the need to deny this and classify themselves as something different?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ok I'll ask questions now, given that I took time to read this shitstorm of a thread and I now understand less than I did before.

Firstly, I'll admit that I am ignorant and somewhat biased like New Tet and believe that there are only Males and Females, and that anything other than that is unnecessary, like inventing personal pronouns like (Ze, Zhem, etc.) is just plain silly. As regards sexuality, as far as I understand there are Hetrosexuals, Homosexuals, and Bisexuals.

So, here we go:

1. What is a "Genderqueer" and, more importantly, why do they exist?

2. Is it a social construct created by trans-gender people to justify their existence?

3. If I have no reproductive organs, I am still a Male as I was born with such organs and all other functions are still as they were before. So, why would someone feel the need to deny this and classify themselves as something different?

Answering the first one:
Genderqueer would be those who neither fit into the male or the female. And we exist because we just do, because we were born. So that question is like if I asked you why you exist.

the second question confuses me.

for the third:
Biology makes up biological sex. But it does not make up gender.

[Black Dagger]

Firstly, I'll admit that I am ignorant and somewhat biased like New Tet and [I] believe that there are only Males and Females, and that anything other than that is unnecessary,

In the spirit of this acknowledgement...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

It doesn't matter what you 'believe', your 'belief' is wrong - and i don't mean like 'morally wrong' i mean like 'nah'. Our species is much more complex then 'Box A' and 'Box B' - instead of dismissing or attacking the suggestion that things might be a bit more complex than what you think ("[I] believe that there are only Males and Females, and that anything other than that is unnecessary"), listen/read, with an open-mind.

[*Red*Alert]

In the spirit of this acknowledgement...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

It doesn't matter what you 'believe', your 'belief' is wrong - and i don't mean like 'morally wrong' i mean like 'nah'. Our species is much more complex then 'Box A' and 'Box B' - instead of dismissing or attacking the suggestion that things might be a bit more complex than what you think ("[I] believe that there are only Males and Females, and that anything other than that is unnecessary"), listen/read, with an open-mind.

Ok I know see that there is a need in some cases for a more wideranging classification other than Male or Female. I'd never imagined or even considered the existence of such complexities as that article outlines and links to, and am admittedly frightened to the point of sickness.

Damn it, life is way more complicated than I'd ever been thought or even imagined.

[fiddlesticks]

At what point does a tomboy or a tomgirl become genderqueer? Is there a difference between the two?

[bcbm]

But I just don't get this whole personal self-definition of Gender/Sexuality, like it's over intellectualizing something that shouldn't even be of concern.

How is gender, a socially constructed set of roles based loosely on biology that has been an oppressive force throughout history, often against women, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and any others who did not adhere to gender norms, not something that should be of concern?


If you've got a penis, you're a Male (whether you're human or not) and if you've got one of those "other things", you're a female (whether you're human or not).

"Other things?" I think we're all adults who have at least a vague understanding of human anatomy here. You can say vulva or vagina, or whatever specific body part you were implying here.


You can't change that

Actually, we can.


unnecessarily destroy age old social conventions that surround it.

Unnecessary? I would doubt that the people who have been, for example, burned at the stake or dragged behind a car or beaten in an alley or... whatever because they didn't stick to their "age old social convention" may disagree on the necessity of destroying gender.

[yuon]

At what point does a tomboy or a tomgirl become genderqueer? Is there a difference between the two?

A person becomes "genderqueer" when they reject the gender that society generally gives them. Tomboys and tomgirls often don't reject their gender, rather just the role that society says they should play, as a member of that gender.

(Or, at least, that's what I would suspect would be the answer...)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I don't see why saying that trans women can be outside of "feminine women" stereotypes is gender essentialist ?

If I take my personal case, I think Iam a woman because I live as one and am usually treated as one, with all sexist shit that implies. (And also think I am trans because, well, I've been a boy)

That doesn't prevent mo from liking girls, wearing some masculine clothes, and sometimes getting some shit because of that (though I appreciate the irony of being bashed because "hey girl, you believe you're a man or what?" while being a trans girl)

I don't think it's "gender essentialism". I'd rather say it's getting influenced by my dykes friends:p
Yeah, that's all sensible. I read counterblast as referring to bio-males living male roles identifying as trans women (which seems a weird way to read it in retrospect, but we were talking about whether people who conformed to gender roles could be described as genderqueer. At some point, anyway.) Obv trans women who live as women shouldn't be required to fit that gender role any more than cis-women should be.

If this is off track, please feel free to delete it/tell me to delete it, but surely the logical progression after acceptance is to abolish gender labels entirely, except for the functional straight up fact of biology?
... There's so many different posiblities that to name them all would be stupid. Eventually, when society grows to accept this, "gender roles" will be abolished, because there's no place for them. People claim they're needed as there are physical differences "between men and women" but this too is bullshit. Some jobs require physical strength, fine, give the job to the physically strongest, whether they've got a penis or vagina changes nothing.
Apologies again if I've gone off course on this rant.
Nope, I think that's a basic part of communist politics, and perfectly on-topic for this thread.


So, here we go:

1. What is a "Genderqueer" and, more importantly, why do they exist?
What is a "man" and, more importantly, why do they exist?


2. Is it a social construct created by trans-gender people to justify their existence?
Trans people exist; I don't see why they need to justify that fact. Is "maleness" as a social construct created by "men" to justify their existence?


Damn it, life is way more complicated than I'd ever been thought or even imagined.
I agree with you entirely on this bit. Life is crazily, head-mangingly complicated.

[Black Dagger]

I'd never imagined or even considered the existence of such complexities as that article outlines and links to, and am admittedly frightened to the point of sickness.

Fear i can understand, it comes from ignorance - but sickness? There is a difference between being afraid of something you don't understand and being 'sickened' by it.

Perhaps you are just being hyperbolic (the tone of the rest of your post suggests this), but could you please explain what you mean?

What is 'sickening' about intersex folks? :bored: